Psychiatry and big pharma

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

That kind of implies that you don't have the proof now and didn't have it when you made all those claims.

If that's the case what where you basing the claims on in the first place?

Please read below, an application may be made by anybody over 18 really. Where does it say a G.P. may not submit an application?, it doesn't.
So please show me where you proved to the contrary......

"You have nothing to support your claims and we've shown evidence contrary to your claims.....by king mob"

You've shown nothing, I have the proof here, read it and show me how and why a G.P. CANNOT commit a person like you falsely claim.


http://www.mhcirl.ie/documents/information/Mental%20Health%20Act%202001.pdf

9.—(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (6) and section 12, where it
is proposed to have a person (other than a child) involuntarily admitted
to an approved centre, an application for a recommendation that
the person be so admitted may be made to a registered medical practitioner
by any of the following:
(a) the spouse or a relative of the person,
(b) an authorised officer,( In this section—
‘‘authorised officer’’ means an officer of a health board who is of a
prescribed rank or grade and who is authorised by the chief executive
officer to exercise the powers conferred on authorised officers by

this section;)

(c) a member of the Garda Sı´ocha´ na, or
(d) subject to the provisions of subsection (2), any other person.
11

Pt.1 S.5

Repeals.
Expenses.
Criteria for
involuntary
admission to
approved centres.
Persons who may
apply for
involuntary
admission.

/FONT][I][FONT=TimesTen-Italic]No. [/I][/FONT][B][FONT=TimesTen-Bold]25.[/B][/FONT][FONT=TimesTen-Roman Mental Health Act, 2001. [2001.]

Pt.2 S.9

Making of
recommendation for
involuntary
admission.

12
(2) The following persons shall be disqualified for making an application
in respect of a person—
(a) a person under the age of 18 years,
(b) an authorised officer or a member of the Garda Sı´ocha´na
who is a relative of the person or of the spouse of the
person,
(c) a member of the governing body, or the staff, or the person
in charge, of the approved centre concerned,
(d) any person with an interest in the payments (if any) to be
made in respect of the taking care of the person concerned
in the approved centre concerned,
(e) any registered medical practitioner who provides a regular
medical service at the approved centre concerned,
(f) the spouse, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt
of any of the persons mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs
(b) to (e), whether of the whole blood, of the half
blood or by affinity.
(3) An application shall be made in a form specified by the
Commission.
(4) A person shall not make an application unless he or she has
observed the person the subject of the application not more than 48
hours before the date of the making of the application.
(5) Where an application is made under subsection (1)(d), the
application shall contain a statement of the reasons why it is so made,
of the connection of the applicant with the person to whom the application
relates, and of the circumstances in which the application is
made.
(6) A person who, for the purposes of or in relation to an application,
makes any statement which is to his or her knowledge false
or misleading in any material particular, shall be guilty of an offence.
(7) In paragraph (c) of subsection (2), the reference to a member
of the governing body of the approved centre concerned does not
include a reference to a member of a health board.
(8) In this section—
‘‘authorised officer’’ means an officer of a health board who is of a
prescribed rank or grade and who is authorised by the chief executive
officer to exercise the powers conferred on authorised officers by

this section;

King Mob

uprising wrote: »

Please read below, an application may be made by anybody over 18 really. Where does it say a G.P. may not submit an application?, it doesn't.
So please show me where you proved to the contrary......

"You have nothing to support your claims and we've shown evidence contrary to your claims.....by king mob"

You've shown nothing, I have the proof here, read it and show me how and why a G.P. CANNOT commit a person like you falsely claim.

It's been explained to you before you just didn't bother reading.

That specifically states that a request must be made to the GP by someone else (as in a different person) authorised to make such a request.

—(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (6) and section 12, where it
is proposed to have a person (other than a child) involuntarily admitted
to an approved centre, an application for a recommendation that
the person be so admitted may be made to a registered medical practitioner(Being in this example the GP)
by any of the following:
(a) the spouse or a relative of the person,
(b) an authorised officer,( In this section—
‘‘authorised officer’’ means an officer of a health board who is of a
prescribed rank or grade and who is authorised by the chief executive
officer to exercise the powers conferred on authorised officers by this section (as in someone else similarly authorised, but not the same person giving the recommendation)

So if we are to follow your logic, then the GP must request a recommendation from himself?

Don't you think someone might find this a little suspicious?

And even then this is a just recommendation nothing else, it still has to be evaluated by the staff at the mental hospital and, if applicable, the Gardai.

The process has been clearly spelt out for you and you have been show that what you claim can't happen.
Now you're just twisting words and logic to try and support a position you've never had support for.

uprising

Ohh God........

—(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (6) and section 12, where it
is proposed to have a person (other than a child) involuntarily admitted
to an approved centre, an application for a recommendation that
the person be so admitted may be made to a registered medical practitioner(Being in this example the GP)

Says who? You?, no it doesn't in this case be the G.P.........a G.P. may reccomend to a medical practitioner, it may be a G.P. in the next room Dr Blogs, either way a GP HAS the power to involuntarily admit, which you are having trouble understanding and contradicting yourself.


(b) an authorised officer,( In this section—
‘‘authorised officer’’ means an officer of a health board who is of a
prescribed rank or grade and who is authorised by the chief executive
officer to exercise the powers conferred on authorised officers by this section (as in someone else similarly authorised, but not the same person giving the recommendation)


Listen, I'll say this once more, a G.P. is an authorised officer, he can recommend a person be involuntarily admitted, he recommend's this to a medical practitioner, who would most likely be a psychiatrist/psychologist or even another GP, so again I have proved you don't know what you are talking about, I have proved a GP has the power and authority to have a person involuntarily admitted.

What part do you not get?, all of it?:pac::pac:

King Mob

uprising wrote: »

Ohh God........
Says who? You?, no it doesn't in this case be the G.P.........a G.P. may reccomend to a medical practitioner, it may be a G.P. in the next room Dr Blogs, either way a GP HAS the power to involuntarily admit, which you are having trouble understanding and contradicting yourself.

So you mean that the GP in question has to get someone else either to request the recommendation or to give it?

As in it needs two people?
Not just the GP by himself?

uprising wrote: »

Listen, I'll say this once more, a G.P. is an authorised officer, he can recommend a person be involuntarily admitted, he recommend's this to a medical practitioner, who would most likely be a psychiatrist/psychologist or even another GP, so again I have proved you don't know what you are talking about, I have proved a GP has the power and authority to have a person involuntarily admitted.

No, you seem to be completely misreading this.

An authorised person must request a recommendation from a doctor for the patient to be involuntarily committed.

You've admitted yourself that the GP can't do it by himself.
He needs someone who has the authority to make a request for his recommendation.

And then this recommendation must be reviewed by the mental hospital and the gardai.
And it can surely be disputed by the patients family.

And even then this leaves anyone who signed off on anything in this process open to legal action.

So again the only way what you claim can happen is if the GP, the mental hospital, your family and the gardai are all out to get you.

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

So you mean that the GP in question has to get someone else either to request the recommendation or to give it?

As in it needs two people?
Not just the GP by himself?


No, you seem to be completely misreading this.

An authorised person must request a recommendation from a doctor for the patient to be involuntarily committed.

You've admitted yourself that the GP can't do it by himself.
He needs someone who has the authority to make a request for his recommendation.

And then this recommendation must be reviewed by the mental hospital and the gardai.
And it can surely be disputed by the patients family.

And even then this leaves anyone who signed off on anything in this process open to legal action.

So again the only way what you claim can happen is if the GP, the mental hospital, your family and the gardai are all out to get you.

Listen if a GP recommends you go in the padded cell, then in the padded cell you go, end of story, thats what your saying can't happen, I never said the GP and GP alone will put you in, you said a GP can't have you committed, I said he can, I was right, you were wrong again :pac::pac::pac::pac:

King Mob

uprising wrote: »

Listen if a GP recommends you go in the padded cell, then in the padded cell you go, end of story,

No he can only provide a recommendation as long as one is requested by a family member or other authorised person.
The decision is ultimately up to the staff at the mental hospital.

uprising wrote: »

thats what your saying can't happen,

No it's not. I've been very clear about what I'm saying, and have said several time.

uprising wrote: »

I never said the GP and GP alone will put you in, you said a GP can't have you committed, I said he can, I was right, you were wrong again :pac::pac::pac::pac:

That's not entirely true.
Eariler you said that the GP can be the applicant for the recommendation.

uprising wrote: »

Get this into your head, ....Involuntary commitment

If a G.P. feel's a person should be committed to a mental institution, he can have that person committed, he can call the police, the police will restrain him, an ambulance would take him to hospital in restraints, he would be sedated and locked in a secure unit, padded cell.

The patient, who is the doctor's prime concern, must not be committed unless there is real need and sufficient clinical indication.

This means the person's the most important factor to the doctor, the person may not harm the person.

Garda Powers

1. If a person is a danger to himself or to others the Gardai have powrs to restrain him and detain him.
2. On request by the applicant, with an additional certificate from the doctor, the Gardai may escort a P.U.M.

The G.P. can be the applicant,

Smacks of moving the goalposts now.

uprising

Answer me one question king mob....

Can a G.P. have a person committed to a mental institution, YES OR NO?

And I don't move goalpost's you just play football with a snooker que.:pac::pac::pac:

King Mob

uprising wrote: »

Answer me one question king mob....

Can a G.P. have a person committed to a mental institution, YES OR NO?

No, a GP can provide a recommendation that a patient should be involuntarily if a family member or other authorised person requests it.
The recommendation is subject to review by the Gardai and a psychiatrist at the mental hospital.
This is what the law says.

It can't just be simplified like you think it can.

uprising wrote: »

And I don't move goalpost's you just play football with a snooker que.:pac::pac::pac:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost

First you claim that a GP alone can have you committed by acting as the applicant for the recommendation.
Then you said that you never claimed this.

I'd call that moving the goalposts.

the evidence is clear on this and was provided to you ages ago.
Now you're just trying to twist both the evidence and what you originally claimed so you don't have to admit you're wrong.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/health/mental-health/admission_to_a_psychiatric_hospital

Seriously read that.

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/health/mental-health/admission_to_a_psychiatric_hospital

Seriously read that.

I did......
Application for involuntary admission


An application for the involuntary admission of an adult may be made to a registered medical practitioner by a spouse or relative, an authorised officer, a Garda or any other person.

Does any other person not include a General Practitioner?:pac

Actually I could make an application for your involuntary admission, it may not have the same clout as a GP doing it, but if the registered practitioner agreed with me, maybe I'd get to bed earlier.

But the bottom line is a GP can have you admitted, if he feels you warrant it for your own well being, they don't just throw anybody in, but if a person is mentally fukked up enough, any GP can and will have them admitted.

Go to your GP and tell him you need a pill to stop you fantasizing about eating your family and see where you end up:pac:

King Mob

uprising wrote: »

I did......
Application for involuntary admission


An application for the involuntary admission of an adult may be made to a registered medical practitioner by a spouse or relative, an authorised officer, a Garda or any other person.

Does any other person not include a General Practitioner?????:pac::pac::pac:

Yes "any other person" can be a GP.
But that GP must make the application to another medical practitioner, not to himself.

And that's only if the GP has the authority to make such a application.


And then the GP has no power to enforce his recommendation.

Removal to an approved centre


In general, it is the applicant who is responsible for taking the person to the centre. If this is not possible, then the doctor who made the recommendation may ask the clinical director of the centre or a consultant psychologist acting on his/her behalf to arrange for the person to be brought to the centre by the staff. If necessary, the Gardai may be asked to help. In this situation, the Gardai have the power to enter premises by force and may detain or restrain the patient if necessary.

And then you are assessed by the mental hospital.

When you are received at an approved psychiatric centre, you must be examined by a consultant psychiatrist on the staff. You may be detained for a maximum of 24 hours in the centre for the purpose of carrying out this examination. If the psychiatrist is satisfied that you are suffering from a mental disorder, he/she then makes an involuntary admission order. If the psychiatrist is not satisfied that you are suffering from a mental disorder, you must be released immediately. The admission order is valid for 21 days. It authorises your reception, detention and treatment in the centre for this period.

So as you can plainly see a GP can't just throw into into a padded cell on a whim and he certainly can't do it alone and he definitely can't do it without good reason.

6th

uprising wrote: »

Sounds like a rich girl had a hissy fit and craved attention, maybe it was sparked by her not getting a LV bag, or her sweet 16 carpet was the wrong shade of red, maybe she was just a spoilt brat from a child and never grew up.

If I ever see another post like that you're getting a nice long ban.

Now, can people please discuss the topic as it should be in a CT Forum.

MeatProduct

Martyr wrote: »

the point i was making MC is that there is not scientific evidence to prove God exists

That's debatable. In a great many biological and living systems from the atom to planetary orbits there exists one constant ratio, that being phi or 1.618.... I tend to take the view that there is an optimal way of doing things in the physical universe but others view this as the finger of god. It's measurable and repeatable.

Nick

6th

Uprising, that post was an eyesore. I wont waste my time editing in future ... I'll just delete them.

drkpower

Wow; pages and pages on something that is incredibly straightforward...... I work in the area so I hope the following is of some clarification.

1. Pretty much anyone can make the Application.
2. A medical practitioner can make the Recommendation. He cannot be the person who made the Application (see s. 10(3)). He could, of course, be another GP though.

S. 10 (3) A registered medical practitioner shall, for the purposes of this section, be disqualified for making a recommendation in relation to a person the subject of an application
(d) if he or she is the applicant.

3. The Applicant arranges for the patient to be brought to the Approved Centre. If the Applicant cannot, at the request of the GP, the Clinical Director of the Approved Centre must arrange for the transfer (either using his staff or the Gardai where the patient is a danger to themselves etc...). So the GP who makes the Reccomendation (while possibly involved) does not transfer or is not the driving force in transferring the patient. (see section 12).

4. Once in the Approved centre, the staff may "take charge" of the patient (which can include administering medication if clinically indicated). Within 24 hours of the patient''s arrival a consultant psychiatrist must examine the patient and (if satisfied he suffers from mental disorder) can make an Admission Order. The consultant psychiatrist cannot be the Applicant nor can he make the Reccomendation (see section 14 and 10)

5. If the patient indicates that he wishes to be admittted as a voluntary patient, he can do so (and the Admission Order is vacated) (see S. 16(2)(g)).

6. Once the patient is admitted, the Approved Centre must inform the Mental Health Commission and the MHC:

(a) will arrange for an independent psychiatrist (unrelated to the Apporved Centre) to examine the patient.
(b) will arrange for the patient to be legally represented
(c) will arrange for a 3 man Mental Health Tribunal to review the detention which they must do within 21 days. The patient can appeal the decision of the MHT to the Circuit Court.

7. Before the Mental Health Tribunal has sat (so even a minute after being admitted) the patient is entitled to make a Habeus Corpus (unlawful detention) application to the High Court and these must be heard with utmost urgency - usually within 1/2 days)

There really are many many checks and balances within the new regime and there are many options open to a person admitted to challenge their detention, even to challenge it immediately to the High Court. The suggestion that a Gp, acting alone, can have someonne detained is ludicrous. If he has the collusion of another person + Gardai + a consultant psychiatrist + the independent psychiatrist + the 3 man Mental Health Tribunal + the Circuit Court + the High Court, then yes he can have someone detained for quite some time; otherwise not.

Now; why am I doing this on a Saturday afternooon.... ? Back to the footie.

tallaght01

drkpower wrote: »

Now; why am I doing this on a Saturday afternooon.... ? Back to the footie.

Honestly man, do it. Don't get involved. You're missing a great wolves V villa derby! :P

drkpower

tallaght01 wrote: »

Honestly man, do it. Don't get involved. You're missing a great wolves V villa derby! :P

Its a sad state of affairs when the Mental Helath Act is more interesting than a game but that game was awful!!

uprising

My point was that if a person is mentally ill a GP can have that person committed, I never stated he would do all the logistics himself, just if he had reason to believe a person needed to be committed, that person would be committed, further tests would be done of course at the facility, but the bottom line is a GP can have a person committed.

King Mob

uprising wrote: »

My point was that if a person is mentally ill a GP can have that person committed, I never stated he would do all the logistics himself, just if he had reason to believe a person needed to be committed, that person would be committed, further tests would be done of course at the facility, but the bottom line is a GP can have a person committed.

That's not what you were saying earlier.

uprising wrote: »

Listen if a GP recommends you go in the padded cell, then in the padded cell you go, end of story,

uprising wrote: »

If a GP want's to commit a person to a mental institution, he can, he can not forcefully stick a needle in a person or force a pill down his throat, WHEN the person IS committed, the psychiatric doctor's can and do administer whatever they see fit.

uprising wrote: »

Get this into your head, ....Involuntary commitment

If a G.P. feel's a person should be committed to a mental institution, he can have that person committed, he can call the police, the police will restrain him, an ambulance would take him to hospital in restraints, he would be sedated and locked in a secure unit, padded cell.

uprising wrote: »

I cut a fella down from a suicide attempt, he was committed against his will, he was taken away in an ambulance, not a police car, the police weren't involved from what I saw, he was taken to hospital, from there to some mental institution, I was never contacted by the police, I helped get him into the ambulance, I was the only witness to what had happened, the garda never came looking for a statement, so I think a doctor made the decision.

The only thing we've been arguing is that a GP cannot just put someone away on a whim and by himself.
This position has been made very clear to you on several posts.

You however have started out saying that a doctor could do just that, and after you've moved the goalposts a bit, you now have to admit that A GP at most can recommend a person be involuntarily committed as along as someone with the authority requests it.

drkpower

uprising wrote: »

My point was that if a person is mentally ill a GP can have that person committed, I never stated he would do all the logistics himself, just if he had reason to believe a person needed to be committed, that person would be committed, further tests would be done of course at the facility, but the bottom line is a GP can have a person committed.

No; a GP plays his part in the process - just as the Applicant does, just as the staff of an approved centre does - just as the consultant psychiatrist does - just as many others do.

If a GP feels that someone needs to be detained, all he can do is reccomend that the person is so detained. He cannot ensure, by himself, that a person is detained.

To put it simply, even if the GP signs the recomendation forms (which he can only do once another person has made the application), that in and of itself will not result in a patient being detained. The involvement of others is required in order to detain someone. That is the bottom line. It is clear and transparent in the legislation and in the many court judgments that have been handed down since the 2001 Act has been in operation (2005). You need to face that fact.

tim0ney

uprising wrote: »

but the bottom line is a GP can have a person committed.

Did you read the regulations? Anybody can have someone committed, whether they are a GP or not. There is the added caveat in the Mental Health Act, however, that the well-being of the patient must be the GP's primary concern. Other people who could [conceiveably] try to get you committed are not necessarily bound by this. The welfare of the patient is the doctor's number one priority at all times [it is the basic tenet that is hammered into every med student from the first day for crying out loud!].

This is one of the worst threads I have ever seen, from the point of view of people not reading the information that other users are good [and informed] enough to post up for the benefit of everybody. It betrays a common lack of courtesy and common sense, in that people are more interested in making erroneous points and ludicrous assertions than taking good old-fashioned FACT on board.

espinolman

Can someone be committed to a mental hospital for being religious , that is what i want to know ?

drkpower

espinolman wrote: »

Can someone be committed to a mental hospital for being religious , that is what i want to know ?

Is that a serious question?
If so, the answer is No.

espinolman

drkpower wrote: »

Is that a serious question?
If so, the answer is No.

Well the following posts from this thread would make one wonder !

King Mob wrote: »

How is it not a front group of Scientology?

The nuts claim the Holocaust and 9/11 were caused by psychiatrists.

King Mob wrote: »

The one based on the ramblings of a mad man?
The one that rids your body of brainwashed alien souls?

King Mob wrote: »

the CCHR have the raving of a mad cult leader.

King Mob wrote: »

And again CCHR is headed by people who believe all illness is caused by brain washed alien souls.

drkpower

espinolman wrote: »

Well the following posts from this thread would make one wonder !

Hilarious....
Im sure you will appreciate the difference between the colloquial use of "mad" and "crazy" and an actual mental illness.
And also bear in mind that there are thousands of people with mental illness, only a tiny proportion of whom can be detained under the Mental Health Act.

Its all very straightforward; read the Act; or go to www.mhcirl.ie

tim0ney

espinolman wrote: »

Well the following posts from this thread would make one wonder !

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

King Mob

espinolman wrote: »

Well the following posts from this thread would make one wonder !

Way to take quotes out of context.
I didn't say L Ron Hubbard was mad because he was religious, nor did I say that all his followers where mad.

But then if you take the actual meaning of those posts they wouldn't support your point now, would they?

And again you really should research the CCHR and the church of Scientology before you leap to their defence.

workaccount

I don't understand why a load of people like to have such strong opinions on something like mental illness and the medications used to prescribe them when 1) they most likely have never experienced it (if they had there opinion would change quite fast) or 2) have absolutely no qualifications meaning their opinion is useless. It's not like you can vote for it in an election like our government.

Yes pharma companies are business' and most of the big ones shared corporations meaning the number one goal is profit. This is the reason why licensed professionals are the only people that can give you a diagnosis and a prescription.

People aren't all zombies - In many disorders they take the medication because it helps them, otherwise why the f*ck would you bother!

espinolman: Big deal that's it's not based on actual science - it's the first thing you will learn about psychiatry. Technology will catch up - of course the brain must be capable of having many problems just like other organs in our body can. What is your idea of psychiatry? For most disorders people are not forced to take medication you know - many people go to the physciatrist out of choice because their life is f*cked. Medication helps them where they have no control - take ADHD for example and not being able to concentrate to get important tasks done.

Black Uhlan

Research finds cause of depression oversimplified, drugs aim at wrong target

For more than half the people who take antidepressants, relief from their symptoms never comes.

Why? Because the cause of depression has been oversimplified and drugs designed to treat it aim at the wrong target, according to new research from the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. The medications are like arrows shot at the outer rings of a bull's eye instead of the center.

A study from the laboratory of long-time depression researcher Eva Redei, presented at the Neuroscience 2009 conference in Chicago this week, appears to topple two strongly held beliefs about depression. One is that stressful life events are a major cause of depression. The other is that an imbalance in neurotransmitters in the brain triggers depressive symptoms.

Both findings are significant because these beliefs were the basis for developing drugs currently used to treat depression

Continued: http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2009/10/redei.html

workaccount

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Research finds cause of depression oversimplified, drugs aim at wrong target



Continued: http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2009/10/redei.html

So the half that medication does work for do have a chemical imbalance presumably. To be proven sometime in the future. Seems very obvious to me that these people must have low levels of serotonin if serotonin reuptake inhibitors help them. So while we have medication for now maybe in the future we will be able to fix the source - maybe genetic modification who knows. In the meantime if your medication works isn't that great? Never mind the greed of the pharma companies for a second (this is certainly a problem of course but very different to the point I'm trying to make here - read on). If medication improves or turns a persons life around then surely that's more important than people being jealous over other peoples greed.

This research argues for psychiatry. I don't know much about this researcher but if her conclusions are as bad as this reporters she cannot be influential.


Don't agree with this reporter at all in just these two statements I've pulled out for example...
"Why? Because the cause of depression has been oversimplified and drugs designed to treat it aim at the wrong target, according to new research from the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. The medications are like arrows shot at the outer rings of a bull's eye instead of the center."

Drugs designed to treat it aimed at the wrong target. OK. But what about the other 50% of cases according to the researchers (Eva Redei) findings. Talk about trying to make headlines.
Let me just rephrase that second sentence "Because the cause of some types of depression are misunderstood and drugs designed to treat these types aim at the wrong target.


"Most animal models that are used by scientists to test antidepressants are based on the hypothesis that stress causes depression. "They stress the animals and look at their behavior," she said. "Then they manipulate the animals' behavior with drugs and say, 'OK, these are going to be good anti-depressants.' But they are not treating depression; they are treating stress.""

My understanding is that the most popular anti-depressants are serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Serotonin does more than just affect stress levels.
Within the central nervous system it is involved in functions such as arousal, thermoregulation, mood, appetite, sleep and pain regulatory systems. I'll let you make your own conclusions on how increasing serotonin by medication might improve someones life.

It feels to me like some of the people here trying to argue that psychiatry is some sort of cult don't know the first thing about this area and may have formed opinions based on sterotypical ideas and misinformation - It's common. A man that breaks his leg gets sympathy all around, tell some people you have depression and they will just tell you to try smiling.

Black Uhlan

workaccount wrote: »

Don't agree with this reporter at all

Okay you've edited your post about 5 times now so I've lost you. The article say it works for less than half not half by the way. Forget the reporter, focus on the quotes of the expert - it was you after all who placed the importance on them just a few posts ago.

Eva Redei.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine
Department of Physiology, Feinberg School of Medicine.

• "This is a huge study and statistically powerful,"
• "This research opens up new routes to develop new antidepressants that may be more effective. There hasn't been an antidepressant based on a novel concept in 20 years."
• "If the 'stress causes depression theory' was correct, there should have been a significant overlap between these two sets of genes," she said. "There weren't."
• This overlap is insignificant, a very small percentage," Redei said. "This finding is clear evidence that at least in an animal model, chronic stress does not cause the same molecular changes as depression does."
• They stress the animals and look at their behavior," she said. "Then they manipulate the animals' behavior with drugs and say, 'OK, these are going to be good anti-depressants.' But they are not treating depression; they are treating stress."
• "The medications have been focusing on the effect, not the cause," she said. "That's why it takes so long for them to work and why they aren't effective for so many people
• The similarities between these regions of the human and rodent brain are remarkable," Redei explained. "The hippocampus and amygdala are part of the so-called ancient lizard brain that controls survival and are the same in even primitive organisms."

Black Uhlan

according to this online test http://psychcentral.com/cgi-bin/depression.cgi I suffer "mild to moderate depression" luckily I am not alone looks like roughly 90% of people are in the same boat. Says I should seek the help of a professional, I feel fine though . I also scored each question "just a little" and also it came back that I should see a Doctor :eek:.

Now what do you think would happen if I went to my GP and told him I think I suffer from mild to moderate depression? A month of anti-depressants son and come back and see me in a month and give me another 50 quid (in cash if possible).

Black Uhlan

you should take a look at this as a clear example of how pharma dollars dominate medical opinion. http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/118/215

How the lobby groups dictate to politicians
http://www.encognitive.com/node/1091

big pharma's influence on universities:
http://www.alternet.org/story/130436/

In fact that last articles reminds me of some of the posts here. The blind obedience, and paying no attention to side-effects which were in a link I posted earlier which include suicide and homicide, not to mention the agony and hell people suffer trying to come off these "non-addictive" chemicals.

workaccount

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Okay you've edited your post about 5 times now so I've lost you. The article say it works for less than half not half by the way. Forget the reporter, focus on the quotes of the expert - it was you after all who placed the importance on them just a few posts ago.

Eva Redei.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine
Department of Physiology, Feinberg School of Medicine.

• "This is a huge study and statistically powerful,"
• "This research opens up new routes to develop new antidepressants that may be more effective. There hasn't been an antidepressant based on a novel concept in 20 years."
• "If the 'stress causes depression theory' was correct, there should have been a significant overlap between these two sets of genes," she said. "There weren't."
• This overlap is insignificant, a very small percentage," Redei said. "This finding is clear evidence that at least in an animal model, chronic stress does not cause the same molecular changes as depression does."
• They stress the animals and look at their behavior," she said. "Then they manipulate the animals' behavior with drugs and say, 'OK, these are going to be good anti-depressants.' But they are not treating depression; they are treating stress."
• "The medications have been focusing on the effect, not the cause," she said. "That's why it takes so long for them to work and why they aren't effective for so many people
• The similarities between these regions of the human and rodent brain are remarkable," Redei explained. "The hippocampus and amygdala are part of the so-called ancient lizard brain that controls survival and are the same in even primitive organisms."

Sorry about the edits. Ok so my post here was to argue for Psychiatry - looked like your intention was to argue against it - now I see that's not the case but can you understand how your post was misunderstood?

I focused on the reporter yes but for the sake of this thread I don't think many here would have looked further than that article. If this thread was somewhere else then I'm sure I would have trusted the readers to look beyond the poor reporting.

I wont's comment specifically on the research as I don't know about Eva Redei nor am I informed enough on the the other research in this area to compare conclusions. If she can improve depression treatments then that's great news.

workaccount

Black Uhlan wrote: »

according to this online test http://psychcentral.com/cgi-bin/depression.cgi I suffer "mild to moderate depression" luckily I am not alone looks like roughly 90% of people are in the same boat. Says I should seek the help of a professional, I feel fine though . I also scored each question "just a little" and also it came back that I should see a Doctor :eek:.

Now what do you think would happen if I went to my GP and told him I think I suffer from mild to moderate depression? A month of anti-depressants son and come back and see me in a month and give me another 50 quid (in cash if possible).

Online tests mean nothing though. You don't go to the doctor unless you have a problem or something is affecting your life? Those minor things you answered yes to or scored highly on could be affecting you in a completely different way to other people.

workaccount

Black Uhlan wrote: »

you should take a look at this as a clear example of how pharma dollars dominate medical opinion. http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/118/215

How the lobby groups dictate to politicians
http://www.encognitive.com/node/1091

big pharma's influence on universities:
http://www.alternet.org/story/130436/

What do any of these articles have to do with psychiatry not being a genuine form of treatment that actually does help people. Someone here has suggested psychiatry is some kind of cult designed to control people.

These companies are are shareholder owned corporations. In a corporation the board of directors by law have to comply to the simple rule of making as much profit as possible for their shareholders. Companies are there to make money. There's alot of problems in this but don't attack psychiatry. Blame the governments for giving corporations too much power.

Black Uhlan

I have no gripe with pschyiatry, I know little to nothing about it, to be honest I can't even spell it! I do know from growing up the damage anti-depressants can do through my mother.

I added those links because you mentioned Pharmaceutical companies and dissasociated them from medical popular opinion, education and political influence whereas I see the pharmaceutical companies at the top pulling the strings.

Black Uhlan

workaccount wrote: »

Sorry about the edits.

don't mention it.

workaccount wrote: »

If she can improve depression treatments then that's great news.

+1

workaccount

Black Uhlan wrote: »

I have no gripe with pschyiatry, I know little to nothing about it, to be honest I can't even spell it! I do know from growing up the damage anti-depressants can do through my mother.

I added those links because you mentioned Pharmaceutical companies and dissasociated them from medical popular opinion, education and political influence whereas I see the pharmaceutical companies at the top pulling the strings.

Well I'd like to think that good psychiatrists don't form opinions based on magazines or various journals and that they instead form opinions based on independent studies that have been peer reviewed. I know that alot of IT managers may form decisions on using MS products based on MS funded research though so I assume the same probably happens with alot fof psychiatrists. Then you have things like standards in health groups I suppose like Java is a standardized laungauge in the IT world but it's the wrong language for alot of stuff it's used for. I think this is the way forward - information. We have all the information in the world available to our fingertips now.

I know for example that there are a certain few studies on the drug ecstasy which are highly regarded and have been critically received. Other studies have been torn apart and have no credibilty - most importantly the few which were funded and organised by the American government in an effort to have facts behind them so they could tell their citizens that ecstasy causes brain damage.

Overall if you ask me I think the drug companies are doing what they should be doing - publicly owned corporations don't have morals. I also think that psychiatry improves and helps millions of peoples lives everyday. Yes it's not science per say due to lack of technology but this will change.

It's probably the governments that is at fault here to a certian extent in that the corporations are getting away with too much. This industry needs to be monitered much more closely like the banking industry will be from now on. It's just going to take something huge for the government to stand up and do something.

In the meantime the scientologists will talk sh*t about psychiatry but no-one is actually going to listen because it's such a strange organisation. For years the misinformed will continue to spread misinformation and misunderstanding about mental illness when the informed are trying to get rid of the stigma associated with it.