Psychiatry and big pharma

Mahatma coat

Antidepressants [in these times mainly SSRI's] are
a) non-addictive
b) non-sedative

Seriously, you believe that the Happypills are non adictive??


show me some evidence not funded by vested interests.

King Mob

http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/pl-p/documents/drugsafetymessage/con019472.pdf

• There is no clear evidence that the SSRIs and related antidepressants have a
significant dependence liability or show development of a dependence syndrome
according to internationally accepted criteria (either DSM-IV or ICD-10).

Also

http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/3/291?ijkey=90a4588278fab55775170906899d49e398e7053e&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

And

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11142438?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/3/294?ijkey=59798e5de0f8b575ad4a49bdb8e5417ebc6c482a&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Seriously, you believe that the Happypills are non adictive??

Firstly by calling them "happypills" you clearly seem to have less that scientific understanding of what depression is.

show me some evidence not funded by vested interests.

Happily. Of course you're going to get funny about vested interested, so I'll give you an example. One of the potential causes of depression as we understand it is the brain's inability to generate the neurotransmitter Seretonin. Many SSRIs or Happy pills as you like to call them, generate Seretonin. Seretonin has many functions, but it seriously effects or moods. These "Happy Pills" or SSRIs stimulate the generation of Seretonin for a few months until the brain chemistry re stabilises.

Ah but you wanted a evidence not funded by vested interests. Well, I'll bet you'll be able to help me out, do you know any one perhaps who's every taken any E?

Well the major ingredient of those "happy pills" is MDMA, It stimulates the release and inhibits the reuptake of serotonin

That great feeling you get that night is the MDMA making your body release loads of Seretonin, more than any SSRI (or pharmacy happy pill as you so charmingly put it) That crappy feeling you get the next day is the side effect because after you've come down it actually inhibts the brain's ability to create Seretonin for a few days. So you feel a bit crappy, a bit muggy and a bit slow, like you've got very mild depression.

So how does it prove my point MC. Simple. For a generation people ran around taking massive doses of drugs that not just mimic SSRIs but then make you feel like you should take loads more to avoid feeling crapier. And the addictive part? Well are there tens of thousands of gurning E addicts still roaming around the UK and Ireland? No the huge majority just stopped taking the drugs, and settled down.

So the "happy pills" not addictive argument was brought to you by the Shamen and Brian Harvey.


However I will clarify, lots of people have lots of addictions, from World of Warcraft, to Mills and Boons, Alcohol, or internet porn. People can get psychological addictions to things most of us can't fathom.

Mahatma coat

King Mob wrote: »

http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/pl-p/documents/drugsafetymessage/con019472.pdf

seriously, yhis is your impartial evidence, the same government thats trying to convince us that cannibas is bad for you is telling us that pharmaceuticals are perfectly fine, dont see any vested interest there nosiree

Also

http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/3/291?ijkey=90a4588278fab55775170906899d49e398e7053e&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

This item requires a subscription to Journal of Psychopharmacology Online


And

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11142438?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/3/294?ijkey=59798e5de0f8b575ad4a49bdb8e5417ebc6c482a&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

This item requires a subscription to Journal of Psychopharmacology Online

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

seriously, yhis is your impartial evidence, the same government thats trying to convince us that cannibas is bad for you is telling us that pharmaceuticals are perfectly fine, dont see any vested interest there nosiree

Wait thats a UK gov document. The same UK gov that declassified cannabis. You're not making any sense mate.

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

seriously, yhis is your impartial evidence, the same government thats trying to convince us that cannibas is bad for you is telling us that pharmaceuticals are perfectly fine, dont see any vested interest there nosiree

So I'm gonna hazard a guess that any study that disagrees with your view has vested interest.

Did you even read it?

Cause if it was tainted by vested interest you should be able to point out where the science is wrong right?

So tell us can you explain why the CCHR passes you stringent definition of impartial?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

This item requires a subscription to Journal of Psychopharmacology Online

Works for me.
Unless someone bought me a subscription with me knowing.

Here's a choice quote:

With these considerations in mind, the presently used term
`withdrawal (or discontinuation) syndrome' is broad enough to
describe the clinically evident effects of the perturbation of the
normal equilibrium produced by the drug. If the term is
understood in this fashion, confusion between withdrawal
syndrome and the other aspects of chronic drug-taking should
be minimized. The old term serves well so long as its meaning
is clearly understood.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

And


This item requires a subscription to Journal of Psychopharmacology Online

Whoops seem to have posted the same study twice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11142438?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus
This one however:

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that when antidepressants are switched, discontinuation symptoms from the first antidepressant may be misdiagnosed as adverse effects of the second antidepressant. METHOD: Single case report. RESULTS: A female patient was switched from paroxetine to dothiepin due to lack of efficacy. Over the next week she developed physical symptoms which she and her doctor regarded as side effects of dothiepin. It was decided to change the dothiepin and a second opinion was obtained regarding a suitable alternative. At that point it was realized that her symptoms represented a paroxetine discontinuation syndrome. The patient was reassured and continued dothiepin. The discontinuation symptoms resolved over the next 3 weeks and her depression subsequently remitted. CONCLUSION: Increased professional awareness of discontinuation symptoms is necessary to prevent misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment.

So should I even bother asking for a study showing the addictive nature of antidepressants?

Mahatma coat

King Mob wrote: »

So tell us can you explain why the CCHR passes you stringent definition of impartial?

I never said it did

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I never said it did

Didn't stop you from quoting them:

Mahatma coat wrote: »

http://www.adhdtesting.org/No scientific validation other than this DSM-IV list is ever presented. It is critical to restate the fact that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) voted ADD in as a “mental disorder” by a show of hands (majority vote) in 1980 at their committee meeting, without scientific evidence present. It was placed in the DSM-III (third edition). In 1987, ADHD was voted in by a similar show of hands (majority vote) as well and placed into the DSM-IV (fourth edition). Both committee meetings failed to produce and or demonstrate scientific evidence to support these disorders as brain malfunctions, diseases, chemical imbalances, neuro-biological conditions, illnesses; all of which are popular terms coined and marketed today.

Isn't it funny that only claims you ask to be backed up are the ones you disagree with?

So actually read any of the paper you dismissed as having vested interests?

Mahatma coat

King Mob wrote: »

Didn't stop you from quoting them:



Isn't it funny that only claims you ask to be backed up are the ones you disagree with?

So actually read any of the paper you dismissed as having vested interests?

Snap

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Snap

I'm not sure if you have noticed but your side is a little light on the scientific papers.

I don't trust opinion pieces and youtube videos from the CCHR because they are a front group for Scientology.
And as Diogenes said, Scientologists have massive opposition to legitimate psychiatric practices, and offer highly expensive alternative treatments of a dubious quality.

If they actually produced some peer reviewed papers maybe I'd take their claims more seriously. But for some reason I doubt that such papers are forthcoming, I think they're going to stick to misinformation.

So read the papers I linked?
And any luck finding any evidence showing antidepressants to be addictive?

Mahatma coat

I'm not interested in discussing yours or anyone elses opinion on scientology in this thread.

I'm interested in discussing this

OP wrote:

Psychiatry and big pharma
There seems to be a trend in that more and more people are diagnosed with some sort of mental illness and they then get put on meds to "treat" this illness.

It is also no secret that psychiatrists have received kickbacks from big pharma to get people on psychiatric drugs.

The reason I post it in this forum is that in all other forums they would call me a conspiracy theorist and say I'm not qualified to make any statements since I have no education in psychology.

It is no secret that big pharma profits from more and more people being diagnosed as mentally ill so why do people look at me weird when I say psychatry is not about treating people, it is about social control and profits for big pharma?

Black Uhlan

I've witnessed first hand the devestating affects that antidepressant addiction can cause, so from my experience for anyone to say otherwise is just plain wrong

Dr David Healy, a UK expert in antidepressants, has said he has seen records of trials carried out by the manufacturers which showed healthy volunteers were suffering withdrawal symptoms after taking the drug for just a couple of weeks.

He said more than half of people on Seroxat may have "significant" withdrawal problems.



He said: "For most people who take the drug, one of the key points that will concern people is that Seroxat (paroxetine) could make you physically dependent."

Dr David Healy


Dr Healy, director of the North Wales department of psychological medicine was given access to the results of early trials of the drugs while a witness in a US case.

- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1382551.stm

Any industry that has the Rockefeller Foundation supporting it is not to be trusted.

Steps toward Global Mind Control under the banner of "Mental Health" and Education
http://www.crossroad.to/Excerpts/chronologies/mind-control.htm

humanji

"could" is the operative word in the highlighted text. If they were out to get you then there would be no "could" about it. It simply "would" make you physically dependent.

Black Uhlan

humanji wrote: »

"could" is the operative word in the highlighted text. If they were out to get you then there would be no "could" about it. It simply "would" make you physically dependent.

Your just saying what I said but putting a spin on it. I wasn't making claims in absolutes, the people who denying the addictiveness of antidepressants were. And as I have said I have witnessed first hand that they are physically addictive, and there are experts who agree.

Smoking "could" be addictive.
Smoking "could" cause cancer.
Smoking Crack "could" be addictive.
Pointing a loaded shotgun at your face and pulling the trigger "could" kill you.
Jumping out a five story building "could" kill you

humanji

But the main CT argument is that all are addictive and are there to alter the minds of people so they can be taken advantage of.

All we have is the fact that some people suffer adverse effects from prescribed medication and some assume this means Psychiatry and big pharma are in cahoots to brainwash the masses. It's a hell of an assumption.

tim0ney

SSRI's, your Prozacs, your paroxetine [as quoted above] all work on Serotonin in your brain, increasing it's levels. This helps to elevate mood and make you feel better. Thus the terms anti-depressants.

Addiction is a different process entirely, and is mediated through totally different brain circuits, and even neurotransmitters. Addiction is mediated through Dopamine primarily, and noradrenaline to a lesser extent. Serotonin, the neurotransmitter affected by anti-depressants, is not involved. That is beyond question, but see here if you don't believe me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#Neurobiological_basis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reward_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesolimbic_pathway


Antidepressants are habituating, in that they can change the receptor make-up in your brain so that if you stop suddenly, there can be bad side-effects [eg worsening of depression etc]. Doctors and other health professionals know that people should only be weaned off these drugs gradually, to prevent this happening. That is totally separate and nothing whatsoever to do with addiction.

Another decent example of a drug that would be habituating is good old Paracetamol. If you take paracetamol every day for a month or longer, and then stop suddenly, chances are that you will get a headache. This is to do with the pain receptors in your head getting used to having the Paracetamol around. It is nothing to do with addiction.

You don't hear people on the street going "Oh I'm gasping for a Prozac [or paracetamol]."

tim0ney

"For most people who take the drug, one of the key points that will concern people is that Seroxat (paroxetine) could make you physically dependent."

This statement means nothing, and contributed nothing to your argument. It doesn't say that Seroxat makes you physically dependent. It says that people would be concerned that it could. The doctor isn't saying the HE is concerned.

Which is a different kettle of fish entirely. It would be up to the Doctor and/or pharmacist involved with the patient to assure them that the drug is non-addictive, but that if they want to stop taking it, the drug dose has to be tapered down incrementally. So I don't really get the point of including that text in your post.

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'm not interested in discussing yours or anyone elses opinion on scientology in this thread.

I'm interested in discussing this

And one of your sources you used to back up your point was a Scientology front.

You have no problem questioning the reliability and impartiality of actual sources like scientific papers, but when we question the reliability and impartiality of your sources somehow it's off topic?

And the topic of Scientology didn't take up all of my post either.
I posted papers showing how antidepressants aren't addictive, but you don't seem to want to discuss them either.

So are we actually going to see actual studies showing antidepressants are addictive or are we going to stick to out of context quotes?

Mahatma coat

if you have a problem with the points raised in the article than by all means discuss the point raised in the article, isnt that the point of what we are trying to do here.

Mahatma coat

serioulsy, Depression isnt a real disease, they convince people that they need the pills, and lo and behold if you stop takin them you get all depressed again.

thats the scam.

I doubt you will ever find a study that conclusivley says one way of the other that the pills are adddictive/nonaddictive, so we're all interpreting the same data based on our respective POV's

tim0ney

Jesus. Addiction is a clearly-defined mental process. The neurological basis of addiction is much-studied and well understood. There have been countless experiments done to show this [usually in animals, where a drug is made available to them, and the rate of self-administration is recorded. If there is a high rate of repeated self-administration, then it can be said that a drug is addictive]. See here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6487896

Addictive drugs are those that act on the reward pathway in the brain. The most common addictive drugs are:
-opiates [heroin, morphine etc]
-cocaine
-nicotine
-stimulants [amphetamines and related compounds]

If a drug does not have an effect on the dopaminergic reward pathway in the brain, it cannot have an addictive effect. Anti-depressants are an example of a family of drugs that do not work in this way.

I think you are confusing addiction with habituation, which will happen with almost any drug. For example, if you are on the beer constantly, you may need to drink more than you otherwise would to get to the same level of drunk. That is why people refer to their "tolerance" levels for alcohol.

So it is not people having different interpretations of the same facts. It is merely people ignoring the scientific basis of addiction. I'm beginning to feel like a broken record here.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

serioulsy, Depression isnt a real disease, they convince people that they need the pills, and lo and behold if you stop takin them you get all depressed again.

Any evidence to support this?

thats the scam.

I doubt you will ever find a study that conclusivley says one way of the other that the pills are adddictive/nonaddictive, so we're all interpreting the same data based on our respective POV's

Whats your definition of "conclusive"?

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

if you have a problem with the points raised in the article than by all means discuss the point raised in the article, isnt that the point of what we are trying to do here.

Like how it had nothing to support it's claim?
And that all the information therein was subjective and therefore suspect because they are a front for Scientology?

You going to raise any points in the papers I posted?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

serioulsy, Depression isnt a real disease, they convince people that they need the pills, and lo and behold if you stop takin them you get all depressed again.

thats the scam.

And what information are you basing this on exactly?
Personal opinion?
What the internet tells you?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I doubt you will ever find a study that conclusivley says one way of the other that the pills are adddictive/nonaddictive, so we're all interpreting the same data based on our respective POV's

No we've found studies that conclusivly show that they aren't addictive.
You have shown no scientific evidence to support the idea that they are.

And given that you're ignoring Tim0ney's detailed posts on how antidepressants and addiction actually work, I seriously doubt we're interpreting the same data.

Mahatma coat

If a drug does not have an effect on the dopaminergic reward pathway in the brain, it cannot have an addictive effect. Anti-depressants are an example of a family of drugs that do not work in this way.

I think you are confusing addiction with habituation, which will happen with almost any drug. For example, if you are on the beer constantly, you may need to drink more than you otherwise would to get to the same level of drunk. That is why people refer to their "tolerance" levels for alcohol.

so now we're saying that Alcohol is not addictive

So alcoholism is not a disease?

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so now we're saying that Alcohol is not addictive

So alcoholism is not a disease?

Hang on a tick.

Didn't you declare a whole range of diseases not to exist?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62411650&postcount=2

So how come you think these diseases are fake but alcoholism isn't?

And how come then there isn't a drug form the evil pharmaceutical companies to treat alcoholism?

Mahatma coat

yeah I did, I'm askin for clarification on another posters position.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

serioulsy, Depression isnt a real disease, they convince people that they need the pills, and lo and behold if you stop takin them you get all depressed again.

thats the scam.

My wife suffers from a genetic disorder which results in a hormone imbalance. She used to suffer numerous symptoms from this.

She was "convinced" that she needs to take hormones to control this. She started taking the hormones, and the symptoms went away.

If she stops taking her hormones (as she has had to, for reasons, on occasion) the symptoms come back.

By your reasoning, it would appear that she's the victim of a scam. By medical reasoning, she is managing an incurable condition.

Mahatma coat

so was she actually diagnosed with a 'psychiatric condition'?
or just hormonal imbalance,like some sort of menopause related 'condition'?
its not really clear from your post, genetic disorder is anotherthing I'd be suspect about as a diagnosis.

tim0ney

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so now we're saying that Alcohol is not addictive

So alcoholism is not a disease?

Alcoholism is an illness. It works on the same reward pathway [the thinking behind this pathway is that the drugtaker experiences a boost of dopamine when they take an addictive drug, which helps to keep them hooked].

However alcohol is also an example of a drug which is habituating. Way to take my example out of context. I was using the example of alcohol as a habituating drug to make my post clearer and not difficult to understand. Yet you still managed to come away with the wrong gist.

So then MH instead of reading and accepting my posts, you read through them and try to find little holes in my argument? Pathetic little holes? That don't exist [because my argument is based on sound science]? And I thought there for a second that I sounded like I knew what I was talking about:(

tim0ney

Mahatma coat wrote: »

its not really clear from your post, genetic disorder is anotherthing I'd be suspect about as a diagnosis.

Sorry there Doctor Mahatma. Yeah those gene things are all just pie in the sky, really.:mad:

bonkey

tim0ney wrote: »

Sorry there Doctor Mahatma. :mad:

Don't get personal.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so was she actually diagnosed with a 'psychiatric condition'?
or just hormonal imbalance,like some sort of menopause related 'condition'?
its not really clear from your post, genetic disorder is anotherthing I'd be suspect about as a diagnosis.

Leaving aside your suspicions regarding genetic testing, why would it matter whehter or not my wife's diagnosis was psychiatric or not?

It seems that it would only make a difference if your'e saying that its legitimate for some fields of medicine to diagnose conditions that can be managed through medication, but for others its a hoax.

I'm going to assume that you accept the notion that it is at least possible for medication to have an effect. (I can argue that point if you need me to...but I don't think its an unreasonable assumption).

Here, you've described a situation where medication has an effect (causes symptoms to go away), and where the cessation of taking that medication causes a cessation of effect (i.e. the return of symptoms).

Somehow you seem to see this as evidence of the effect being a hoax.

If you could show that a placebo effect was just as effective, then you'd have grounds for claiming a hoax, but other than that you seem to be arguing that because the medication does exactly what it claims to do, its somehow showing itself to be a hoax.

You're thirsty. You have a drink. Your thirst is typically lessened. If you keep drinking at regular intervals, you can manage your thirst. If you stop drinking regularly, your thirst will get worse. From this, I can conclude that drinking effectively manages thirst. It doesn't "cure" thirst, it manages it. Your argument seems to be that somehow, this actually shows that there's a hoax going on...

My wife's body lacks sufficient quantities of a hormone. Her body is, in effect, thirsty for this hormone, which results in symptoms manifesting themselves. By taking medication, she manages that thirst, and the symptoms go away. If she stops taking the medication, that thirst the symptoms - returns. As thirst, the medication doesn't cure her condition, nor does it claim to. It manages it.

Medication for psychiatric conditions seems to fall into the same category to me. It doesn't claim to cure something, it claims to manage the symptoms. The situation you conclude shows it to be a hoax is no different from the two I've just given. So where is the hoax?

Is there something that makes a difference? Is there some reason that managing symptoms is valid elsewhere, but not valid in terms of psychiatry?

Diogenes

I hear diabetes is a hoax cooked up by the "Big Insulin" Complex.

tim0ney

Diogenes wrote: »

I hear diabetes is a hoax cooked up by the "Big Insulin" Complex.

That's a bit paranoid, don't you think?

Oh wait, paranioa doesn't exist. Sorry, my bad.

Occam

Mahatma coat wrote: »

serioulsy, Depression isnt a real disease

Perhaps you are playing on words here....

If you take ( for example ) wikipedias definition of disease : "disease is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, and/or death to the person afflicted, " then surely you would agree that depression is a disease?

Are you claiming that people with depression aren't in actually in distress? While we can debate the underlying cause, your current position seems absurd.

Even the Scientologists accept the existance of depression, and offer to "treat" the condition.

Mahatma coat

Diogenes wrote: »

I hear diabetes is a hoax cooked up by the "Big Insulin" Complex.

believe it or not you aint that far from the truth:eek:

Type2 Diabetes is new to medicine,

I have heard reports that the company that makes Ho Ho's also makes Insulin

Mahatma coat

bonkey wrote: »

Leaving aside your suspicions regarding genetic testing, why would it matter whehter or not my wife's diagnosis was psychiatric or not?

It seems that it would only make a difference if your'e saying that its legitimate for some fields of medicine to diagnose conditions that can be managed through medication, but for others its a hoax.

I'm going to assume that you accept the notion that it is at least possible for medication to have an effect. (I can argue that point if you need me to...but I don't think its an unreasonable assumption).

Here, you've described a situation where medication has an effect (causes symptoms to go away), and where the cessation of taking that medication causes a cessation of effect (i.e. the return of symptoms).

Somehow you seem to see this as evidence of the effect being a hoax.

If you could show that a placebo effect was just as effective, then you'd have grounds for claiming a hoax, but other than that you seem to be arguing that because the medication does exactly what it claims to do, its somehow showing itself to be a hoax.

You're thirsty. You have a drink. Your thirst is typically lessened. If you keep drinking at regular intervals, you can manage your thirst. If you stop drinking regularly, your thirst will get worse. From this, I can conclude that drinking effectively manages thirst. It doesn't "cure" thirst, it manages it. Your argument seems to be that somehow, this actually shows that there's a hoax going on...

My wife's body lacks sufficient quantities of a hormone. Her body is, in effect, thirsty for this hormone, which results in symptoms manifesting themselves. By taking medication, she manages that thirst, and the symptoms go away. If she stops taking the medication, that thirst the symptoms - returns. As thirst, the medication doesn't cure her condition, nor does it claim to. It manages it.

Medication for psychiatric conditions seems to fall into the same category to me. It doesn't claim to cure something, it claims to manage the symptoms. The situation you conclude shows it to be a hoax is no different from the two I've just given. So where is the hoax?

Is there something that makes a difference? Is there some reason that managing symptoms is valid elsewhere, but not valid in terms of psychiatry?

Yeah I agre that we shouldnt discuss Genetic testing in this thread, thats borderin on the Eugenics argument.


IMO it matters a lot whether the diagnosis was Psychiatric or not, psychiatry seems to just make thing up to fit their drugs.

its the managing of teh symptoms part that I find suspect about it.

I was lethargic and 'ClinicalyDepressed' once

I've beento a psychiatrist and I found thata lot oftheir questions were subjective and leading to push me down the route of a diagnosis which required medication, turns out all I needed was a bit of rest and a change in diet.

I refused to take the pills, I asked the doctor how long the prescription was for and he said it could be something I take every day of my life from then on out.

No thanks.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Yeah I agre that we shouldnt discuss Genetic testing in this thread, thats borderin on the Eugenics argument.

Mahatma no one is talking about genetic testing. At all. You're agreeing with yourself.

IMO it matters a lot whether the diagnosis was Psychiatric or not, psychiatry seems to just make thing up to fit their drugs.

its the managing of teh symptoms part that I find suspect about it.

I was lethargic and 'ClinicalyDepressed' once

I've beento a psychiatrist and I found thata lot oftheir questions were subjective and leading to push me down the route of a diagnosis which required medication, turns out all I needed was a bit of rest and a change in diet.

I refused to take the pills, I asked the doctor how long the prescription was for and he said it could be something I take every day of my life from then on out.

No thanks.

Thats your own subjective experience colouring your opinion.

For example alongside medication anyone being prescribed anti depressants should be told to get plenty of exercise, rest, and have a healthy balanced diet. They should also be seeing a professional therapist, or psychiatrist, alongside their medication.

I notice he said "could be taking for the rest of your life" Many if not most people prescribed anti depressants only do so for a very short time. There are extreme cases that mean some people will be taking them for the rest of their life.

A friend of mine suffers from a kind of Clinical Depression, she's Bi Polar.

She was perfectly fine until her mid twenties until she began behaving erratically, to the point that she became a danger to herself and others. She went on long term medication, and for a number of years suffered a great deal, like many people with serious psychiatry problems she didn't feel "herself" on her medication. She went through bouts of going off her medication, and again would be fine for a while, but would go off the rails eventually and dangerously so. Because medication of such a serious psychiatry problem is incredibly difficult and really needs to be almost personally tailored, it took her years to find the right balance of medication, and also to bring herself to the right frame of mind, to except this is part of who she is, and now leads a normal healthy life.

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

A friend of mine suffers from a kind of Clinical Depression, she's Bi Polar.

One friend of yours? Do many of your friends suffer from this?

6th

Kernel wrote: »

One friend of yours? Do many of your friends suffer from this?

24hr ban for that personal dig.

Undergod

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I was lethargic and 'ClinicalyDepressed' once

I've beento a psychiatrist and I found thata lot oftheir questions were subjective and leading to push me down the route of a diagnosis which required medication, turns out all I needed was a bit of rest and a change in diet.

I don't doubt that drug companies influence how psychiatrists diagnose illnesses, but what you say here doesn't lead to the conclusion "depression isn't a real disease". I think it just shows there are other ways of managing or dealing with this disease- as in many, many other diseases. Perhaps psychiatrists are too keen to prescribe medication for certain diseases, but the diesases still exist.

espinolman

tim0ney wrote: »

Espinolman, perhaps is this as an example of something that is off-topic???
So you obviously believe in the existence of a 'spirit'. I personally don't, but would still feel remorse if I had done something bad or wrong. Not bad for just a piece of meat, eh? To be honest I'm actually struggling to get to grips with this argument purely because of how little sense it makes.

The argument there is that we are spiritual beings , what that means is that the mind is not a part of the body , it is not an organ in the body , the mind would be that which thinks , but people can leave their body and still think , so what are psychiatrists "treating" !

thecommander

espinolman wrote: »

...but people can leave their body and still think , so what are psychiatrists "treating" !

How does the mind leave the body?

Captain Furball

thecommander wrote: »

How does the mind leave the body?

Science cannot answer that at the moment.

thecommander

Captain Furball wrote: »

Science cannot answer that at the moment.

Thats not an answer.

tim0ney

espinolman wrote: »

The argument there is that we are spiritual beings

I am not a spiritual being. I am a sentient being.

espinolman wrote: »

the mind is not a part of the body , it is not an organ in the body

This is the philosophy of dualism. Which has been widely discredited since the 1940's. By the guy who coined the phrase "the ghost in the machine".
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ryle/

espinolman wrote: »

but people can leave their body and still think

Are you talking about the episode of Friends where Ross is talking about how you can download your thoughts into a computer, and live forever as a machine?

espinolman wrote: »

so what are psychiatrists "treating" !

Believe it or not, psychiatrists DO "treat" people, and have helped many in dealing with their mental issues. For example, I refer you to the success that is Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy.:)
http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=About_Treatments_and_Supports&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=7952

Diogenes

Captain Furball wrote: »

Science cannot answer that at the moment.

Pfft what has science given us! I mean it's not like science lets you communicated with people around the world instantaneously.

While I am not immune to the fact that religion and spirituality plays a part, but i'd rather have a doctor than a shamen.

Mahatma coat

thecommander wrote: »

How does the mind leave the body?

Lysergic acid diethylamide

espinolman

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Lysergic acid diethylamide

Drugs are not necessary to get out of your head , it can be done with a roller-ride that one would be nervous of , thats one way that works . There is a lot of ways of doing it without drugs .

Mahatma coat

Yes Yes I am aware of that, well sort of, but I dont quite grasp the 'Roller Ride' reference, but yeah I get that there are ways and means to have spiritul exeriences.

But

This thread is about Psychology and Pharmaceuticals, hence the LSD Reference