That is a good find, but I have a few concerns over this.
First of all, it is hosted on one of Rick Ross' sites. RR is someone whose lack of qualifications doesn't stop him claiming expert status. The fact that he deprogrammes forcefully and has criminal convictions about this disturbs me, as well as his other criminal convictions (theft) and involvement in WACO.
Then there is the article itself, written by Joe Szimhart. A quick googling revealed a source that describes him as a "legitimate" cult information specialist and thought reform consultant who practises non-coercive intervention. There are no qualifications listed, yet he has been consulted by the media extensively. I could not access his website listed here
Yet I also found this
which contradicts the claim that he practices non-coercive intervention.
Reading this article was confusing. It is too convoluted for me to analyse in this short time, so I will just list my concerns. The first one is why didn't he link to FDR Liberated
? Of the three, only Arthur's Stefan Molyneux Revealed
is up to date, but this does not go into the detail nor cover as much as QuestEon's site does. If he was researching as he says, he would have had to have come across FDR liberated.
Then there is the writing itself. It is very confusing and jumps all over the place. I found it impossible to follow the weblinks and check his assertions that x endorses y, at least I wasn't going to spend hours doing it.
I went to Breeding's website, and of the dozens of links, Szimhart accuses him of being in bed with the scientologists but bases this on only 2 links (with only one being specified by Szimhart). Well someone could make the same innuendo about Rick Ross
if he or she did not do his or her homework.
It is interesting that he refers to Christina as a social worker and not a psychologist. If it wasn't deliberate, it is sloppy. That she may not be qualified psychologist outside of Canada is a valid point, but to call her a social worker is misleading and insulting to qualified social workers.
|In my work as a “cult specialist” I have come to see a large red flag waving when idiosyncratic healers like Breeding preach against psychiatry as “unscientific.” I also work in a mental hospital and am amply aware of the shortcomings of treatment but that has a lot to do with the non-compliant behaviors of patients and complexities of diagnosis. The science behind medications like Ritalin is rigorous to say the least. |
Wtf? Non-compliance of patients? Complexities of diagnosis? Do you mean that you misdiagnose? How scientific is that?
The science behind Ritalin is rigorous? Gee, so is the science behind arsenic, but that doesn't say anything. Just because Breeding allegedly endorses someone who's been on Oprah doesn't mean that his concerns over drugs and psychiatry are not worthy of thinking about. Is Molyneux being used as well to discredit him, or is it the other way around? I'm too confused.
Why couldn't he have left the emotive language and insinuations and written a logical critique? Such writing leaves the impression of having an agenda of one's own. I am not defending, nor endorsing the subjects of the article, but to sloppily find fault with them can nullify more objective, well reseached criticisms based on fact.