Matt Lauer backs Tom Cruise into a corner!

by **tabasco1776** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:35 pm

Finally, Matt Lauer does what Letterman was too chickenshit to do: <a href="http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3tc.htm">www.drudgereport.com/flash3tc.htm</a> CRUISE 'WAR OF WORLDS' INTERVIEW TURNS INTO SHOWDOWN ON PSYCHIATRY, SCIENTOLOGY NBC 'TODAY SHOW' host Matt Lauer was lectured by star Tom Cruise on the dangers of psychiatry and antidepressant during a promotional interview for WAR OF THE WORLDS. The exchange aired Friday morning. LAUER: TOM CRUISE CREATED A FIRESTORM WHEN HE CRITICIZED BROOKE SHIELDS FOR REVEALING THAT SHE WENT INTO THERAPY AND TOOK ANTIDEPRESSANTS TO DEAL WITH HER POST PARTUM DEPRESSION. AS A SCIENTOLGIST, HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN PSYCHIATRIC MEDICINE. I ASKED HIM ABOUT HIS COMMENTS. CRUISE: i've never agreed with psychiatry, ever. Before I was a Scientologist I never agreed with psychiatry. and when i started studying the history of psychiatry, i understood more and more why i didn't believe in psychology. //And as far as the Brooke Shields thing is, look. You gotta understand, I really care about Brooke Shields. I-- I think here's a-- a-- a wonderful and talented woman. And-- I wanna see her do well. And I know that-- psychiatry is-- is a pseudo science. MATT LAUER: But-- but Tom, if she said that this particular thing helped her feel better, whether it was the antidepressant or going to a counselor or psychiatrist, isn't that enough? // TOM CRUISE: Matt, you have to understand this. Here we are today where I talk out against drugs and psychiatric abuses of electric shocking people (PH), okay, against their will, of drugging children with them not knowing the effects of these drugs. Do you know what Aderol (PH) is? Do you know Ritalin? Do you know now that Ritalin is a street drug? Do you understand that? MATT LAUER: The difference is-- (OVERTALK) TOM CRUISE: No, no, Matt. MATT LAUER: This wasn't against her will, though. TOM CRUISE: Matt-- Matt, Matt, Matt-- MATT LAUER: But this wasn't against her will. TOM CRUISE: Matt, I'm-- Matt, I'm asking you a question. MATT LAUER: I understand there's abuse of all of these things. TOM CRUISE: No, you see. Here's the problem. You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do.// MATT LAUER: //aren't there examples, and might not Brooke Shields be an example, of someone who benefited from one of those drugs? TOM CRUISE: all it does is mask the problem, Matt. And if you understand the history of it, it masks the problem. That's what it does. That's all it does. You're not getting to the reason why. There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance. (OVERTALK) MATT LAUER: So, postpartum depression to you is-- TOM CRUISE: Matt-- MATT LAUER: --kind of a-- TOM CRUISE: --don't-- MATT LAUER: --little psychological gook-- TOM CRUISE: That-- MATT LAUER: --googley-gook? TOM CRUISE: --no. No. I did not say that. MATT LAUER: I'm just asking what you-- what would you call it? TOM CRUISE: No. No. Abs-- Matt, that is-- the-- post-- now-- now, you're talking about two different things. MATT LAUER: But that's what she went on the-- TOM CRUISE: No. MATT LAUER: --antidepressant for. TOM CRUISE: But what happens, the antidepressant, all it does is mask the problem. There's ways of vitamins and through exercise and various things. I'm not saying that that isn't real. That's not what I'm saying. That's an alteration of what-- what I'm saying. I'm saying that drugs aren't the answer, these drugs are very dangerous. They're mind-altering, anti-psychotic drugs. And there are ways of doing it without that so that we don't end up in a brave new world. // the thing that I'm saying about Brooke is that there's misinformation, okay. And she doesn't understand the history of psychiatry. She-- she doesn't understand in the same way that you don't understand it, Matt. // MATT LAUER: But a little bit what you're saying Tom is, you say you want people to do well. But you want them do to well by taking the road that you approve of, as opposed to a road that may work for them. TOM CRUISE: No, no, I'm not. MATT LAUER: Well, if antidepressants work for Brooke Shields, why isn't that okay? TOM CRUISE: I-- I disagree with it. And I think that there's a higher and better quality of life. And I think that promoting for me personally, see, you're saying what, I can't discuss what I wanna discuss? MATT LAUER: No. You absolutely can. TOM CRUISE: I know. But-- but Matt, you're going in and saying that-- that I can't discuss this. MATT LAUER: I'm only asking, isn't there a possibility that-- do-- do you examine the possibility that these things do work for some people? That yes, there are abuses. And yes, maybe they've gone too far in certain areas. Maybe there are too many kids on Ritalin. Maybe electric shock-- TOM CRUISE: Too many kids on Ritalin? Matt. MATT LAUER: I'm just saying. But-- but aren't there-- TOM CRUISE: Matt. MATT LAUER: --examples where it works? TOM CRUISE: Matt. Matt, Matt, you don't even-- you're glib. You don't even know what Ritalin is.// //if you start talking about chemical imbalance, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, Matt, okay. That's what I've done. Then you go and you say where's-- where's the medical test? Where's the blood test that says how much Ritalin you're supposed to get? MATT LAUER: You're-- you're-- it's very impressive to listen to you. Because clearly, you've done the homework. And-- and you know the subject. TOM CRUISE: And you should. MATT LAUER: And-- and-- TOM CRUISE: And you should do that also. MATT LAUER: And-- TOM CRUISE: Because just knowing people who are on Ritalin isn't enough. //you should be a little bit more responsible in knowing really-- MATT LAUER: I'm not prescribing Ritalin, Tom. And I'm not asking-- TOM CRUISE: Well-- MATT LAUER: --anyone else to do it. I'm simply saying-- (OVERTALK) TOM CRUISE: Well, you are. You're saying-- MATT LAUER: I know some people who seem to have been helped by it. TOM CRUISE: I-- but you're saying-- but you-- like-- this is a very important issue. MATT LAUER: I couldn't agree more. TOM CRUISE: It's very-- and you know what? You're here on the Today Show. MATT LAUER: Right. TOM CRUISE: And to talk about it in a way of saying, "Well, isn't it okay," and being reasonable about it when you don't know and I do, I think that you should be a little bit more responsible in knowing what it is. MATT LAUER: But-- TOM CRUISE: Because you-- you communicate to people. MATT LAUER: But you're now telling me that your experiences with the people I know, which are zero, are more important than my experiences. TOM CRUISE: What do you mean by that? MATT LAUER: You're telling me what's worked for people I know or hasn't worked for people I know. // i'm telling you i've lived with these people and they're better. TOM CRUISE: So, you're-- you're advocating it. MATT LAUER: I am not. I'm telling you in their case-- (LAUGHTER) (OVERTALK) MATT LAUER: In their individual case, it worked. I am not gonna go out and say-- TOM CRUISE: Matt-- MATT LAUER: --"Get your kids on Ritalin. It's the cure-all-- TOM CRUISE: Matt, Matt. MATT LAUER: --and the end-all." TOM CRUISE: Matt, but here's the point. what is the ideal scene for life TOM CRUISE: Okay. Ideal scene is someone not having to take anti-psychotic drugs. MATT LAUER: I would agree. TOM CRUISE: Okay. So, now you look at-- and you go okay. A-- a departure from that ideal scene is someone taking drugs, okay. And then you go, okay. What is the theory and the science behind that, that justifies that? MATT LAUER: Let me take this more general, 'cause I think you and I can go around in circles on this for awhile. And i respect your opinion ... MATT LAUER: Do you want more people to understand Scientology? Is that-- would that be a goal of yours? TOM CRUISE: You know what? I-- absolutely. Of course, you know. And people-- MATT LAUER: How do you go about that? TOM CRUISE: You just communicate about it. And the important thing is, like you and I talk about it, whether it's-- okay, if I wanna know something, I go and find out. /Because I don't talk about things that I don't understand. I'll say, you know what? I'm not so sure about that. I'll go find more information about it so I can-- I can come to an opinion based on-- on the information that I have. MATT LAUER: You-- you're so passionate about it. And I'm-- TOM CRUISE: I'm passionate about learning. I'm passionate about life, Matt. END

by **Ted the dog** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:09 pm

Out of context, this looks hilarious: "MATT LAUER: --googley-gook? TOM CRUISE: --no. No. I did not say that." That's an interesting take on the interview...the story that's up on CNN right now leaves out huge chunks compared to the one posted. Cruise seems to getting flustered more easily as of late.

by **human** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:34 pm

Tom Cruise is right about this one though... he just cant articulate himself for shit.... and Matt Lauer isnt exactly brilliant here either... is it possible that these men are just dumb? i certainly dont see this as Tom Cruise "backed into a corner"..... it reads like two men who are having obvious issues trying to actually use their brain..

by **thrulookingglass** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:36 pm

I'm glad years of acting has given Tom such incredible insight that years of research in countless Universities, hospitals, and medical research centers could not achieve. Should of known, the answers are all in a $4.95 copy of Dianetics. By the way, I heard Tom was going to buy a new Airbus A380, but they couldn't build one big enought to fit his ego!

by **FourthBase** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:49 pm

He's "right about this one"? Do you know what he's talking about when he refers to the history of psychiatry? Funny that Lauer never pressed that, even though Cruise was practically begging him to.

by **tabasco1776** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:56 pm

Tom Cruise was most definitely backed into a corner, because Matt Lauer kept repeating his point - the gist of which is "If antidepressants helped Brooke Shields and others, what's your problem with it?" and Tom could not give a coherent answer, much less a justification for why it's any of his business in the first place. I'm not a fan of psychopharmaceuticals either - and I hate that Scientology has hijacked that issue - but hell, I could have stated Cruise's own position more succinctly than he did, and I'm not even a Scientologist. The whole purpose of the interview was supposed to be about the War of the Worlds movie, and the word had already come down from Spielberg and the Studio: PROMOTE THE DAMN MOVIE AND STOP TALKING ABOUT PSYCHIATRY AND SCIENTOLOGY!! Cruise couldn't help but bite on Lauer's bait, though.

by **human** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:13 pm

He's "right about this one"? Do you know what he's talking about when he refers to the history of psychiatry? Funny that Lauer never pressed that, even though Cruise was practically begging him to. well, this: TOM CRUISE: But what happens, the antidepressant, all it does is mask the problem. There's ways of vitamins and through exercise and various things. I'm not saying that that isn't real. That's not what I'm saying. That's an alteration of what-- what I'm saying. I'm saying that drugs aren't the answer, these drugs are very dangerous. They're mind-altering, anti-psychotic drugs. And there are ways of doing it without that so that we don't end up in a brave new world. as incoherent as it is, is correct IMO. i have TONS of personal first hand experience with the issue and i have come to the conclusion that pschiatry & psychiatric medicine are a fraud... but not just a fraud, way more sinister than a simple fraud.. of course the anti depressants make you feel "better". but to think you should be feeling fine and dandy in this world, is in fact psychotic. these drugs and the doctors prescribing them are a symptom of species wide collective psychosis... but then again, so are these actors & "newscasters" Matt Lauer is a tool, Tom Cruise is a tool, & they both seems dumb as wood. its sad really, that they even have our attention, there are over 3000 better converstation on this board than that one these goofballs had.. one human?

by **FourthBase** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:18 pm

I hear you human, there are definitely reasons to attack the psychiatry industry, and tabasco is right that Scientologists are hijacking/poisoning the issue. But I did find something odd that may help explain Cruise's constant references to a "brave new world". From <a href="http://home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/celeb.txt">home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/celeb.txt</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>- Although Aldous Huxley was not impressed by Hubbard's attempts to audit him, his daughter Faith became deeply involved in the 1970s. It is rumoured that she spent $2 million on the word-clearing e-meter. She is believed to have left by 1984. [TH: Aldous Huxley dabbled in scientology. The Economist, 3.2.1990, The San Diego Union-Tribune 26.7.1994, The Daily Telegraph 23.3.2002] - Laura Archera Huxley - Aldous' second wife, who became a pop psychologist, 'took dianetic auditor training in 1950 and became an HDA, and for a time in the mid-fifties was on the CADA [California Association of Dianetic Auditors - which was not under Scn or Hubbard control] board', A.E. van Vogt in CADA Dianetic Journal Notes, vol.4, no.1.<hr></blockquote>

by **timboucher** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:27 pm

seems like the best way to defuse cruise's argument would have been to focus on this whole thing about convincing people to look at the history of psychiatry and how it all works. and do it FOR THEMSELVES. ignore the shit about drugs and people being happy, because he happens to have good points there. then just tell people to do the same thing with scientology. and confront cruise as to why their organization doesn't offer complete transparency and free delivery of all their techniques. and for the money shot, i'd ask him if he thinks psychiatry is "pseudo-science" and then ask him how scientology - created by a sci-fi writer - could ever be more legitimate as a "scientific technique" Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=timboucher@rigorousintuition>timboucher</A> at: 6/24/05 4:28 pm

by **wolf pauli** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:34 pm

"[Barbara] Kaye, who would later become a psychologist, said she made a clinical diagnosis of Hubbard during the weeks they spent together in Palm Springs. 'There was no doubt in my mind he was a manic depressive with paranoid tendencies. ...' ... "One of Hubbard's favourite topics of conversation was psychiatrists. One night over dinner at Mel Avenue, he told Barbara about an occasion when he had demonstrated auditing techniques to a group of psychiatrists and one of them had said to him, 'If you claim to cure people by doing that, if you're not careful we'll lock you up.' He laughed excessively, took a bite out of a chicken leg and spluttered, 'They called me a paranoid, can you imagine it?' That night Barbara wrote in her diary: 'My blood ran cold as he was saying that. It was all I could do to keep from weeping.' "Barbara had been in Palm Springs for nearly three weeks when Ron began fretting that 'something was brewing' in Los Angeles. He decided that they should return immediately, even though the book was not yet finished. "'I didn't see him for a week after we got back,' Barbara said, 'then he turned up at my place at about five o'clock one afternoon, very distraught and pale, with his hair all over the place. He paced up and down in my room and told me he had discovered Miles [Hollister] and [Hubbard's wife] Sara in bed together. He was afraid that they were plotting with a psychiatrist in San Francisco to get him committed to a mental institution. Sara had telephoned Jack Maloney, the general manager [of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation] in Elizabeth [NJ], and said a doctor had recommended he should be treated for paranoid schizophrenia. He said he had found letters proving that Miles was conspiring with Ceppos and Winter to get control of the Foundation. "Please don't ask me anything," he said. "I'm in a very bad way. I'm going to the desert for a few days alone. Things are very bad."' "Hubbard did not go off into the desert alone. He had other plans: he was going to get Sara committed before she committed him. But first he had to kidnap [his daughter] Alexis. .... "On 3 March 1951, Hubbard, in his role as patriotic citizen, wrote to the FBI in Washington to provide the names and descriptions of fifteen 'known or suspected Communists' within his organization. Heading the list were his wife and her lover ... ... "'In an apparent attempt to give credence to his statements, Hubbard advised that he was recently psychoanalyzed in Chicago and was found to be quite normal . . .' [US Govt memo 62-116151-70, 7 Mar 1952.] The FBI agent conducting the interview could not agree: he concluded that Hubbard was a 'mental case'. ... "Sara accused her husband of frequently trying to strangle her; on one occasion, shortly before Christmas 1950, be [sic] had been so violent he ruptured the Eustachian tube in her left car. The following month, at Palm Springs, he had started his car in gear while she was getting out and knocked her to the ground. As a result of Hubbard's behaviour, the divorce complaint continued, the 'plaintiff and her medical advisers . . . concluded that said Hubbard was hopelessly insane, and, crazy, and that there was no hope for said Hubbard, or any reason for her to endure further; that competent medical advisers recommended that said Hubbard be committed to a private sanatarian [sic] for pshychiatric [sic] observation and treatment of a mental ailment known as paranoid schizophrenia . . .'" - Russell Miller, Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard, ch. 10. <a href="http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfm10.htm">www.clambake.org/archive/.../bfm10.htm</a> Hmm. Wonder where scientology's antipathy to psychiatry comes from.

by **human** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:59 pm

but who's not? There was no doubt in my mind he was a manic depressive with paranoid tendencies. ... the lamest diagnosis in the world. dia - gnosis but word, manic depressive paranoia is fun!!! anybody with emotions & ideas can basically get lumped into that "diagnosis" im not a fan of Hubbard (although i find his story fascinating, he was one helluva character)...but getting totally screwed by the mental health system is not limited to his experience and is also very very dangerous... i will go out on a limb and say that psychiatry is much much much more dangerous & destructive than scientology could ever try and be... one human?

by **FourthBase** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:07 pm

We don't know how dangerous Scientology could be. Who knows what it might become.

by **wolf pauli** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:47 pm

getting totally screwed by the mental health system is not limited to his experience ... Shedding a tear for poor L. Ron? How touching. i will go out on a limb and say that psychiatry is much much much more dangerous & destructive than scientology could ever try and be... Yup, out on a limb, and in heavy company too. Hope you're aware of the gravity of the situation.

by **timboucher** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:54 pm

i will go out on a limb and say that psychiatry is much much much more dangerous & destructive than scientology could ever try and be... yeah, i'll buy that. i mean, scientology may be a cult, but psychiatry is the worst kind of religion: the one people don't even recognize

by **human** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:15 pm

We don't know how dangerous Scientology could be. Who knows what it might become. true enough. i suppose that im looking at two, IMO, equally ridiculous ways of thinking, and giving psychiatry props for being a better thought out system of oppression. Shedding a tear for poor L. Ron? How touching. hmm, interesting. did you read the sentance you are commenting on? welp, being a compasionate creature of God the creator, i am saddened by poor L. Ron's condition, not to mention the condition of the species... but i was referring to my own personal experiences. perhaps you have YOUR own personal experiences with scientology that would provoke you to respond to me in that way.. i dont know. what i do know is that you are not a superior human being than L Ron Hubbard. geez man, compassion is exactly what we are missing. all of us. for all of us. Yup, out on a limb, and in heavy company too. Hope you're aware of the gravity of the situation. oh im aware. and its not gonna be an auditor assessing you in the gulag. that much i can say for sure. i think i need to repeat... i suppose that im looking at two, IMO, equally ridiculous ways of thinking, and giving psychiatry props for being a better thought out system of oppression. one human?

Matt Lauer backs Tom Cruise into a corner!

Matt Lauer backs Tom Cruise into a corner!

...

hmm

Re: ...

Huh?

Re: ...

welp.

"Brave New World"

Re: find out for yourself

Scientology's antipathy to psychiatry

im sure he is crazy

Re: im sure he is crazy

Re: im sure he is crazy

Re: im sure he is crazy

hmmmm

Who is online