Holocaust Deniers and Adderall Decriers  

rm_antisure1 30M
0 posts
5/31/2006 8:49 pm
Holocaust Deniers and Adderall Decriers

I've been doing some light web research on the new wave of ideas that the holocaust never existed. At first I was shocked and interested that people would say that something as well documented as the holocaust wouldn't be true. Over time, my interest has leaned more toward the fact that people have been imprisoned for holding this viewpoint. From an interview in Spiegel of Iranian President Ahmadinejad:

"Ahmadinejad: You would know this better than I; you have the list. There are people from England, from Germany, France and from Australia.

SPIEGEL: You presumably mean, for example, the Englishman David Irving, the German-Canadian Ernst Z√ľndel, who is on trial in Mannheim, and the Frenchman Georges Theil, all of whom deny the Holocaust."

I looked these guys up, and sure enough they have been arrested for their opinions. Noam Chomsky said "If we don't believe in freedom of speech for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." I agree. It is illegal to either question the fact that the holocaust happened or to do further research if from the standpoint of that bias.
What really gets me about this is that there is a lot of research that still needs to be done, and the possibility of fraud exists. Truman was renowned as a honest president, but Stalin was infamous for falsifying public reports. Many of the holocaust victims have yet to be named.
It's not that I don't believe that the holocaust happened; I'm simply troubled by the punishment of curiosity. If a truth exists, I believe that a truth can hold its ground no matter what research goes into it.

Since I run the risk of stirring up people right now, I'd like to talk about something else on my mind. I've recently learned that psychoactive drugs are promoted on correlational data. There is a relationship between chemical imbalance and depression. There is also a relationship between cancer and ash trays. Psychoactive drugs have no fool proof data like penicillin does, but it's treated as such in the psychiatric community. I read an article saying that recent tests show 80% of the human race has suffered from mild to severe depression. Although I can agree with that, I don't think that 80% of the human race needed drugs to help them.
I also found out that the DSM is only partially based on clinical studies, and partially based on professional observances. The fact that I was diagnosed by a doctor using the DSM shows me that psychiatry is a step backwards in medical research. The medical community uses statistical analysis for drugs. Although there are ways to manipulate the statistics, if the drug is harmful or doesn't work, a group of doctors can't just say that it works and have it accepted by everyone else. Why is this the case in psychiatry? What really gets me going is that there hasn't been a study that shows ADD to have any chemical imbalance correlation whatsoever. How can that be considered a disorder treatable with drugs if there is nothing in the direction of proof that there is something wrong with the body?

Become a member to create a blog