Travolta rebuffs Psychiatry

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:18 pm

This ticks me off. There are a ton of people who have had their lives saved through psychiatry and drugs and here's flipping Travolta blathering on like he's an expert because "Scientology" doesn't support psychiatry. I'm actually thinking he and Cruise could benefit from some.

Travolta echoes Cruise on psychiatry

2 hours, 14 minutes ago

John Travolta says his thinking is in line with fellow Scientologist Tom Cruise, who has publicly defended the religion's stance against psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry.

Cruise, during a famously heated debate on NBC's "Today" show in 2005, criticized Brooke Shields for taking anti-depression drugs and berated host Matt Lauer for suggesting that psychiatric treatment might help some patients.

"I don't disagree with anything Tom says," Travolta says in the July issue of W magazine, on newsstands Friday. "How would I have presented it? Maybe differently than how he did, but it doesn't matter. I still think that if you analyze most of the school shootings, it is not gun control. It is (psychotropic) drugs at the bottom of it."

"I don't want to create controversy; I just have an opinion on things, and there is nothing wrong with stating your opinion if you are asked," he continues. "Everyone wants that right, and because you are famous doesn't mean you have less of a right."

Travolta, who also talks of his habit of going to bed at 6 or 7 in the morning and waking in the early afternoon, says being famous has little impact on how he lives his life.

"I will tell you the things that would be the same, fame or no fame," he says. "Being up all night would be the same. Liking empty restaurants, liking empty movie theaters â€” unless I am starring in it."

Travolta, 53, portrays Ms. Edna Turnblad in "Hairspray," the adaptation of the stage musical that was spun from the 1988 John Waters film of the same name. The new film opens July 20. The role, in which he dons a fat suit and feminine garb, has added fuel to ongoing speculation about his sexuality.

"I have never been compelled to share with you my bathroom habits or share with you my bedroom habits," says the married father of two. "Everyone has a right to privacy, so I have never felt â€” even though I am famous â€” that I had to share that with anybody."

Do the rumors bother him? Does he think they've affected his career?

"No and no," he says. "What affects your career is the quality of the product. I don't think anyone can hurt me."

"Hairspray," a New Line release, also stars Christopher Walken, Michelle Pfeiffer and Queen Latifah.

___

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:51 am

RedGlitter;641288 wrote:

"I don't want to create controversy; I just have an opinion on things, and there is nothing wrong with stating your opinion if you are asked," he continues. "Everyone wants that right, and because you are famous doesn't mean you have less of a right."

___

I may not agree with the belief's of scientology but there's no disputing his above statement.

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:48 am

People who lead privledged lives, are so far removed from the realm of the struggles of everyman, that their comments regarding any subject, are not pertinent to our lives. It is interesting to note ( and I feel certain that many of us have experienced this) that an opinion on any given subject can change, when someone experiences something, anything. Divorce, sickness, financial ruin, adultery. a family member using drugs. On and on, and on.

" No one will ever get out of this world alive " Thats it in a nutshell. So, our mission while we are here, is to be true to ourselves. Formulate our own opinions, navigate our own ship. When ghoulish Mr. Travolta and Mr. Cruise leave this world, they will take all of their arrogance, self righteousness, and bullshit opinions right along with them. Theire are a handful of celebritys who have never forgoton their humble beginnings. Oprah Winfrey, and Carol Burnett come to mind. Not only are they enourmously talented, they are generous, compassionate, and humble. One only has to look into the eyes of anyone, celebritys, or strangers, to read their hearts. The looks on Cruises, and Travolltas faces send chills down my spine. They look like monsters to me, they belong right along side the head monster of Scientology, and my heart bleeds for the women who live with them. I hope for their sakes that the material surroundings make it worth it.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:05 am

Good points Weinbeck.

It concerns me that people who hold celebrities in such admiration, might actually believe the crap he and Cruise say, only to the detriment of their or someone else's health. That kind of star power is dangerous.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:21 am

May I put in a recommendation of http://www.sntp.net/ "Say No To Psychiatry"? I agree with a lot of its content. I'm quite sure chemical psychiatrists have done more harm than good over the years. The treatments they deploy push brains back toward "normal" at which point all the pressure's off the inbuilt mechanism to keep pushing in that direction, if anything it's going to press the other way. Coming off the medication leaves the newly-learned requirement still pushing away from where it ought to go.

I'm talking mainly about lithium here, the antipsychotics and ritalin. Describing their application as "chemical lobotomy" is reasonable. I'm convinced that they all cause permanent and unnecessary damage.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:54 am

Spot, I'll take a look at that link.

Lithium (and depakote etc) are drugs I won't touch even though they've been pushed on me repeatedly. I don't know if my feelings are valid but they're firm nonetheless.

I am curous though, are you saying that you don't believe in any drugs for mental disorders? If not, I'm wondering what treatment you support? Just a question. Off to look at that link now....

Mystery · Post by **Mystery** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:40 am

For various reasons, I generally try to avoid subjects like this. I suppose one of the biggest is because it's related to my field and is what my future holds once I finish my other degrees. Anyway, I have some thoughts on this, so forgive me if I ramble.

First things first. I do agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I also believe that careless expression of those opinions is sometimes dangerous. The reason I say that is simple, and comes from personal and professional experience. I work with dually diagnosed individuals everyday, as well as those that only suffer from mental disorders, and I can tell you that with many of them (because not all require medication, therefore aren't involved with psychiatrists) they are unable to function normally without their medication. That's not to say that medication saves them, or is a cure for their disorders, because I'm also a firm believer that medication alone is not effective. Some research shows that the most effective treatment for mental disorders is a combination of medication and therapy. Without the therapy, they're only medicating the problem, rather than addressing the underlying issues (that's with some disorders). These people have chemical imbalances, they have proven neurological disorders that sometimes really do require the aid of medications, regardless whether we're talking about antidepressants, anti-psychotics, etc. Critics of psychiatry have the right to believe the way they do, but I think it's awful self-righteous of them to be so condescending toward those that utilize psychology and psychiatry.

Another thing that comes to mind is all the media attention you hear lately about suicidal thoughts being related to antidepressants and various medications. Some belive, myself included, that touting that can be dangerous. If you have a severely, clinically depressed person who stops taking their meds because of media/FDA warnings, what happens with their depression? This is one of the reasons that therapy is also important, IMHO. The medication alone does not cure the depression, it's meant to replace (for lack of a better term) the imbalanced chemicals. The therapy is designed to help the person deal with the depression and hopefully one day get off the meds. I'm an example of that. I was on antidepressants for a while years ago, but throughout therapy, the need for that diminished, and now I manage it quite well.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:40 am

Mystery;641457 wrote: For various reasons, I generally try to avoid subjects like this. I suppose one of the biggest is because it's related to my field and is what my future holds once I finish my other degrees. Anyway, I have some thoughts on this, so forgive me if I ramble.

First things first. I do agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I also believe that careless expression of those opinions is sometimes dangerous. The reason I say that is simple, and comes from personal and professional experience. I work with dually diagnosed individuals everyday, as well as those that only suffer from mental disorders, and I can tell you that with many of them (because not all require medication, therefore aren't involved with psychiatrists) they are unable to function normally without their medication. That's not to say that medication saves them, or is a cure for their disorders, because I'm also a firm believer that medication alone is not effective. Some research shows that the most effective treatment for mental disorders is a combination of medication and therapy. Without the therapy, they're only medicating the problem, rather than addressing the underlying issues (that's with some disorders). These people have chemical imbalances, they have proven neurological disorders that sometimes really do require the aid of medications, regardless whether we're talking about antidepressants, anti-psychotics, etc. Critics of psychiatry have the right to believe the way they do, but I think it's awful self-righteous of them to be so condescending toward those that utilize psychology and psychiatry.

Another thing that comes to mind is all the media attention you hear lately about suicidal thoughts being related to antidepressants and various medications. Some belive, myself included, that touting that can be dangerous. If you have a severely, clinically depressed person who stops taking their meds because of media/FDA warnings, what happens with their depression? This is one of the reasons that therapy is also important, IMHO. The medication alone does not cure the depression, it's meant to replace (for lack of a better term) the imbalanced chemicals. The therapy is designed to help the person deal with the depression and hopefully one day get off the meds. I'm an example of that. I was on antidepressants for a while years ago, but throughout therapy, the need for that diminished, and now I manage it quite well.

Great post Mystery. I try not commenting on others opinion and just speaking of my own experience. I am diagnosed with PTSD, Dystymia and Major Depressive Episodes. They depressions began when I was in my teens. The Dystymia which essentially means my normal affect is melancholy has been with me as far back as I have memories. I believe I was born with a chemical imbalance in my brain which made me highly susceptible to severe emotional distress and later trauma induced PTSD. In my teens I turned to drugs and alcohol in attempt to self-medicate. When I stopped substance abuse completely I was still left with the depression. I have had literally years of therapy which is very helpful when not depressed. However the only thing that seems to bring me out of major depression and also mitigates the PTSD is the use of medications, the best have been SSRI's in my particular case starting with Prozac and now Lexapro with several in between. Every single time I come off a med within a few months I am right back in the depression. My doctors and I have accepted I must remain on them now ad infinitum. I do worry about long term effects but I am convinced there would be no long term for me without them. Also as long as I am on them I do not experience much dystymia. I feel sad when appropriate, I mourn loss but I recover normally. So to sum up for me I believe my issue is primarily a biochemical one, hardwired if you and the meds correct it. I have studied how they work have some theories on why the work for me but I won't bore everyone with that now.

As for Mr. Travolta, he is entitled to his opinion which I believe to be sadly mistaken. He bears full responsibility for the pain his public disclosures may bring to others who are desperately looking for answers.

Mystery · Post by **Mystery** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:57 am

zinkyusa;641524 wrote: Great post Mystery. I try not commenting on others opinion and just speaking of my own experience. I am diagnosed with PTSD, Dystymia and Major Depressive Episodes. They depressions began when I was in my teens. The Dystymia which essentially means my normal affect is melancholy has been with me as far back as I have memories. I believe I was born with a chemical imbalance in my brain which made me highly susceptible to severe emotional distress and later trauma induced PTSD. In my teens I turned to drugs and alcohol in attempt to self-medicate. When I stopped substance abuse completely I was still left with the depression. I have had literally years of therapy which is very helpful when not depressed. However the only thing that seems to bring me out of major depression and also mitigates the PTSD is the use of medications, the best have been SSRI's in my particular case starting with Prozac and now Lexapro with several in between. Every single time I come off a med within a few months I am right back in the depression. My doctors and I have accepted I must remain on them now ad infinitum. I do worry about long term effects but I am convinced there would be no long term for me without them. Also as long as I am on them I do not experience much dystymia. I feel sad when appropriate, I mourn loss but I recover normally. So to sum up for me I believe my issue is primarily a biochemical one, hardwired if you and the meds correct it. I have studied how they work have some theories on why the work for me but I won't bore everyone with that now.

As for Mr. Travolta, he is entitled to his opinion which I believe to be sadly mistaken. He bears full responsibility for the pain his public disclosures may bring to others who are desperately looking for answers.

It's great to know that you've found something which gives you relief. Lexapro is a great drug, IMO. I have several clients that take it and have had terrific sucess with diminished symptoms. You're exactly right that you could have been born with a chemical imbalance, and the drugs are what correct that to an extent

Something else you brought up interested me. Your talk of using drugs and alcohol to self-medicate. This is a struggle I have daily. (It was also one I fell into myself, although substance dependence was a primary disorder for me). In the field of addictive disorders (which is my specialty) we struggle with the mental health professionals. It's a problem that's wide spread on both sides. And the problem lies in the argument that one leads to the other, which is highly possible, however, there is also the possibility that both (substance abuse as well as mental disorder) are primary diagnoses, meaning they both require treatment, and in those instances, it's MOST effective to treat them together. The impact on my own career is that we struggle with other professionals who ship them out of mental health facilities with the belief that they're problem is purely an addictive disorder. But with many cases, like yours, the depression, etc. came first, and the substance abuse was a self-medication technique.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:59 am

Mystery thank you for a great post. May I ask what does "dually diagnosed" mean?

I would love to be off medication...but it's been proven that I can go about two months and then things get nasty again. I figure it's the same as my being diabetic. My pancreas is screwed up so I take insulin. So my brain is wired wrong and requires me to take other drugs for that.

What I wish we could eliminate is the stigma of mental disorders. After I made a post about being bipolar here a while back, some obnoxious and now banned member told me I was "nuts" and that I had even admitted it. Good thing we weren't in the same room. But if no one talks about it then it becomes shrouded in mystery and shame and that's unnecessary.

Hey Zinky....I give you a lot of respect for posting that. A lot.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:24 am

What im wondering is -

Is John Travolta so big in the states that people would hang onto his every word & make life decisions by it?. If say Michael Caine announced his beliefs on psychiatry here i doubt it would change anyone's mind either way, in fact i doubt if people would care or take any notice, he's an actor, other than having an opinion what does he know

Mystery · Post by **Mystery** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:27 am

RedGlitter;641578 wrote: Mystery thank you for a great post. May I ask what does "dually diagnosed" mean?

I would love to be off medication...but it's been proven that I can go about two months and then things get nasty again. I figure it's the same as my being diabetic. My pancreas is screwed up so I take insulin. So my brain is wired wrong and requires me to take other drugs for that.

What I wish we could eliminate is the stigma of mental disorders. After I made a post about being bipolar here a while back, some obnoxious and now banned member told me I was "nuts" and that I had even admitted it. Good thing we weren't in the same room. But if no one talks about it then it becomes shrouded in mystery and shame and that's unnecessary.

Hey Zinky....I give you a lot of respect for posting that. A lot.

Dual diagnosis, co-occuring disorder, etc, those are terms we use in addictive disorders and mental health fields when we're referring to our clients that have both types of disorders.

It's interesting that you used your diabetes as an example. That's an analogy I frequently use with my clients, because it's quite similar actually, in terms of the mechanisms involved. If your medications help you to function in daily life, and make your life easier, then they're right for you, and there is no shame to that. The stigma related to mental disorders is due, in part at least, to ignorance, IMO. Those that either do not understand, or choose not to understand, would rather rebuff the information rather than see it for the reality it is. Having a mental disorder does not make you less of a person, it just makes you who you are. We don't treat someone with cancer as an outsider, so I see absolutely no reason why someone with bipolor, etc. should be treated that way.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:27 am

I agree Buttercup....but he is a pretty well respected actor an dI don't know how it is where you live with stars, but here, a lot of people embrace stars as heroes and well, like they speak the gospel truth about whatever they're going on about. It's one thing when someone buys sneakers cuz they want to "be like Mike" but it's another when they ditch their Rx because Travolta or Tom Cruise says they should.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:28 am

Thanks Mystery

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:28 am

buttercup;641612 wrote: What im wondering is -

Is John Travolta so big in the states that people would hang onto his every word & make life decisions by it?.

yes. :yh_hypno

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:32 am

sunny104;641620 wrote: yes. :yh_hypno

Now see this is why americans get a hard time & i really dont mean any offence at all by that. Dont put your life decisions in the hands of actors :-5

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:34 am

buttercup;641627 wrote: Now see this is why americans get a hard time & i really dont mean any offence at all by that. Dont put your life decisions in the hands of actors :-5

I was joking.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:36 am

Thank fluck for that Sunny, mind you given the context of this thread that does seem to be what people are worrying about or else why bother what he says

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:41 am

buttercup;641612 wrote: What im wondering is -

Is John Travolta so big in the states that people would hang onto his every word & make life decisions by it?. If say Michael Caine announced his beliefs on psychiatry here i doubt it would change anyone's mind either way, in fact i doubt if people would care or take any notice, he's an actor, other than having an opinion what does he know

Yeah but how bout Colin Montgomery?

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:53 am

The golfer?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:05 am

buttercup;641667 wrote: The golfer?
Yeah. Joke.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:33 am

I hang on his every word :p

jugglingmuggles · Post by **jugglingmuggles** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:22 am

Psychiatry as a profession is very suspect.

There is too much money at stake for the pharmaceutical companies.

Bush had huge amounts donated to his election campaigns from them.

The side-effects of psychiatric drugs are often supressed, yet still most carry warnings on them including the fact that they may cause depression and suicide.

Psychiatrists and doctors who rely on their authority to get patients to take the drugs whilst not themselves really knowing about the harm they can cause are irresponsible.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:46 am

[quote=jugglingmuggles;641762]Psychiatry as a profession is very suspect.

There is too much money at stake for the pharmaceutical companies.

Bush had huge amounts donated to his election campaigns from them.

The side-effects of psychiatric drugs are often supressed, yet still most carry warnings on them including the fact that they may cause depression and suicide.

Psychiatrists and doctors who rely on their authority to get patients to take the drugs whilst not themselves really knowing about the harm they can cause are irresponsible.[ /quote]

On this note, I agree. I was prescribed Zyprexa, which was known to cause diabetes in people not already prone to getting it and ...I got it. Eli Lilly knew it could do this but left it on the market anyway. Now I'm in a lawsuit with them.

I also had a particular doctor who had no clue about the Topomax side effects I showed up with in his office. I said "You gave me this stuff not knowing what it would DO?!" I left him pronto.

jugglingmuggles · Post by **jugglingmuggles** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:19 am

Right,

When working as a consultant for a medical company I was suprised to learn doctors actually get commission for prescribing drugs.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:33 am

Is that right?? I knew they got a lot of freebies but I didn't know they got commission. Something's wrong about that.