Depression.

killadoob said:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...companies-creation-of-medical-lobotomies.aspx

Have a read. Really interesting. They state very clearly some people do need drugs but the rest is a bit of a shock.

Well any source that doesn't fit into a persons thought process will always be written off.
Click to expand...
I've read many studies that demonstrate cognitive improvements in groups using these psychoactive drugs for a variety of conditions. While I'm sure there are cases in which drugs that are not needed or that won't work on that individual are prescribed, that doesn't mean the drugs themselves don't work at all or that this is all some sort of conspiracy by the drug companies to make megaprofits.

Similarly there is plenty we still don't know about the human brain. IMO we still have more to learn about it than we do about any other system in the human body. That still doesn't mean the drugs we use today are not effective or that the serotonin-dopamine model proposed today is incorrect. I would need to see references involving studies of statistical significance to that effect.

As to there being no evidence of the neurochemical imbalances I disagree. Mankind has a general idea of which areas of the brain use which types of neurochemicals for what and brain activity scans are performed on patients and compared with the norm. Dopamine ans serotonin levels can be, and are, measured demonstrating abnormalities. These people don't just put on funny hats and trust to luck as this article implies (with no references supporting those specific claims I might add)
 
Just keep talking, please don't stop!

If you want to insult someone, insult me, I really don't care. You have my permission! :)

For me the most important thing is that we have a discussion going, about a subject that most people just don't want to talk about, and if it helps someone reading this, than I would be the happiest person ever.

Together we can beat this monster.
 
killadoob said:
...

Time for a swim and movie :D, haptic maybe you can watch the movie with me as well, you know i am going to watch it so you can experience it. It's total recall
Click to expand...

Pre-edit reply here.

What movie? I can go read a few reviews and then form an opinion on whether it's worth watching without actually ever seeing the movie itself. Cool, huh.
 
Ok, in an attempt to inject some rationality into this thread can we find some points of agreement.

1. Drugs are useful and effective in some cases of depression.

2. Drugs are too easily prescribe in most cases of depression.

3. The flawed methodology points to a flawed understanding of the issue.

4. The large portion of sufferers who accept unnecessary medication do so on good faith and therefore:

5. A large portion of sufferers are ignorant of the nature of their ailment and wrongly accept that they are helpless victims of an illness.

Personally I don't subscribe to the existence of a conspiracy in the mental health industry but I do think there is an obvious bias towards certain largely ineffective treatments that are in no way a cure. Scientology is a crazy and evil organisation but even a broken watch is right twice a day. Or in this case not entirely wrong.
 
Nick333 said:
...

Scientology is a crazy and evil organisation but even a broken watch is right twice a day. Or in this case not entirely wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with most of what you say, but defending anything with its origins in Scientology? Really?! :wtf: Reading the short little wiki entry on their film-school project it does indeed seem that they are, unsurprisingly, almost entirely wrong. And deceitful. And wrong.
 
HapticSimian said:
Oh, this is just ****ing beautiful: The Marketing of Madness was produced by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights... which is a front group for...

Wait for it...

WAIT FOR IT...

The Church of Scientology!

Oh. My. Sack. You poor, poor deluded fools. See what not vetting your sources gets you? :D
Click to expand...

Hahaha. Nice find. Ok I didn't know that. Even so, the article has very good points about the drugs etc backed up by real medical studies etc. I have not watched the video.

Anyway, off to breakfast. Have fun boys.
 
Nick333 said:
Ok, in an attempt to inject some rationality into this thread can we find some points of agreement.

1. Drugs are useful and effective in some cases of depression.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Not necessarily all but indeed there are cases in which drugs are effective.


2. Drugs are too easily prescribe in most cases of depression.
Click to expand...
I'd need some sort of study to back the claim of "most".


3. The flawed methodology points to a flawed understanding of the issue.
Click to expand...
What methodology is flawed and how?


4. The large portion of sufferers who accept unnecessary medication do so on good faith and therefore:
Click to expand...
I would agree that if you accept medication as advised by your health care practitioner when you don't have even a vague understanding of what the medication does then you are acting out of trust in the knowledge and qualifications of the one prescribing the drugs.

They can, and have been, wrong. However they are far less likely to be wrong than say... the grounds keeper at your local high school.


5. A large portion of sufferers are ignorant of the nature of their ailment and wrongly accept that they are helpless victims of an illness.
Click to expand...
What exactly is the nature of their ailment and how do you know what "a large portion of sufferers" accept and don't accept?


Personally I don't subscribe to the existence of a conspiracy in the mental health industry but I do think there is an obvious bias towards certain largely ineffective treatments that are in no way a cure. Scientology is a crazy and evil organisation but even a broken watch is right twice a day. Or in this case not entirely wrong.
Click to expand...
There is no cure for depression that I am aware of. I have also never met a psychiatrist that ever claimed that these drugs were anything but an attempt to bring neurochemical imbalances to some sort of equilibrium (note that doesn't mean normal).
 
Nick333 said:
Ok, in an attempt to inject some rationality into this thread can we find some points of agreement.

1. Drugs are useful and effective in some cases of depression.

2. Drugs are too easily prescribe in most cases of depression.

3. The flawed methodology points to a flawed understanding of the issue.

4. The large portion of sufferers who accept unnecessary medication do so on good faith and therefore:

5. A large portion of sufferers are ignorant of the nature of their ailment and wrongly accept that they are helpless victims of an illness.
Click to expand...

I would totally agree with those 5 points.
 
HapticSimian said:
I'm fine with most of what you say, but defending anything with its origins in Scientology? Really?! :wtf: Reading the short little wiki entry on their film-school project it does indeed seem that they are, unsurprisingly, almost entirely wrong. And deceitful. And wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending scientology I'm saying that they aren't entirely wrong in that something is indeed wrong in the state of the modern mental health profession, namely a over-reliance on medication and out dated, dead end therapies like psycho-analysis.
 
"Depression" many times get diagnosed when the actual problem may be blood glucose levels fluctuating or being either too low or too high, mild to severe dehydration will appear as "depression" and so will lack of exercise and/or malnutrition. While true depression is bad, many times the medical guru's seem to look in the wrong places. My own "depression" proved to be the result of an auto-immune disease and associated problems such as diabetes. Undiagnosed for three decades despite a few hundred visits to various doctors and even hospitals for treatment.

Wheat, fine white flour........in my case, result in terrible "depression." Happy pills won't cure that!
 
Velenoso said:
Hahaha. Nice find. Ok I didn't know that. Even so, the article has very good points about the drugs etc backed up by real medical studies etc. I have not watched the video.

Anyway, off to breakfast. Have fun boys.
Click to expand...

The article, I would assume by the page's layout, is based on the video. Whether that means the author was had, or that he is merely a shill for Scientology, is to my mind neither here nor there.

As to the article having "very good points about the drugs etc backed up by real medical studies etc.", sure. One can find single studies to back up just about any wacky notion one might have. However, given the poor methodology oft followed in such studies - whether on purpose or not - it is dangerous to draw any conclusions from any single body of work. This is why it's the rational course of action to allow for the entire process of study and review to shape a coherent picture of a given phenomenon. That coherent picture simply doesn't agree with your personal view on the topic at hand.

Notwithstanding our butting heads the last few days, might I suggest you read some Ben Goldacre at some point? I haven't gotten 'round to Bad Pharma just yet, but Bad Science is a true eye-opener as to where we are in modern medicine... and quackery.
 
Nick333 said:
I'm not defending scientology I'm saying that they aren't entirely wrong in that something is indeed wrong in the state of the modern mental health profession, namely a over-reliance on medication and out dated, dead end therapies like psycho-analysis.
Click to expand...

It is the impression your post created, dude. And yes, there are major flaws in modern medicine, but rather get your info on what those flaws are from someone like I suggested to Velenoso above. I would have man-babies with that dude if it were possible - he is brilliant. An example (sensitive souls, do excuse the early reference to 'being skull-****ed by data cocks'):

[video=youtube;O1Q3jZw4FGs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Q3jZw4FGs[/video]
 
I'm late to this thread ... has it been mentioned that regular alcohol use can also make you feel depressed?
 
porchrat said:
Agreed. Not necessarily all but indeed there are cases in which drugs are effective.



I'd need some sort of study to back the claim of "most".



What methodology is flawed and how?



I would agree that if you accept medication as advised by your health care practitioner when you don't have even a vague understanding of what the medication does then you are acting out of trust in the knowledge and qualifications of the one prescribing the drugs.

They can, and have been, wrong. However they are far less likely to be wrong than say... the grounds keeper at your local high school.



What exactly is the nature of their ailment and how do you know what "a large portion of sufferers" accept and don't accept?



There is no cure for depression that I am aware of. I have also never met a psychiatrist that ever claimed that these drugs were anything but an attempt to bring neurochemical imbalances to some sort of equilibrium (note that doesn't mean normal).
Click to expand...

The flawed methodology being that pyschologists will prescribe antidepressants to anyone who comes to them as a patient. And that almost the only non-drug based treatment is some or other form of psycho-analysis.

The fact that Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is a proven effective approach to treating a wide range of mental disorders suggests that many mental disorders have their origin in faulty mental attitudes and beliefs.

Its no great leap of deductive reasoning to conclude that an industry based on medication and endless psycho-analysis would have a bias against a form of therapy that lessons the need for both.
Why is it that so many long time suffers of mental disorders have barely a passing knowledge of the existence of CBT?
 
HapticSimian said:
The article, I would assume by the page's layout, is based on the video. Whether that means the author was had, or that he is merely a shill for Scientology, is to my mind neither here nor there.

As to the article having "very good points about the drugs etc backed up by real medical studies etc.", sure. One can find single studies to back up just about any wacky notion one might have. However, given the poor methodology oft followed in such studies - whether on purpose or not - it is dangerous to draw any conclusions from any single body of work. This is why it's the rational course of action to allow for the entire process of study and review to shape a coherent picture of a given phenomenon. That coherent picture simply doesn't agree with your personal view on the topic at hand.

Notwithstanding our butting heads the last few days, might I suggest you read some Ben Goldacre at some point? I haven't gotten 'round to Bad Pharma just yet, but Bad Science is a true eye-opener as to where we are in modern medicine... and quackery.
Click to expand...

I was going to respond to your post, by suggesting Bad Science, and by the end, I saw you had beaten me to it. :D

I have Bad Pharma sitting here, not started it yet though.

Bad Science is absolutely indispensable, I think, to anyone who thinks that quoting a single scientific paper actually means anything worthwhile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X