Psycho-Babble Medication | about biological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Do Antidepressants.....Response to All bleauberry

Posted by yxibow on August 25, 2009, at 23:15:20

In reply to Re: Do Antidepressants.....Response to All, posted by bleauberry on August 25, 2009, at 18:09:42

> My previous response provoked a surprising uprising of emotions. That was not intended. I am sorry that happened.

I understand... but you're right, it was emotional.

> As Dr Bob's disclaimer says, don't believe everything you see here. Opinions are opinions, everyone has them. Mine were not meant to cause an uprising. Mine are formed from a combination of "big picture", "scientific evidence", "anecdotal evidence", and "both sides of the fence views" all combined. I believe it is important for everyone to become as informed as possible on both sides of any debate before taking one's own side, and to strictly set aside personal emotions, biases, and preheld beliefs while gathering information.

And you're entitled to your opinion, and its quite true I don't believe everything I see here -- this isn't aimed at anyone in particular but I see a lot of antipsychiatry and questionable information that doesn't examine cause and effect, and causation is not always causality.

I see surprising and unexplainable things that people believe cause them depression, which I question causation/causality.

But on the other hand I am incredibly sensitive to -certain- medications, not all, so I understand what a rare side effect and what medications can do. I am an example of that.

> I'm sick like you. On a day with more energy and time I would hunt for studies I saw. Do I trust those studies? Somewhat, not completely. Anywhere humans are involved, errors are inevitable. But they do become part of the "big Picture" "both sides of the fence".

I am rather poorly too. Its not a good state at the moment. I also have hunted for studies, although I base them on HonCode, and scientific journals that I happen to have access to or PubMed citations.

> Do I trust anecdotal evidence? Same as above.

No comment there... although I can theorize from a real peer reviewed journal that there is perhaps promise from a case study (like 3 people) but that doesn't provide enough information base.

> Not mentioning the poster's name, I took the comments, "Lyme, lyme, lyme" very personally. That was a punch between the legs and a rather immature heartless malignant stab. You are forgiven my friend and I ask blessings on your day.

I'm sorry about that, and I apologize. Its very hard sometimes on here where this is the MEDICINE board and not the alternative board and I see certain things stated over and over again....

....about alternative theories that include dangerous practices of things such as chelation which should only be done in medical emergencies

..... and contrary to standard psychiatric practice advice about how first one should always be checked for Lyme disease.

And I cracked. I'm sorry to offend you. I am strangled every time I post on here by civility rules. Admittedly it was coarse... I'm trying to figure a way I could have said it civilly and yet strangling what I really wanted to say which is that I think is..... well.... can't say it on here.

I don't pretend to be above anyone's views and I try not to "practice medicine without a license" but I guess without saying anything more, I believe in things that come from relative to strongly mainstream medical journals. That's just my view.

Again, I apologize, but we obviously greatly disagree.

(I admit... I had a lot of tests done because I have a disorder category and symptoms that besides two people very vaguely have mentioned, nobody else has such a condition and I still wonder about other tests... dont get me wrong.)

It has gripped me for 8 years and robbed me of what I think most people take for granted of average sensory properties in life (visual amplifications and distortions that I think the average person would find rather scary if they could see through my psychiatric eyes) so maybe I am also bitter.

> There is scientific evidence that the antidepessant Mianserin extends the life of nematodes by 30%. No other drug in hundreds did that.

I don't know about that... I haven't seen that study, and I'm not a nematode... its hard to transfer things from other species to humans... sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

Mianserin also has some detractions, and it is why mirtazapine is used these days... and I also see the same Wikipedia study that you mentioned, in Nature.

Yes, Nature is relatively mainstream, but that doesn't mean its absolute. But, so, its interesting, thanks..

I hope some day that the... and I'm probably going to offend someone, I can't help it... mm... ugh... again strangled by "being civil"... anti-scientific religious circle will allow us to use stem cells and other contentious non-living entities to expand what is the forefront of what could help millions of people.

> There was someone on this earth who was perfect and flawless. You may have heard of JESUS?

It is impossible to scientifically debate the existence of someones god.

If you believe Jesus was perfect and flawless, then so be it. I can't refute this.

But I am agnostic, and I am Jewish. I am basically not religious, my scientific background makes me agnostic, which means I may believe at times that e.g. perhaps a higher power was looking out for me when I almost went over a cliff. I am strongly culturally though.

Religion helps some people explain the things that cannot be explained otherwise scientifically.

And that's fine... in my mind... and here comes the civility again... as long as it is a completely personal belief. This is the same belief I have that people should have basic human rights and be able to do things in life that as best as possible don't infringe on others. As is said, it is hard to please everyone all the time.

I have a strict view of separation of church and state and to an extent the view of the founding Deists of the US. So I cannot countenance proselytizing, infringing on others' human rights (e.g. domestic partnerships, marriage to all, the right for women to have abortions in just about all circumstances, civil liberties and rights to all [e.g. extreme unnamed religion practices of flogging women, not allowing them to drive, putting veils on them, and flying airplanes into buildings occupied by people]).

I could go on about how religion has become the chief ruler of democracy but I wont because again, I am strangled by "being civil".

But, and this is going into the religious area, if I recall one is here, and I just can't get into such debates

> My overall opinion remains that antidepressants can extend the lifespan of individual people on individual cases, but that when a sample population of thousands is considered, lifespan is shorter overall as a group. The reasons are involved and lengthy.

Actually I believe when a population of thousands are considered its just the same and more valid of a study than 10 people, just like the required amount of people to be in studies for FDA approved medication. But we can disagree.. that's fine.

> Longterm antidepressant samples have equal suicide rates as non-antidepressant samples. Studies are flawed in one way or another, interpretations can be twisted by any viewer, and I take that into account.

I agree with the first part, because I believe that all the warnings placed on EVERY antidepressant available in the pharmacy back to the 1950s are put there for CYA (cover your tushy) purposes.

Sure, a sample of people could react in "rare" ways (as a prescribing information notes... 1/1000, 1/10000 or less typically) and have worsened problems that lead to suicide.

But people who are depressed (and the standard gamut of listings of signs, we don't have to describe it all, I'm sure we know this) have a potential to be suicidal in the first place and the medicine may have zero to do with it.

> In the shortrun there is no doubt that the correct antidepressant for the correct person can add some years to their life. I just think that somewhere later in the majority of people's lives, those years are taken back. Alas, they were only borrowed.

I am allowed to disagree with this. There is no guarantees in life, and I have sorely learned this in the past years with an intense disorder I cannot believe is even in the class or state of conditions I have had before and have conquered or gotten around them in a fairly functional manner.

So I can't see how borrowing or taking has validity. It doesn't make sense to me. If you stay on medication, however imperfect it is, and yes, even for me, especially right now, very imperfect, that allows you greater functionality than otherwise, use what you have.

Unfortunately, I am really down about "using what I have".

Yes, I have talked alot about me and perhaps not addressed you enough, but its not often I really bare my chest and say what is bothering me not because I dont think people wouldnt be sympathetic and empathic but because they extremely complex things that vex me as much as they have vexed some people that have heard or evaluated my case. Considering for myself, that it happened literally overnight like a snap.

So I will try not to be uncivil and not to offend you. Perhaps it is just better not to debate how I feel strongly. Perhaps we just but heads. I don't know anyway other to put it.

Take my apology, this is not religious, or otherwise, it is just face value to someone who has felt offended and I am sorry for that.

-- tidings





Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Medication | Framed

poster:yxibow thread:913130