(12-17-2015 10:11 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  It's naive to say that anti-depressants are not overprescribed. How can you know they aren't? I don't doubt that these drugs save lives, but a lot of people just don't seem to understand the lack of rigor in psychiatry. Psychitary is the only branch of medicine where you treat a malady without really having a clear understanding of what causes it at cellular or molecular level.

I don't believe anybody is saying that. And it's equally negligent to say the opposite. We're only asking for evidence of claims being made...and not getting it.

(12-17-2015 10:11 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Also, there is a fairly good bit of research out there showing that exercise is just as effective - and in some cases more effective - than antidepressants. Can't think of many if any ailment where exercise is more effective as a treatment (not prevention) than the standard of care. At there bare minimum there needs to be at least consideration of prescribing exercise as treatment for depression before fiddling around with the chemistry of an organ that's very poorly understood. Just my two cents.

Do you have something about this alternative you can share?

(12-17-2015 10:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 10:11 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  It's naive to say that anti-depressants are not overprescribed. How can you know they aren't? I don't doubt that these drugs save lives, but a lot of people just don't seem to understand the lack of rigor in psychiatry. Psychitary is the only branch of medicine where you treat a malady without really having a clear understanding of what causes it at cellular or molecular level.

I don't believe anybody is saying that. And it's equally negligent to say the opposite. We're only asking for evidence of claims being made...and not getting it.

(12-17-2015 10:11 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Also, there is a fairly good bit of research out there showing that exercise is just as effective - and in some cases more effective - than antidepressants. Can't think of many if any ailment where exercise is more effective as a treatment (not prevention) than the standard of care. At there bare minimum there needs to be at least consideration of prescribing exercise as treatment for depression before fiddling around with the chemistry of an organ that's very poorly understood. Just my two cents.

Do you have something about this alternative you can share?

Here's a 2012 summary of previous research with quite a few relevant citations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3674785/

Here's an article about it from last year discussing some of the research on the topic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archiv...on/284587/

There is actually a pretty solid amount of research on this. All I'm saying is that when exercise is at least as good as the standard of care we need to step back and think more about who it is we give psychoactive chemicals to.

(12-16-2015 12:07 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 11:58 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Pop Quiz Shifty:

Your wife has bi-polar depression. Off her meds she cuts herself and sometimes lashes out at others with weapons, and she's previously had suicidal thoughts. On her meds, she functions just fine. You are married so you have sex. She gets pregnant. You're against abortion.

What do you do?

Keep her on the meds, obviously.

Hold, on. Let's stay true to form. You would also abuse her with slurs, calling her "a selfish, total idiot".

(12-17-2015 03:42 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 12:07 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 11:58 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Pop Quiz Shifty:

Your wife has bi-polar depression. Off her meds she cuts herself and sometimes lashes out at others with weapons, and she's previously had suicidal thoughts. On her meds, she functions just fine. You are married so you have sex. She gets pregnant. You're against abortion.

What do you do?

Keep her on the meds, obviously.

Hold, on. Let's stay true to form. You would also abuse her with slurs, calling her "a selfish, total idiot".

Hold on. Let's take a doomsday scenario and use it as a really broad paint brush in order to push muh narrative.

(12-16-2015 03:03 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Anti-depressant use among pregnant women increases the chances of the child having autism.
Anti-depressants are over-prescribed and abused in the United States.

Let's just set aside substantive discussion and declare victory with these platitudes and say we can all agree. If one person is prescribed an anti-depressant that doesn't need it, we can all agree it is over-prescribed. People abuse banana peels trying to get high ... certainly there is one person that has tried to abuse an SSRI for whatever reason, so we can agree on that. We can all agree that if women who are on anti-depressants are more likely to have autism, if the studies results are to be believe, whatever the actual cause, so we can agree on that.

Holy ****, can't believe anyone is arguing they aren't over prescribed and abused. They most assuredly are on both counts.

(12-17-2015 04:50 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Holy ****, can't believe anyone is arguing they aren't over prescribed and abused. They most assuredly are on both counts.

Holy ****, can't believe that anyone would take a stand and believe something is 100% certain without being able/willing to site any definitive proof.

That's all anyone has said.

Quote:Moreover, there is a fundamental problem with claims that antidepressants are “over-prescribed.” Psychiatrists are routinely cautioned against reaching medical conclusions without actually examining the patient. But by the same token, without knowing the specific reasons why Dr Jones prescribed an antidepressant for a specific patient, it is presumptuous to assume that the doctor’s decision was wrong. For example, many depressed patients seen in general practice may not meet the full, formal DSM-5 criteria for MDD. But such “sub-threshold” individuals may still experience substantial distress and impairment and find antidepressant medication helpful. Of course, psychotherapy alone may be preferable in many such cases, but access to “talk therapy” in the US is often very limited or beyond the financial resources of the patient. - See more at: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blogs/co...PPAck.dpuf

(12-17-2015 06:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 04:50 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Holy ****, can't believe anyone is arguing they aren't over prescribed and abused. They most assuredly are on both counts.

Holy ****, can't believe that anyone would take a stand and believe something is 100% certain without being able/willing to site any definitive proof.

That's all anyone has said.

Quote:Moreover, there is a fundamental problem with claims that antidepressants are “over-prescribed.” Psychiatrists are routinely cautioned against reaching medical conclusions without actually examining the patient. But by the same token, without knowing the specific reasons why Dr Jones prescribed an antidepressant for a specific patient, it is presumptuous to assume that the doctor’s decision was wrong. For example, many depressed patients seen in general practice may not meet the full, formal DSM-5 criteria for MDD. But such “sub-threshold” individuals may still experience substantial distress and impairment and find antidepressant medication helpful. Of course, psychotherapy alone may be preferable in many such cases, but access to “talk therapy” in the US is often very limited or beyond the financial resources of the patient. - See more at: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blogs/co...PPAck.dpuf

Paul M has demonstrated in every thread that he doesn't understand science.

When discussing a theory that's backed up by hundreds of thousands of studies over the last century, he thinks we don't have enough to say for sure. When discussing a paper that suggest a link, it's definitive proof.

Bro, that's not how it works. If you find a correlation between something, you have to follow it up with more research. You not only have to repeat the results, but you have to determine causality. Are there mediate/moderating variables? Confounding variables? Other conditions under which this could occur?

(12-17-2015 07:10 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 06:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 04:50 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Holy ****, can't believe anyone is arguing they aren't over prescribed and abused. They most assuredly are on both counts.

Holy ****, can't believe that anyone would take a stand and believe something is 100% certain without being able/willing to site any definitive proof.

That's all anyone has said.

Quote:Moreover, there is a fundamental problem with claims that antidepressants are “over-prescribed.” Psychiatrists are routinely cautioned against reaching medical conclusions without actually examining the patient. But by the same token, without knowing the specific reasons why Dr Jones prescribed an antidepressant for a specific patient, it is presumptuous to assume that the doctor’s decision was wrong. For example, many depressed patients seen in general practice may not meet the full, formal DSM-5 criteria for MDD. But such “sub-threshold” individuals may still experience substantial distress and impairment and find antidepressant medication helpful. Of course, psychotherapy alone may be preferable in many such cases, but access to “talk therapy” in the US is often very limited or beyond the financial resources of the patient. - See more at: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blogs/co...PPAck.dpuf

Paul M has demonstrated in every thread that he doesn't understand science.

When discussing a theory that's backed up by hundreds of thousands of studies over the last century, he thinks we don't have enough to say for sure. When discussing a paper that suggest a link, it's definitive proof.

Bro, that's not how it works. If you find a correlation between something, you have to follow it up with more research. You not only have to repeat the results, but you have to determine causality. Are there mediate/moderating variables? Confounding variables? Other conditions under which this could occur?

Trying to teach science to most of this board would be like....well.....trying to teach science to most of this board.

(12-17-2015 07:10 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 06:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 04:50 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Holy ****, can't believe anyone is arguing they aren't over prescribed and abused. They most assuredly are on both counts.

Holy ****, can't believe that anyone would take a stand and believe something is 100% certain without being able/willing to site any definitive proof.

That's all anyone has said.

Quote:Moreover, there is a fundamental problem with claims that antidepressants are “over-prescribed.” Psychiatrists are routinely cautioned against reaching medical conclusions without actually examining the patient. But by the same token, without knowing the specific reasons why Dr Jones prescribed an antidepressant for a specific patient, it is presumptuous to assume that the doctor’s decision was wrong. For example, many depressed patients seen in general practice may not meet the full, formal DSM-5 criteria for MDD. But such “sub-threshold” individuals may still experience substantial distress and impairment and find antidepressant medication helpful. Of course, psychotherapy alone may be preferable in many such cases, but access to “talk therapy” in the US is often very limited or beyond the financial resources of the patient. - See more at: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blogs/co...PPAck.dpuf

Paul M has demonstrated in every thread that he doesn't understand science.

When discussing a theory that's backed up by hundreds of thousands of studies over the last century, he thinks we don't have enough to say for sure. When discussing a paper that suggest a link, it's definitive proof.

Bro, that's not how it works. If you find a correlation between something, you have to follow it up with more research. You not only have to repeat the results, but you have to determine causality. Are there mediate/moderating variables? Confounding variables? Other conditions under which this could occur?

What in the **** are you babbling about?

(12-17-2015 07:14 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 07:10 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 06:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 04:50 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Holy ****, can't believe anyone is arguing they aren't over prescribed and abused. They most assuredly are on both counts.

Holy ****, can't believe that anyone would take a stand and believe something is 100% certain without being able/willing to site any definitive proof.

That's all anyone has said.

Quote:Moreover, there is a fundamental problem with claims that antidepressants are “over-prescribed.” Psychiatrists are routinely cautioned against reaching medical conclusions without actually examining the patient. But by the same token, without knowing the specific reasons why Dr Jones prescribed an antidepressant for a specific patient, it is presumptuous to assume that the doctor’s decision was wrong. For example, many depressed patients seen in general practice may not meet the full, formal DSM-5 criteria for MDD. But such “sub-threshold” individuals may still experience substantial distress and impairment and find antidepressant medication helpful. Of course, psychotherapy alone may be preferable in many such cases, but access to “talk therapy” in the US is often very limited or beyond the financial resources of the patient. - See more at: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blogs/co...PPAck.dpuf

Paul M has demonstrated in every thread that he doesn't understand science.

When discussing a theory that's backed up by hundreds of thousands of studies over the last century, he thinks we don't have enough to say for sure. When discussing a paper that suggest a link, it's definitive proof.

Bro, that's not how it works. If you find a correlation between something, you have to follow it up with more research. You not only have to repeat the results, but you have to determine causality. Are there mediate/moderating variables? Confounding variables? Other conditions under which this could occur?

Trying to teach science to most of this board would be like....well.....trying to teach science to most of this board.

Same question. WTF you talking about?

(12-17-2015 06:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 04:50 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Holy ****, can't believe anyone is arguing they aren't over prescribed and abused. They most assuredly are on both counts.

Holy ****, can't believe that anyone would take a stand and believe something is 100% certain without being able/willing to site any definitive proof.

That's all anyone has said.

Quote:Moreover, there is a fundamental problem with claims that antidepressants are “over-prescribed.” Psychiatrists are routinely cautioned against reaching medical conclusions without actually examining the patient. But by the same token, without knowing the specific reasons why Dr Jones prescribed an antidepressant for a specific patient, it is presumptuous to assume that the doctor’s decision was wrong. For example, many depressed patients seen in general practice may not meet the full, formal DSM-5 criteria for MDD. But such “sub-threshold” individuals may still experience substantial distress and impairment and find antidepressant medication helpful. Of course, psychotherapy alone may be preferable in many such cases, but access to “talk therapy” in the US is often very limited or beyond the financial resources of the patient. - See more at: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blogs/co...PPAck.dpuf

Holy ****, I am 100% certain. And if you disagree you're far stupider than I thought.

Scientologists have advanced the narrative that anti-depressants are over-prescribed, along with a long-running campaign against psychiatry since L. Ron Hubbard was diagnosed as insane and a paranoid schizophrenic. I suspect that their narrative has gotten traction among the general public, as it's clear that from time to time, it's advanced on Oprah and other pop media outlets by Tom Cruise and the like...

Like it or not, I think that the influence of Scientology is evident here...

Scientology has nothing to do with it. They ARE over prescribed AND abused.

Jeez, you can take ANY male child and get him medicated.

(12-20-2015 12:50 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Jeez, you can take ANY male child and get him medicated.

That sounds like you're talking about ADD medication, which is a whole different thing.

(12-17-2015 09:00 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 07:14 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 07:10 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 06:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 04:50 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Holy ****, can't believe anyone is arguing they aren't over prescribed and abused. They most assuredly are on both counts.

Holy ****, can't believe that anyone would take a stand and believe something is 100% certain without being able/willing to site any definitive proof.

That's all anyone has said.

Quote:Moreover, there is a fundamental problem with claims that antidepressants are “over-prescribed.” Psychiatrists are routinely cautioned against reaching medical conclusions without actually examining the patient. But by the same token, without knowing the specific reasons why Dr Jones prescribed an antidepressant for a specific patient, it is presumptuous to assume that the doctor’s decision was wrong. For example, many depressed patients seen in general practice may not meet the full, formal DSM-5 criteria for MDD. But such “sub-threshold” individuals may still experience substantial distress and impairment and find antidepressant medication helpful. Of course, psychotherapy alone may be preferable in many such cases, but access to “talk therapy” in the US is often very limited or beyond the financial resources of the patient. - See more at: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blogs/co...PPAck.dpuf

Paul M has demonstrated in every thread that he doesn't understand science.

When discussing a theory that's backed up by hundreds of thousands of studies over the last century, he thinks we don't have enough to say for sure. When discussing a paper that suggest a link, it's definitive proof.

Bro, that's not how it works. If you find a correlation between something, you have to follow it up with more research. You not only have to repeat the results, but you have to determine causality. Are there mediate/moderating variables? Confounding variables? Other conditions under which this could occur?

Trying to teach science to most of this board would be like....well.....trying to teach science to most of this board.

Same question. WTF you talking about?

Great example.

(12-17-2015 09:02 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 06:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 04:50 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Holy ****, can't believe anyone is arguing they aren't over prescribed and abused. They most assuredly are on both counts.

Holy ****, can't believe that anyone would take a stand and believe something is 100% certain without being able/willing to site any definitive proof.

That's all anyone has said.

Quote:Moreover, there is a fundamental problem with claims that antidepressants are “over-prescribed.” Psychiatrists are routinely cautioned against reaching medical conclusions without actually examining the patient. But by the same token, without knowing the specific reasons why Dr Jones prescribed an antidepressant for a specific patient, it is presumptuous to assume that the doctor’s decision was wrong. For example, many depressed patients seen in general practice may not meet the full, formal DSM-5 criteria for MDD. But such “sub-threshold” individuals may still experience substantial distress and impairment and find antidepressant medication helpful. Of course, psychotherapy alone may be preferable in many such cases, but access to “talk therapy” in the US is often very limited or beyond the financial resources of the patient. - See more at: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blogs/co...PPAck.dpuf

Holy ****, I am 100% certain. And if you disagree you're far stupider than I thought.

It's almost like you lack a basic understanding concerning how a person would defend their own claim, especially in a medium such as a messageboard. Here's a hint, provide a source.

(12-25-2015 12:58 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:00 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 07:14 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 07:10 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 06:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Holy ****, can't believe that anyone would take a stand and believe something is 100% certain without being able/willing to site any definitive proof.

That's all anyone has said.

Paul M has demonstrated in every thread that he doesn't understand science.

When discussing a theory that's backed up by hundreds of thousands of studies over the last century, he thinks we don't have enough to say for sure. When discussing a paper that suggest a link, it's definitive proof.

Bro, that's not how it works. If you find a correlation between something, you have to follow it up with more research. You not only have to repeat the results, but you have to determine causality. Are there mediate/moderating variables? Confounding variables? Other conditions under which this could occur?

Trying to teach science to most of this board would be like....well.....trying to teach science to most of this board.

Same question. WTF you talking about?

Great example.

Same question and I got to say this is getting tiring.

(12-25-2015 01:00 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:02 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 06:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 04:50 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Holy ****, can't believe anyone is arguing they aren't over prescribed and abused. They most assuredly are on both counts.

Holy ****, can't believe that anyone would take a stand and believe something is 100% certain without being able/willing to site any definitive proof.

That's all anyone has said.

Quote:Moreover, there is a fundamental problem with claims that antidepressants are “over-prescribed.” Psychiatrists are routinely cautioned against reaching medical conclusions without actually examining the patient. But by the same token, without knowing the specific reasons why Dr Jones prescribed an antidepressant for a specific patient, it is presumptuous to assume that the doctor’s decision was wrong. For example, many depressed patients seen in general practice may not meet the full, formal DSM-5 criteria for MDD. But such “sub-threshold” individuals may still experience substantial distress and impairment and find antidepressant medication helpful. Of course, psychotherapy alone may be preferable in many such cases, but access to “talk therapy” in the US is often very limited or beyond the financial resources of the patient. - See more at: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blogs/co...PPAck.dpuf

Holy ****, I am 100% certain. And if you disagree you're far stupider than I thought.

It's almost like you lack a basic understanding concerning how a person would defend their own claim, especially in a medium such as a messageboard. Here's a hint, provide a source.

You are one dense dipshit.

First, stop with this constant trying to define how everyone is to post. It's a message board. We'll all do as we please thank you very much.

Now, what do I need to defend? I'm certain. I don't believe a single one of you are truthful if you say you don't know this fact yourselves. I don't believe any of you don't know this to be true from personal observations, same as me. I'm the source nimrod. You are too but you'd rather disagree with me. There are doctors and clinics who's sole purpose is selling these drugs to anyone who asks. Don't know how many people I know who were going to one such strip mall clinic. It was a mill. You walk in, say high to the doc, he handed you another 30 day script, and you paid the lady on your way out. When it closed, either from investigators close to filing or they simply made their money and relocated to a non extraditing island, I don't know, but all the pill poppers I know had little problem finding another doctor ready for the business.

I have family. I have friends. You all do to. But hey, keep up the argument if that's what gets you off.

(12-25-2015 10:18 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Now, what do I need to defend? I'm certain. I don't believe a single one of you are truthful if you say you don't know this fact yourselves. I don't believe any of you don't know this to be true from personal observations, same as me. I'm the source nimrod. You are too but you'd rather disagree with me. There are doctors and clinics who's sole purpose is selling these drugs to anyone who asks. Don't know how many people I know who were going to one such strip mall clinic. It was a mill. You walk in, say high to the doc, he handed you another 30 day script, and you paid the lady on your way out. When it closed, either from investigators close to filing or they simply made their money and relocated to a non extraditing island, I don't know, but all the pill poppers I know had little problem finding another doctor ready for the business.

I have family. I have friends. You all do to. But hey, keep up the argument if that's what gets you off.

Anti-depressants, at least the ones under discussion here, don't require a prescription every 30 days. Controlled substances like pain meds and amphetamines do. What specific medicines are your pill-popping friends and family getting this way, and how does it fit in to what we are discussing here?