BEYOND LABELING

Vol. 1:

‘MANIC’ PANIC

Dr. Drew’s Medicalization of Charlie Sheen

(A Case History of Professional Hysteria)

© A.J.P., C.Ht.

1
 Dr. Drew Pinsky is
February 25, 2011

grilled by a reporter on CNN.

Dr. Drew, there was so

much anger in the latest
radio rant. Were you It is bizarre.
surprised by that? But I would
It almost seems like he was caution you
obsessed with the term, not to use your
“winning” – even adding healthy brain
that, after every rant, to make
saying, “winning, winning.” assessments
It was so bizarre to me. on what’s
going on with
Were you surprised by that?
him.

2
How to Read this eBook:

Above all else, this is a work of art, that functions somewhat

like a slide-show, at points – so I suggest beginning at the top
and moving downward, yet this eBook can be read in a number
of ways.

1. You might spin the wheel on your mouse and begin

wherever you land – e.g., here – or, in the middle – or, at the
end. (No bull, you can start at the end.)

2. In case of boredom, use the hyperlinks provided, to move

about, at will. [E.g., click on this line to return to the cover.]

3. If you like, first, read ‘only’ the yellow highlighting and get a
basic sense of what’s being said. 

Or, follow a link to a highly informative YouTube video. (So, you

don’t have to read at all; you can ‘just’ watch and listen. ;)

At last, do as you please, for it’s your experience, and it’s my

preference to live and let live…
3
Please note:
:””

While it may be entertaining in ways, this eBook was created for

educational purposes. You could even consider it a ‘textbook.’
::

It’s constructed largely from a winning attitude I developed after

the controversial February 24, 2011, Alex Jones Radio Show
interview featuring actor, Charlie Sheen; nonetheless, Sheen’s
words are not its focal point. Dr. Drew Pinsky’s words are.
:

Transcripts of five brief on-camera interviews featuring

Pinsky, commenting on Sheen’s supposed ‘manic episode’
(within 24 hours of that 2/24 Alex Jones, Sheen interview),
form the backbone of this eBook.

I made them for my use, firstly, so they’re marked & high-lighted

(like school-notes). Hopefully, you’ll find them interesting; but,
they are so heavily marked, you may find them hard to read.
::

If you like, just skip them; you’ll get a clear understanding

of my take on those transcripts, by simply studying the
footnotes section.

4
 BEYOND LABELING Volume 1:

‘MANIC’ PANIC

Dr. Drew’s Medicalization of Charlie Sheen

(A Case History of Professional Hysteria)

by A.J.P., C.Ht.

ღJonahღ (BeyondLabeling) on Twitter

Copyright 2011. All rights reserved.

This version is not for sale. You are free to copy, distribute and transmit this work, provided that
you respect the terms of its Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0
Unported License. Portions can be excerpted with the author’s permission. Contact:

info@peacetalks.org
5
This eBook is dedicated in loving memory of my mom.

6
“It is I who controls me. It is I who sincerely and seriously worries over my future. It is I
who knows me best, and it is I who possesses my mind. … In the end, it is I who kills my
own potentials and I who can fully express them.”

“My spirit to spare nothing will surely enable me to gain anything I need. As
a man, why should I have to hesitate? I will only advance step by step with
a steady vision and sure method.”

~Josei Toda

7
".... begin every canvas with a wash of black, because all
things in nature are dark except where exposed by the
light."

~Leonardo da Vinci

8
Is this man dangerous???

9
 “People eventually aren’t within
their rights to reject psychiatric care
when they become dangerous, and
that’s where he’s headed now.”

~Dr. Drew Pinsky*

*Referring to actor, Charlie Sheen, on CNN, Feb. 25, 2011.

10
Is Dr. Drew Pinsky serious?
(Is he mad?? Might he be dangerous???)

11
Here’s what the CNN interviewer
failed to ask Dr. Drew:

 Why do you say people eventually

aren’t within their rights to reject
“psychiatric care” when they become
“dangerous”???

 What exactly do you mean by

“dangerous”???

 What is this “psychiatric care” you are talking

about???
:

HCan’t our police and justice system

Hiprotect us from whoever is truly
Hthreatening???

12
Beware…
::

Caution…

Danger…
:

:
WARNING:
13
 Dr. Drew Pinsky recently appeared in five
separate on-camera interviews, made by five
different media outlets, in roughly 24 hours’
time – repeatedly insisting that, actor, Charlie
Sheen, is supposedly becoming “dangerous”
and supposedly, therefore, needs immediate
“hospitalization.” In my humble opinion, that
indicates: Dr. Drew is becoming dangerous.
Undoubtedly, the world famous “addictions
specialist,” who hosts “Celebrity Rehab,” sees
himself as ‘compassionately’ concerned; but, in
effect, he’s playing ‘Top Cop’ of the Therapeutic
State (Hollywood Division) – amping up calls
for a show-down between TV’s top-paid actor
and institutional psychiatry, which, truly, need
not occur. I pray it doesn’t occur; and, toward
averting it, I say – to Sheen and his loved ones:
Steer clear of Dr. Drew and all other
promoters of coercive psychiatry.
14
PREFACE:

Just now, I’ve chuckled, as I know what I’m going to do in

this preface page, and it is so like me, to do this: I’m going
to put my above “warning” into perspective, adding
qualifications. I.e., you might well view what I’m doing
here as ‘hedging’ around my initial red-lettered statement
(above).
In fact, right now, I’m inclined to ask for your forgiveness
and offer my apologies for seeming to be an ‘alarmist.’ I’ll
even go so far as to apologize to Dr. Drew Pinsky (in case
he happens to read any of this); after all, I am sorry, to this
extent: I do not care to paint him as a ‘bad guy’ or a ‘bad
person.’ And, as far as saying he’s “becoming dangerous”
goes, I feel it necessary to point out, emphatically:

“DANGEROUS” is a subjective and relative evaluation.

Failing to put the term, “dangerous,” in proper perspective

can be totally misleading. In fact, saying someone is
“becoming dangerous” when s/he has neither proven to be
harmful to others, presently, nor is really threatening to
become that, is a classic manifestation of scapegoating.
15
Courtesy of Wikipedia:

Alarmism - The production of needless

warnings, often with the objective of
influencing public opinion through inducing
mass hysteria. The term as an adjective is
usually used in a negative manner, to
express disapproval of alarmed opinion or
in an otherwise dismissive context. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarmist

Scapegoating - The practice of singling out

one child, employee or member of a group
of peers for unmerited negative treatment
or blame. Related concepts include
frameup, whipping boy and fall guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoating

16
:

“A way can be a guide, but not a fixed path;

names can be given, but not permanent labels.”

~Tao Te Ching

“You have to find your own myth-the one that

speaks to you, the one you can orient your life after.”

~Hanns-Oskar Porr

“A man should not strive to eliminate his complexes, but to get

into accord with them: they are legitimately what directs his
conduct in the world.”

~Sigmund Freud

17
 Table of Contents
:

WARNING: Dr. Drew Pinsky is becoming dangerous.

:

Preface

Note to CNN
:

Introduction

Sixteen Dangerously Boring Pages (On What Psychiatry Isn’t)

Antwone Fisher’s Psychiatrist Didn’t Call Him “Dangerous”*

I’ve never seen “Celebrity Rehab.”

:

Dr. Drew’s ‘Manic’ Panic (Marked Transcripts of 5 Interviews)

:

Footnotes/commentary on Dr. Drew’s view of Charlie Sheen

:

‘Modest Proposals’ to Mitigate the Dangers

Resources & Concluding Note

18
 Internal Chapters
:

Why I Reject the “Disease” Model of ‘Addiction’

Do ‘addicts’ have an “underlying pathology” ???

So-Called “Dual Diagnosis” of “Bipolar Disorder”

A Most Glaring Professional Contradiction

Reports from Dr. Drew’s Own “Hospital” (Not Good)

Trauma (the “T” in “PTSD”) & So-called “Mood Disorders”

Dr. Drew Self-made Mouthpiece for the Therapeutic State

On “Medicalization”
:

(Bonus: A Bit of Fiction)

19
 Feb. 25, 2011
Dear CNN:

Today, your „expert‟ commentator, Dr.

Drew, in aiming to predict the fate of
actor, Charlie Sheen, errantly stated:

 “People eventually aren‟t within

their rights to reject psychiatric
care when they become dangerous, and
that‟s where he‟s headed now.”

That may have been wishful thinking on

Dr. Drew‟s part, for it‟s likely the
ultimate dream, of many true believers,
in Psychiatry, that everyone they
describe as becoming „dangerous‟ winds
up forced into so-called “psychiatric
care.”

But, since 1972, California (where both

Dr. Drew and Sheen reside) has legally
restricted coercive psychiatry‟s reach
to “any person” formally described – by
his or her mental health services
provider/s (present or former) and/or
by his/her family member/s – as, “a
danger … or gravely disabled” “as a
result of mental disorder”.
20
So, yes, many heard clips of Charlie
Sheen‟s impromptu monologue, on the
radio, last night – and may believe
he‟s suffering a kind of „mental
disorder.‟ (Dr. Drew has publicly
diagnosed him “manic” and, perhaps,
“bipolar.” Various pundits concur.)

Yet, nearly everyone in our society can

be seen as suffering some kind of
mental disorder (officially defined or
otherwise), most days. And, arguably,
all taxpaying Americans are ongoingly
“a danger” to others and/or ourselves.*

Hence, most will defer to state law,

such as California’s, which insists:
one can be forced into psychiatric
“treatment and observation,” only when
his/her own family and/or one-time
attending mental health provider/s (A)
detail/s the “historical course of the
person‟s mental disorder” and (B)
offer/s “reasonable cause” to state,
s/he‟s presently, “a danger to others,
or to himself or herself” and/or is
“gravely disabled” because of „it.‟

*Consider, e.g., more than half the U.S. Gov‟t budget is

spent on military costs.(That protects some and endangers
others.) Or, think of the dangers in living off junk food.
21
Thus, many people – truly, millions –
who might seem, arguably, „dangerous,‟
can, by law, rightfully reject so-
called “psychiatric care.” (…That is,
according to the limits of California
W.I.C. Section 5150-5157, at least.)

And, note: Dr. Drew erred further, when

comparing Sheen to pop-singer Britney
Spears, stating: “He‟s clearly manic.
And somebody who‟s manic is likely to
hurt themselves, hurt other people and
eventually become unable to care for
themselves. … that person gets held
against their will, in something called
a ‟72-hour hold.‟ … Britney Spears
ended up in a similar kind of
situation. And this is where Charlie‟s
headed, I‟m afraid.” To say, “somebody
who‟s manic is likely to hurt
themselves, hurt other people and
eventually become unable to care for
themselves” conveys a dread fear (of
people viewed „manic‟) that reflects an
illusion; for, “likely” suggests a high
probability (greater than 50%), and no
credible study ever concluded, that,
those viewed „manic‟ are “likely” to
“hurt” anyone. (RE: the notion of their
“likely” becoming “unable to care for
themselves”: that‟s highly debatable.)
22
Therefore, if one is officially deemed
“manic” by an attending mental health
pro, such will not be sufficient cause,
in California, to take that person into
custody and enforce a psychiatric, so-
called “72-hour hold.” (Your „expert‟
commentator suggests it could be, by
his prognosis, of a “likely” pending
doom for whoever‟s said to be “manic.”)

RE Britney Spears: On January 31, 2008,

she was taken into custody and placed
in a psychiatric ward; for, reportedly,
she had been viewed, on TV, by her own
psychiatrist, as driving recklessly;
so, it may have been (and I presume it
was) argued, by her psychiatrist, to
the police, that Britney was, “a
danger…” as a result of some “mental
disorder.” (By many reports, she‟d been
tagged, previously, with so-called
“bipolar disorder.”)

In short: Unless or until Dr. Drew

becomes Sheen‟s doctor, his supposedly
professional observations of Sheen‟s
doings will be an insufficient view
from which to accurately determine
whether or not the actor shall qualify
himself for a so-called “72-hour hold.”
23
And, moreover, to my knowledge,
Sheen hasn‟t been witnessed by
anyone, as driving recklessly, so
Dr. Drew‟s grim predictions for
Charlie seem premature – if not,
also, overeager. I recommend, you
suggest to Dr. Drew: take deep
breaths (and, pls., study the
attachment provided below).
;

[Click here for full Welfare and Institutions Code 5150.]

pPS: Check out “Histrionic

pPersonality Disorder” (as I
pbelieve your „expert,‟ Dr.
pDrew, may be a silent
psufferer.)//
24
“All disorder is mental.”

~L.B.V.

25
Introduction

26
In one roughly twenty-four hour period, beginning late in
the evening, of February twenty-four, 2011, a very well-
known man in the U.S. – a television celebrity – appeared
at least five times, in five separate, on-camera interviews,
with five separate media outlets.

As both a physician whose specialty is “addictions

treatment” and an Assistant Professor of Clinical
Psychiatry, that man offered his apparently quite candid,
professional opinion of one even more very well-known
celebrity’s latest behaviors; that celebrity had just been
widely heard, on the radio, expressing what millions would
later refer to as “rant” and what many would soon agree
was, in truth, the essence of a ‘manic episode.’

For, it was on that twenty-fourth day of February, in a live

broadcast, 10:00 PM, hour-long phone call-in, to a popular
radio broadcaster, that television’s highest paid actor had
conveyed a shockingly scathing appraisal of his own, hit sit-
com’s producer and had roundly denounced Alcoholics
Anonymous/A.A., calling it a “cult” (to which, he swore, he
would never return).

Was he inebriated as he spoke; and/or, was he high on

crack?? He repeatedly insisted, in no uncertain terms, that
he had been neither drinking nor doing drugs. And, in fact,
within days, he voluntarily submitted to drug tests which
showed he was ‘drug-free.’
27
Indeed, because Charlie Sheen had, apparently, not been
drinking or doing drugs immediately prior to calling the
Alex Jones Radio Show, Dr. Drew (“addictions specialists”)
was all the more seriously concerned. In a TMZ interview
given, apparently, right after Sheen’s radio call-in, Dr. Drew
explained:

“This is no joke. He’s getting manic. These are bipolar manic symptoms –
maybe induced by drugs – maybe a secondary, co-morbid problem. But,
it’s gettin’ scary, guys; so, hold on tight. I’m very – I’m frightened for the
guy.”

As Dr. Drew referred to “manic symptoms” and “mania,”,

he spoke repeatedly of being fearful – while directly
suggesting (if not insisting), that Sheen was suffering from
so-called “bipolar disorder.” His only ‘diagnostic’ insistence
was, that: Sheen was, in his view, without a doubt, in the
midst of experiencing a so-called “manic episode.”

Speaking to OnTheRedCarpet.Com, Dr. Drew elaborated:

“…acute mania. That’s an acute psychiatric problem – maybe drug

induced. We don’t know. But, he’s in danger. He’s heading either for a
really serious collapse or a 24-four-hour – we’re talking a 72-hour hold.”

It is my contention that Dr. Drew – like so many today

trained in the ‘wisdom’ of psychiatry – was literally
panicked into hysteria, by the prospect of ‘mania.’

28
In my view, Dr. Drew was panicked into hysteria of a kind
that is difficult for the average person to detect; for, the
average person is not accustomed to hearing doctors
panic. But, psychiatrists (all of whom are physicians) are,
on the whole, a group of doctors who panic frequently.*

For a couple of years, I observed numerous psychiatrists, at

close hand; and, I realized then, beyond a shadow of a
doubt: most of them were nervous wrecks. In fact, I would
be willing to wager, that, if we could get them to reveal
their inner world, we’d find the vast majority of
psychiatrists could reasonably be described as suffering
from any number of so-called “anxiety disorders” that are
detailed by their own so-called “Diagnostics and Statistics
Manual”; but, of course, while on the job, their anxiety is,
necessarily, masked by their airs of ‘authority,’ which
constantly point to the supposed pathology of ‘others.’

*Note: On Feb. 24, Dr. Drew Pinsky explained to his TMZ interviewer:
“If you don’t have a trained ear, you don’t know what you’re hearing. And,
that’s the part that people aren’t used to. That’s a serious symptom.”
I say the same thing, precisely, about those most inclined to pathologize
others: i.e., psychiatrists (on the whole). They suffer anxiety – which often
leaves them bordering on hysteria – that’s mainly hidden by a facade. (And,
what do they fear? They most fear their own incompetence and, moreover,
the possibility of that being revealed. So, note prominently: Dr. Drew was,
here, referring, at last, ironically, to what he emphasized was Charlie’s
“lucent” thought process. [To read more on this point, see footnote “I.”])
29
“There’s no good or bad energy, it’s what we do
with it by our will.”
~George Helou

30
Over the past few days, I’ve been analyzing Dr.
Drew’s assessment of Charlie Sheen, (that
Sheen is supposedly, “somebody who should be
in a hospital” because he’s supposedly
“dangerous” or is supposedly destined to
become “dangerous” – as he’s supposedly
“manic” and potentially “bipolar” and needs
“medication”); so, I’d like to share the following
YouTube video I consider highly informative: Back to
:
Table of
Contents

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1nYtK8rEC8
31
This is a sample version…

Much of its content has been omitted.

E.g., most of the footnotes section is not

included.

However, a couple of footnotes are included:

32
I. RE this statement, of Dr. Drew’s –

“…what makes it manic. It’s so disconnected. The

thought process is unraveling. It’s derailed. It’s lucent,”

To me, here, Dr. Drew is unraveling.

I.e., I’m far more confused by this particular statement,

which Dr. Drew offered to TMZ (on 2/24), than I am by
anything Sheen offered, in his 2/24/11 Alex Jones Radio
Show interview (to which Dr. Drew is apparently reacting).

After all, the last time I checked, “lucent” was a term

indicating a quality of ‘luminosity’ – or, more simply, ‘light.’

Why would one care to medicalize a person who’s

demonstrating a notable capacity for being “lucent”???

Was Dr. Drew actually meaning to indicate a belief, that

Sheen was failing to be lucent (or, was not “lucid”)??

33
I’m not sure if such was Dr. Drew’s intended meaning – as
his wording indicates the opposite. (I.e., Dr Drew’s words,
here, utterly lack coherence. They lack lucidity.)

I.e., that Dr. Drew adds “lucent” to this short list of

characteristics, which supposedly indicate what “mania” is,
proves ironic – as doing so makes Dr. Drew’s own statement
seem quite disconnected. (Perhaps, it’s a disconnectedness
driven by a semi-controlled hysteria.)

And, there is this, not to be ignored: It may have been a

‘Freudian slip’ (or, parapraxis) – as Dr. Drew was working
hard, attempting to characterize Charlie as someone
beyond-the-pale, indecipherable; but, he likely well knew
that Charlie was not that, really; perhaps, with the best of
intentions, Dr. Drew was attempting to drive public opinion
in a way that would lead most to discount Charlie’s message
entirely, for he feared Charlie could possibly convince some,
described as ‘addicts,’ to abandon A.A.. So, maybe, in effect,
Dr. Drew overplayed this notion, that Charlie’s expressions
were ‘disconnected.’ His subconscious mind would reveal
what he knew as the sequestered truth: Charlie was, indeed,
making some sense – even and especially in his criticisms of
A.A.. E.g., surely, for many, it becomes, in ways, a ‘cult.’ (I
have argued, herein, that Dr. Drew himself makes it one, and
maybe that ‘cult’ needs protecting, according to Dr. Drew.)
34
And, there is one more thing, I cannot avoid pointing out:

In terms of my asking this question, ‘Why would one care to

medicalize a person who’s demonstrating a notable capacity
for being “lucent”???,’ there is this answer, which comes to
mind: Historically, those working in the field of psychiatry
have often medicalized the most lucent individuals in a
society; perhaps, most who have done so have been only, at
best, half-conscious of that fact; after all, the most lucent
ones in a society seldom ‘make sense’ to those who work in
the field of psychiatry, for psychiatry promotes ‘order’ – in
opposition to the potential ‘chaos’ that seems to be
promoted by the lucent ones. (The lucent would be done
with psychiatry’s coerced ‘order’ in an instant, if they could.)

And, admittedly, to me, everything that Sheen said seemed

quite inter-connected. To me, yes, his thought processes
seemed somewhat ‘atypical’ for a radio guest – but not in
the least way confusing; though, I did feel he was being, in
ways, shockingly rude. (E.g., to broadcast ones view that
someone’s wife and kids are supposedly “ugly,” is hitting
way below the belt.)

Is Dr. Drew seeking to medicalize someone for being

publically rude?? He is probably not consciously intending to
35
do so. (I think besides Sheen’s opposition to A.A., he’s
fearing what seems, to him, a potential for violence.)

As far as Dr. Drew’s use of the term, “derailed,” goes, this is

a judgment, which may or may not truly point to something
intrinsically unhealthy. I feel strongly, that: generally
speaking, living “railed” is not a healthy way to live – at
least, not in the long run, especially, for an artist. Most great
artists get derailed, eventually – at least once in their
lifetime – for the good of one and all. (Right now I think of
the timeless wisdom contained in one of Robert Frost’s
greatest poems, “The Road Not Taken.” There’ve been
various interpretations of this poem. To me it says, amongst
other things, in effect: there may come a very good time for
getting ‘derailed,’ and there may be a means of getting
‘derailed,’ which could lead to a better/fuller, more authentic
way of living. And, it won’t be the ‘normal’ path.)

[back to "I" in text]

or

[Sample another footnote, below.]

36
L. …Dr. Drew seems to say, “seventy-four hour hold.”

Elsewhere, he begins, “twenty-four hour” – then corrects

himself, indicating, “seventy-two.” He is referring to a
California, 5150.

In truth, “hold” is a complete misnomer; it’s a 72-hr

period – that can easily be extended – in which
psychiatrists and others, who work in psych wards,
“treat” their new prisoners (euphemistically called,
“involuntary patients”). Usually, they do so with
powerful, psychotropic drugs.

Indeed, they consider themselves licensed to so-called

“medicate” their captives, in any way which assuredly
makes them completely pliant/submissive.

So, if you follow the link, to “California, 5150”

(above), do not allow yourself to be misled by the
section entitled, “Undeniable rights.” In actual
practice, those rights are easily subverted. (I.e., they
are, in reality, not truly undeniable.)

37
 It is extremely common for those so-called
“undeniable rights” to be interpreted in ways which
lead, immediately, to their subversion.

Those who are “held” on 5150’s are very frequently

denied any or all of them.

(I know – because, more than two decades ago, in more

than one instance, I was so-called “hospitalized” on a 5150
and was denied all of those supposedly “undeniable rights.”)

[Back to “So-called 72 hour hold” in text]

or

See, Modest Proposals’ to Mitigate the Dangers,

below:

38
My ‘modest proposals’ to mitigate the dangers caused by
Dr. Drew’s rabid (but well-meaning) promotion of
coercive psychiatry, its labels and its so-called
“medicine”:

As I sit to write out these ‘modest proposals,’ it is exactly 1:10 PM,

Thursday, March 31, 2011. (Make that 1:11 PM.)

I’m keenly aware that tomorrow is April 1 – known, by many, as,

“April Fools’ Day.” It’s a day on which clever people traditionally
play ‘practical jokes’ on unsuspecting ‘innocents,’ eh?

(Surely, you know that.)

What you may or may not know is, that, “A Modest Proposal” is
the short title of an essay, published anonymously, in 1729, during
the time of the infamous Irish Potato Famine.* The title was a
deliberate irony; for, that essay satirically suggests: people should
sell their kids, as food, for the wealthy, in order to survive.

______________________________________________________
*The full title: “A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland From
Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
39
As I sit, now (at 1:33 PM), wondering how to proceed, various
satirical proposals occur to me; but, they may not be funny to you.

Mainly, to begin, I picture so many ways of calling for the

psychiatric institutionalization of Dr. Drew Pinsky.

Of course, I would not seriously aim to have him – nor anyone –

institutionalized by psychiatry.

However, I do find myself smiling and amused – to think of a

mock-campaign, which could clearly illuminate Dr. Drew’s own
peculiar ‘madness’ for what is, truly, the extreme authoritarianism
of coercive psychiatry (with its foremost promoters’ bizarre,
ceaseless insistences of their own ‘compassionate’ virtuousness).

Come to think of it, I suppose such a campaign could be

advanced through Facebook, with the help of a film (if,
perhaps, a ‘just’ a short) distributed via YouTube.

(The creative wheels are suddenly churning – with so many

possible ways of lampooning Dr. Drew.)

40
But, that’s not what I had in mind when I first gave myself this
space to offer ‘modest proposals…’

What did I have in mind, then??

Honestly, I am torn; part of me would like to engage in

‘constructive dialogue’ with Dr. Drew. Another part of me
insists, that such is going to be impossible; for, he’s too deeply
invested in the conventional, authoritarian and deterministic
paradigm.

What’s more, I’ve assumed a somewhat ‘antagonistic’ attitude

toward him in my writing. I’ve basically indicated his
professional views are “simple-minded” (haven’t I??) – hmm.

And, I have pointed out, that he’s advocated fabricating lies, to

frame people (supposedly for their own ‘good’) – which shows
his respect for the truth is limited…

I’ve also questioned whether he had any responsibility for the

horrors known to have occurred in his own psychiatric hospital –
and suggested he may have been, at last, irresponsibly denying
his involvements with that hospital.

41
I’ve said Sheen might do well to sue him. I’ve said he was
grandstanding. Oh, and, yeah, all along, I’ve said he was “getting
dangerous” or is dangerous. But, have I been rude?? I don’t
believe so. Though, I suppose he could be miffed by my saying
that I view him as ‘a hysteric’ – and even suggested he might be
a silent sufferer of so-called “histrionic personality disorder.”
(Yet, he should realize I don’t put any stake in psychiatry’s so-
called “diagnostics.”)

(Wait. Did I say he was narcissistic?? Or, did he say that?? I think
I read it in Wikipedia.) Let’s see…

Pinsky, who admits in his 2009 book, The Mirror Effect, that he scored a 16 on the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory (average is 18 for celebrities), and shares several traits with the "closet
narcissist", asserts that he was never motivated by fame to become a media figure, but from a
desire to educate the public on the medical facts distorted by the media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Pinsky

Wikipedia says, “Dr. Drew … asserts that he was never

motivated by fame to become a media figure, but from a
desire to educate the public on the medical facts
distorted by the media.” (REALLY??) …OK, then, I got it!
I mean: Now, here’s one modest proposal…

Let’s organize a friendly debate. 

42
“We all have the extraordinary coded within
us, waiting to be released.”
~Jean Houston

43
 RESOURCES

Books: See Related

YouTube
:

Positive Addiction (by William Glasser, M.D.)

Warning: Psychiatry Can Be Hazardous to Your Mental Health,,

(by William Glasser, M.D.)
: *I recommend
the audiobook
You Can Be Happy No Matter What (by Richard Carlson, Ph.D.)*
:

Your Drug May Be Your Problem, Revised Edition: How

and Why to Stop Taking Psychiatric Medications ,,,,,,,,,,
(by Peter Breggin, M.D. & David Cohen, Ph.D.) See Also
Next
Page…
Web sites:

http://www.empathictherapy.org/

Articles:
:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin*I highly
recommend the “Abridged, Audiobook” version.
44
 Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry (2008):
Drugs, Electroshock, and the Psychopharmaceutical Complex
By Peter Breggin, M.D.
Hardback Published by Springer Publishing Co.
NEW 2008 EDITION REVISED AND UPDATED

Renowned psychiatrist Peter Breggin documents how psychiatric drugs and electroshock
(ECT) disable the brain. He presents the latest scientific information on potential brain
dysfunction and dangerous behavioral abnormalities produced by the most widely used
drugs including Prozac, Xanax, Halcion, Ritalin, and lithium.

Dr. Breggin on his book, Brain-Disabling Treatments in

Psychiatry (2008):

“The scientific premise of the book is that all psychiatric

treatments—drugs, electroshock and lobotomy—have
their 'therapeutic' impact by disabling the brain. They do
not improve brain function or correct biochemical
imbalances, they cause brain dysfunction and biochemical
imbalances. These brain-disabling interventions are then
considered effective when the doctor, family, patient or
society views impaired brain dysfunction in the target
individuals as a desirable or beneficial effect. Because
psychiatric drugs in reality do more harm than good, the
psychopharmaceutical complex must devote billions of
dollars to exerting its power and influence in the political,
professional and public arenas.”

Back to
http://breggin.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=45
Table of
45
Contents
Order the complete eBook,

BEYOND LABELING Volume 1:

‘MANIC’ PANIC

Dr. Drew’s Medicalization of Charlie Sheen

(A Case History of Professional Hysteria)

Email:
info@peacetalks.org

46