![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 52 to 76 of 143. Go back in thread:
Posted by Squiggles on May 9, 2006, at 20:15:42
In reply to Re: suicide and AD effect, posted by linkadge on May 9, 2006, at 19:43:55
> Mole ? You'll need to explain.
>
> LinkadgeWort, Mole - it's a pun; bipolars are
known to pun a lot. :-)Squiggles
Posted by bassman on May 9, 2006, at 20:33:11
In reply to Re: suicide and AD effect, posted by Squiggles on May 9, 2006, at 20:15:42
Gulp, I hope that's not really true...
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 10, 2006, at 8:31:37
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs - Psychobabble says » Squiggles, posted by Larry Hoover on May 9, 2006, at 17:21:21
> > > "What was found was that there was a "significant change in slope" (a reduction) of the suicide rate, following the introduction of SSRI meds. A change in slope can only be caused by a change in the independant variables"
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, is this a quote from the Healy paper?
>
> What you've got there is a me quoting the Sweden population study authors.
>
> > And when you describe a slope ( i guess that
> > is on a statistical graph ) as possible only
> > by independent variables - what would those
> > be? Are they typical of this clinical study
> > alone?
> >
> > Squiggles
>
> A plot of "all cause suicide deaths" against "total population" for consecutive time periods would yield a graph where the first derivative, the slope, is equal to the rate.
>
> The rate was stable over two periods of time, but different, one from the other. One time period of stable rate preceded the stable rate seen around the time of the SSRIs. Inferences were drawn.
>
> LarSorry for the interuptions, Squiggles. I had a medical test done Saturday and it's still messing me up.
My quick summary of the methodology for gaining the measure of the slope, i.e. the rate, was incomplete. I skipped one step. I do it all the time in my brain, but I forgot how to describe it.
The revised version:
A plot of "all cause suicide deaths" against "total population" for consecutive time periods would yield a graph where the first derivative of the best fit line, the slope, is equal to the rate. In this case, plots from two periods eighteen years apart yielded different best fit lines (i.e. different rates). Statistical testing showed that the difference between the two rates was significant. The rate during a period of high sales of antidepressants (including SSRIs) was significantly lower than a period when antidepressants were prescribed less often.
Then I went into blather, which is why my brain called a halt to the proceedings. I have a weird brain.
I know very well that there are alternate explanations for the significant inverse correlation (i.e. I'm not trying to say SSRIs brought it down). The fact that it is inverse, and significantly so, places an upper bound on the effect size for your hypothetical SSRI-mediated suicide induction process.
As it happens, on reloading the pages I was working from last night, I found another more recent Scandinavian report.
Therein, it is stated that, "In all four countries decreases in suicide rates appeared to precede the widespread use of SSRIs."
As my intent here has been to show that SSRI-induction hypothesis has an upper bound, this new evidence is also consistent with my earlier conclusions.
If I had evidence to support your hypothesis, Squiggles, I'd show you. I haven't found any, yet.
Lar
Posted by Squiggles on May 10, 2006, at 9:05:07
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs - Psychobabble says » Larry Hoover, posted by Larry Hoover on May 10, 2006, at 8:31:37
First, sorry about your medical problem. Best
of luck..........
> > > And when you describe a slope ( i guess that
> > > is on a statistical graph ) as possible only
> > > by independent variables - what would those
> > > be? Are they typical of this clinical study
> > > alone?
> > >
> > > Squiggles
> >
> > A plot of "all cause suicide deaths" against "total population" for consecutive time periods would yield a graph where the first derivative, the slope, is equal to the rate.
> >OK - i will try to follow this; i hope you will
be patient; i really am innumerate:The rate of suicide = the number of suicides over
"consecutive years" from all causes?
> > The rate was stable over two periods of time, but different, one from the other. One time period of stable rate preceded the stable rate seen around the time of the SSRIs. Inferences were drawn.
> >
> > Lar
>A stable rate before the introduction of Prozac
in the market, could be a low rate of suicide or
a high rate of suicide.
> .......
> The revised version:
>
> A plot of "all cause suicide deaths" against "total population" for consecutive time periods would yield a graph where the first derivative of the best fit line, the slope, is equal to the rate. In this case, plots from two periods eighteen years apart yielded different best fit lines (i.e. different rates). Statistical testing showed that the difference between the two rates was significant. [The rate during a period of high sales of antidepressants (including SSRIs) was significantly lower than a period when antidepressants were prescribed less often.]
>
> Then I went into blather, which is why my brain called a halt to the proceedings. I have a weird brain.
>Well, it seems to be functioning better than mine.
> I know very well that there are alternate explanations for the significant inverse correlation (i.e. I'm not trying to say SSRIs brought it down). The fact that it is inverse, and significantly so, places an upper bound on the effect size for your hypothetical SSRI-mediated suicide induction process.
>
> As it happens, on reloading the pages I was working from last night, I found another more recent Scandinavian report.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16582062
>
> Therein, it is stated that, "In all four countries decreases in suicide rates appeared to precede the widespread use...Is a suicide rate decrease preceding widespread
use of ADs (incl. SSRIs) equivalent to an
increase in suicide rate in the increase rate
of SSRI use? It's a statistical inference
that does not seem to take into account the
counterexample studies, as well as other possible factors in the country, age, social events, and
personal circumstances. Wow, is this the way
science is done?...........
> As my intent here has been to show that SSRI-induction hypothesis has an upper bound, this new evidence is also consistent with my earlier conclusions.
>
> If I had evidence to support your hypothesis, Squiggles, I'd show you. I haven't found any, yet.
>
> Lar
>Thank you. I am really sorry that i am
past my level of incompetence now. Maybe
others can understand the meaning of these
stastical studies better than I.Good luck recovering from your medical test.
Squiggles
Posted by pseudoname on May 10, 2006, at 9:55:55
In reply to Re: suicide and AD effect » pseudoname, posted by linkadge on May 9, 2006, at 18:47:47
> These are just some of my theories.
*I* like them, FWIW. I like the overall picture that messing with neurotransmitters leads to diverse effects. I'm finding the imagery helpful too. I woke up today freaked about the supposed urgency of some things. Then I thought, “Maybe recent neurochemical changes just favor a perception of urgency… It's a chemical perception…” Not necessarily phony, but also not so overwhelming.
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 10, 2006, at 11:28:31
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs - Psychobabble s » Larry Hoover, posted by Squiggles on May 10, 2006, at 9:05:07
> First, sorry about your medical problem. Best
> of luck.Thank you.
> > > A plot of "all cause suicide deaths" against "total population" for consecutive time periods would yield a graph where the first derivative, the slope, is equal to the rate.
> > >
>
> OK - i will try to follow this; i hope you will
> be patient; i really am innumerate:
>
> The rate of suicide = the number of suicides over
> "consecutive years" from all causes?Divided by the population, which yields numbers such as 22 suicides per 100,000 population, per year.
> > > The rate was stable over two periods of time, but different, one from the other. One time period of stable rate preceded the stable rate seen around the time of the SSRIs. Inferences were drawn.
> > >
> > > Lar
> >
>
> A stable rate before the introduction of Prozac
> in the market, could be a low rate of suicide or
> a high rate of suicide.Exactly so. And we might call that stable rate the baseline rate.
> > Then I went into blather, which is why my brain called a halt to the proceedings. I have a weird brain.
> >
> Well, it seems to be functioning better than mine.We trained in different things.
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16582062
> >
> > Therein, it is stated that, "In all four countries decreases in suicide rates appeared to precede the widespread use...
>
> Is a suicide rate decrease preceding widespread
> use of ADs (incl. SSRIs) equivalent to an
> increase in suicide rate in the increase rate
> of SSRI use?It seems to suggest that other social factors also changed. However, SSRI use did not seem to change that existing stable regime, even during the period of astronomical increase in prescription rates for the SSRI drugs as a class. In other words, we must look elsewhere than SSRIs for the change in baseline suicide rate over the comparative periods.
> It's a statistical inference
> that does not seem to take into account the
> counterexample studies, as well as other possible factors in the country, age, social events, and
> personal circumstances. Wow, is this the way
> science is done?This sort of science is nothing more than the equivalent of going through your old files, and only then noticing that your phone bill changed dramatically, or whatever. These specific studies examined records which already existed, and that were collected independently of each other (suicide records vs. drug sale records). Then, restrospectively, somebody compared the data in the files.
> ...........
> > As my intent here has been to show that SSRI-induction hypothesis has an upper bound, this new evidence is also consistent with my earlier conclusions.
> >
> > If I had evidence to support your hypothesis, Squiggles, I'd show you. I haven't found any, yet.
> >
> > Lar
> >
>
> Thank you. I am really sorry that i am
> past my level of incompetence now. Maybe
> others can understand the meaning of these
> stastical studies better than I.It's always worth the effort, to try.
> Good luck recovering from your medical test.
>
> SquigglesThanks.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 10, 2006, at 11:39:18
In reply to Re: suicide and AD effect » pseudoname, posted by linkadge on May 9, 2006, at 18:47:47
> I guess what I am trying to say is that SSRI's can *really* put a spin on how your brain has learned to deal with its problems. For some, this may be leading up to an antidepressant effect, but for others it may just create more caos.
>
> These are just some of my theories.
>
> LinkadgeI'm very impressed by your ability to lay out these details of receptor function so cleanly.
I have no doubt that SSRIs are powerful meds. Behaviourally, on SSRIs, I did things that are not part of my normal. I thought thoughts that were not part of my normal. I entered a psychotic mania, under their influence. I am not naive.
What was missing, though, was proper medical management. There was a society-wide subliminal decision to simply think of SSRIs as benign medication. Even the doctors got hoodwinked. I remember seeing Prozac on the cover of Time magazine. Nobody was talking about sexual dysfunction, or any of that. No, these pills were different.
I think we, collectively, have begun to abolish the misrepresentation of these meds. In the spirit of getting it right, though, I also want to ensure that we don't substitute another erroneous belief system for the existing miracle drug 'chemical imbalance' propaganda. Let's make sure that what we say is founded on data. Science, the knowing, is in the data.
Lar
Posted by Squiggles on May 10, 2006, at 12:46:59
In reply to Re: suicide and AD effect » linkadge, posted by Larry Hoover on May 10, 2006, at 11:39:18
Perhaps if Dr. Healy had said that the
statistics show that caution in the form
of very close monitoring in the first two
weeks or so of taking Prozac, is necessary,
to avoid the high probability of akathisia-
related suicide, the U of T would not have
reacted so negatively. After all, there would
be no harm in keeping a professor who was
queasy about these new drugs. Or did they
perceive there was?As for as I am concerned I don't find such scandals very good for the public. We have to cope with miserable side effects and experiment after experiment.
I find the psychiatric drug life, far wilder
and unpredictable, and dangerous, than smoking
a joint at a party when i was young. But kids are
watched like a hawk by parents for taking
"drugz". The difference of course is that most
kids then smoked a joint or dropped acid once in a year or every few months, then they graduated and went on to conforming lives. Prescription drugs are for life. The "counterfeit" drug crisis i
recently went through almost killed me, but
if it had, it would have been a clean, legal
death with the stats to back up the safety of the drug from some medical journal. A suicide in
a state of agitated mania is not a universal
cause for suicide after all. But I did have to
fight the urge with all my might and play with
the lithium caps so as to rise above the urge -- something that left my brain burning for weeks.So, I may have to reconsider just how much harm would have been done if Dr. Healy was kept at the U of T with his radical notions, because even if there was a dent in the sales of Prozac on account of his polemics, another SSRI could easily have taken its place. I did consider the possibility that his actions were self-centered and that he may have contributed to mass suffering for people taking Prozac. I am not 100% sure there was no harm done there, but I think it may not have been an irreversible harm. So, I suppose they could have reacted differently if they wanted to. It must have been embarrassing and stressful for all concerned.
Thank God I take Lithium :-)
Squiggles
Posted by Squiggles on May 10, 2006, at 15:16:31
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs - tolerance » Larry Hoover, posted by Squiggles on May 10, 2006, at 12:46:59
on Healy:
http://absolutad.com/absolut_gallery/singles/pictures/?id=1822&_s=singles
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 10, 2006, at 16:32:57
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs - Final Verdict, posted by Squiggles on May 10, 2006, at 15:16:31
> on Healy:
>
> http://absolutad.com/absolut_gallery/singles/pictures/?id=1822&_s=singlesNot necessarily what you had in mind?
http://www.wordquest.info/thumbs-up.html
Lar
Posted by Squiggles on May 10, 2006, at 16:51:39
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs - Final Verdict » Squiggles, posted by Larry Hoover on May 10, 2006, at 16:32:57
> > on Healy:
> >
> > http://absolutad.com/absolut_gallery/singles/pictures/?id=1822&_s=singles
>
> Not necessarily what you had in mind?
>
> http://www.wordquest.info/thumbs-up.html
>
> Lar
>
>I'm glad David Healy is Welsh - phew!
Squiggles
Posted by linkadge on May 10, 2006, at 17:13:32
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs - Psychobabble says » Larry Hoover, posted by Larry Hoover on May 10, 2006, at 8:31:37
The end of that report concludes:
"We found *mixed* evidence that increases in antidepressant sales have coincided with a reduction in the number of suicides in Nordic countries."
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on May 10, 2006, at 17:28:16
In reply to Re: suicide and AD effect » linkadge, posted by Larry Hoover on May 10, 2006, at 11:39:18
I understand. Psychiatry is at a crossroads at this point. There is always a lag period between the recognition of a problem, and an accurate explaination of that problem.
We know people will complain unsucessfully for a number of years about a given side effect, until an accepted explaination arrives.
The idea, for instance, that excessive 5-ht2c stimulation leads to sexual dysfunctions seems to come from the ability of 5-ht2c antagonists to reverse this behavior.
There are also many studies suggesting the roles of 5-ht2c in agitation, learning (declaritive memory), and appetite.
5-ht2c agonists are seem to be usefull appetite supressants, while antagonists like periactin are usefull for low appetite.
Experimentally administered 5-ht2c agonists also seem to cause extreme restlessness in normals and hence these receptors have been canditate for ADHD type conditions.
So no, I guess these ideas are not really all my own, I was simply trying to link these findings to some of common complaints SSRI's users have.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on May 10, 2006, at 17:39:18
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs - tolerance » Larry Hoover, posted by Squiggles on May 10, 2006, at 12:46:59
SSRI's can be a bad spiral for a number of people. I remember almost a year of insomnia when I was on celexa at age 16.
Nobody questioned the drugs at that point, and with my developing and changing body I basically assumed it was "all me".
I am glad that there are people here to question the actions of these drugs today.
You are right, if I was allowed to just smoke a wee bit of marajuanna I would not have gone through one half of what I did. The insomnia, the agitation, the loss of appetite, the restlessness, the apathy, the iscolation. I've smoked a wee bit since I got off the SSRI's, enough to know that those are the types of people who recover.
Did I tell you that I was on 6 drugs at one point? Lithium + depakote + Zyprexa + Zoloft + Clonazpam + Cogentin. I was told I'd need to take them for the rest of my life. The manipulation is a scarry thing.
Just one bad patch job after the next.
Linkadge
Posted by Squiggles on May 10, 2006, at 17:45:30
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs - tolerance » Squiggles, posted by linkadge on May 10, 2006, at 17:39:18
..........
> Did I tell you that I was on 6 drugs at one point? Lithium + depakote + Zyprexa + Zoloft + Clonazpam + Cogentin. I was told I'd need to take them for the rest of my life. The manipulation is a scarry thing.
>
> Just one bad patch job after the next.
>I don't know if your doctor knew what he
was doing or not. But if you felt bad
and reported it, i hope he took that in good
stride. I know my dr. has been very
sympathetic that way; unfortunately, i am
not a very cooperative patient. Sometimes
that's good, sometimes bad.Squiggles
Posted by linkadge on May 10, 2006, at 17:56:14
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs - Final Verdict, posted by Squiggles on May 10, 2006, at 17:45:30
Thats the thing. Some of the decisions I have made regarding my treatment have been the right ones, some not, but overall, I'd still never give complete control to a doctor, total compliance has never worked for me.
Linkadge
Posted by Squiggles on May 10, 2006, at 18:01:25
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs - Final Verdict » Squiggles, posted by linkadge on May 10, 2006, at 17:56:14
> Thats the thing. Some of the decisions I have made regarding my treatment have been the right ones, some not, but overall, I'd still never give complete control to a doctor, total compliance has never worked for me.
>
> LinkadgeI appreciate the desire for freedom when a drug
is making you ill. Infact, it was the 2nd drug
that was right for me -- boy, am i lucky- the
2nd drug.But I confess, that I would like to be
in the hands of a doctor who know exactly
what to predict and what is going to happen.I understand that given the present state
of psychiatry, that is asking too much.Squiggles
Posted by genes-r-us on May 11, 2006, at 12:35:11
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs, posted by yxibow on May 7, 2006, at 0:41:02
> Nonwithstanding the potential of any antidepressant to possess possible danger to cause suicidality, I would question things that come from David Healy. He was stripped of his position at the University of Toronto. If you quack like a duck... its hard to say. There are varying opinions on that issue.
>
> There is also the issue that any seriously suicidal patient can commit suicide while on any medication regardless. They were destined, if that is a word, to do so in the first place. The medication didn't cover the disorder, and tragedies happen.
>
> Nonetheless, in this litigious society, we now have black box warnings on SSRIs, especially re adolescents. That is an entirely different question -- not all medications in the past were tested for the under 18 population. So that fits a whole special consideration. Adolescents have rapidly changing bodies and rapidly changing brains as well.
>
> I would say the jury is out on these sorts of manners, but analysis does no harm. Hysteria and my dear departed so and so committed suicide because he/she took X, Y, or Z, is not always so easy to tease out exactly the circumstances, and does do harm when improper information about antidepressants are handed out, i.e. Scientology, which rejects all antidepressants (yes, lets have people who really need help run in front of cars, that is a great solution -- but then this comes from people like Tom Cruise who would eat placentas on television.)
>
> - tidings
>
> JayHi, first time poster here. Well, I just wrote a reasonably long and (hopefully) informative post on what happened between Dr. Healy and the University of Toronto, but the post submission process ate it, and I don't have the energy to re-do the whole thing from scratch. Suffice it to say that Dr. Healy was given a formal offer of a position at a University of Toronto associated centre, made his infamous comments in an introductory lecture, and was promptly relieved of his emplyoment offer. Eli Lilly, by the way, appears to have been the largest outside source of funding for the centre at the time this all happened (and may still well be). So one can't use the fact that he was stripped of his position as a factor when considering the validity of his views on this issue, much as it's not particularly informative to define a word using the word itself in the definition.
Posted by Squiggles on May 12, 2006, at 15:30:44
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs, posted by genes-r-us on May 11, 2006, at 12:35:11
> Hi, first time poster here. Well, I just wrote a reasonably long and (hopefully) informative post on what happened between Dr. Healy and the University of Toronto, but the post submission process ate it, and I don't have the energy to re-do the whole thing from scratch.I hope you find time to repost it - it would
be interesting to read from a new poster.
Suffice it to say that Dr. Healy was given a formal offer of a position at a University of Toronto associated centre, made his infamous comments in an introductory lecture, and was promptly relieved of his emplyoment offer.It does appear that there are certain links
missing to the public and maybe the court.
Was it the content that was threatening to
the product Prozac (Healy says U of T knew
of his opinions beforehand); or was it his
"worldview" which disturbed them or made them
see him in a new light? Or was it possibly an
agreement he made with the U of T, which he
broke in his speech? We don't know. At least,
I don't know.Eli Lilly, by the way, appears to have been the largest outside source of funding for the centre at the time this all happened (and may still well be).
That's irrelevant. You may as well say that
so and so slept with a colleague. Furthermore,
there is no evidence that Eli Lilly played a role, nor that is a conspiracy theory came true, and
the "truth" was revealed, that Eli Lilly's stock
would suffer any substantial damage, great enough to take action against the hiring of a radical
professor. Though, i can understand that the
infamous corridor floating around the net
cooler may make people believe Lilly had a role.So one can't use the fact that he was stripped of his position as a factor when considering the validity of his views on this issue, much as it's not particularly informative to define a word using the word itself in the definition.
I don't understand the above paragraph.
Squiggles
Posted by Squiggles on May 12, 2006, at 17:26:38
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs - Final Verdict » genes-r-us, posted by Squiggles on May 12, 2006, at 15:30:44
SORRY - some of my paragraphs here are sloppy;
i have been having some trouble with my memory
since my last med misadventure; i will make
some corrections.
> > Hi, first time poster here. Well, I just wrote a reasonably long and (hopefully) informative post on what happened between Dr. Healy and the University of Toronto, but the post submission process ate it, and I don't have the energy to re-do the whole thing from scratch.
>
*I hope you find time to repost it - it would
be interesting to read from a new poster.
>
>
> Suffice it to say that Dr. Healy was given a formal offer of a position at a University of Toronto associated centre, made his infamous comments in an introductory lecture, and was promptly relieved of his emplyoment offer.
>
*It does appear that there are certain links
missing to the public and maybe the court.
Was it the content that was threatening to
the product Prozac (Healy says U of T knew
of his opinions beforehand); or was it his
"worldview" which disturbed them or made them
see him in a new light? Or was it possibly an
agreement he made with the U of T, which he
broke in his speech? We don't know. At least,
I don't know.
>
>
>
> Eli Lilly, by the way, appears to have been the largest outside source of funding for the centre at the time this all happened (and may still well be).
>
*That's irrelevant. You may as well say that
so and so slept with someone who was the
most influential colleague in the department. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Eli Lilly played a role in Healy's or the university's actions. Nor that, as a conspiracy theory might have it and even come true, that Eli Lilly twisted the university's arm. It is unlikely that Eli Lilly's stock would suffer any substantial damage, great enough to take action against the hiring of a radical professor. They are powerful and rich enough to afford many gaflies and radical professors in universities who criticize their products. Though, i can understand that the
infamous gossiped corridor confrontation (floating around the net ether) about Dr. Nemeroff and Dr. Healy coming to near blows may make people believe Lilly had a role.
>
> So one can't use the fact that he was stripped of his position as a factor when considering the validity of his views on this issue, much as it's not particularly informative to define a word using the word itself in the definition.
>
*I don't understand the above paragraph.
>
*Squiggles
>
>
Posted by Squiggles on May 12, 2006, at 20:35:19
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs - Final Verdict » Squiggles, posted by Squiggles on May 12, 2006, at 17:26:38
IMPORTANT ADDENDUM:
I just found an important paper:
Please see p. 200 of this document
for Dr. Nemeroff's defense:http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/prozac/2443T1.PDF
-----------
Squiggles
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 12, 2006, at 22:57:28
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs - ADDENDUM, posted by Squiggles on May 12, 2006, at 20:35:19
> IMPORTANT ADDENDUM:
>
> I just found an important paper:
>
> Please see p. 200 of this document
> for Dr. Nemeroff's defense:
>
> http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/prozac/2443T1.PDF
>
> -----------
>
> SquigglesDefense? I don't even know why you used that word, in this context. Why don't you give a brief statement, in your own words, what you think is being presented at that point in the document?
Lar
Posted by Squiggles on May 13, 2006, at 3:11:59
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs - ADDENDUM » Squiggles, posted by Larry Hoover on May 12, 2006, at 22:57:28
> > IMPORTANT ADDENDUM:
> >
> > I just found an important paper:
> >
> > Please see p. 200 of this document
> > for Dr. Nemeroff's defense:
> >
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/prozac/2443T1.PDF
> >
> > -----------
> >
> > Squiggles
>
> Defense? I don't even know why you used that word, in this context. Why don't you give a brief statement, in your own words, what you think is being presented at that point in the document?
>
> LarI will, give me some time. I'd like to read the
whole thing.Squiggles
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 13, 2006, at 8:35:14
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs - ADDENDUM » Larry Hoover, posted by Squiggles on May 13, 2006, at 3:11:59
> > Defense? I don't even know why you used that word, in this context. Why don't you give a brief statement, in your own words, what you think is being presented at that point in the document?
> >
> > Lar
>
> I will, give me some time. I'd like to read the
> whole thing.
>
> SquigglesI'm perennially confounded in conversations with you, my friend. We are so different in style. I should not have used the word defense without having read the paper. How do you know it's an important paper?
All I saw at pp. 200 and onwards was a very concise and precise definition of the role of anecdote in scientific inquiry. An extremely limited role, which upon revelation seems to raise the hackles of non-scientists. I struggle against it, here, myself. The hackle-raising, I mean. His example re: tonsils and tonsillectomy, is an excellent one.
Lar
Posted by Squiggles on May 13, 2006, at 9:59:43
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs - ADDENDUM » Squiggles, posted by Larry Hoover on May 13, 2006, at 8:35:14
Please be patient - I am reading it now.
It's important because so many scientists
and lawyers and victims are giving testimony
before the FDA and at an early period of the
drug's development.As far Dr. Nemeroff is concerned, his
contention that "testimonials" and "anecdotes"
are not scientifically significant, is not
a strange idea in statistical validity. But I
see some counterexamples by Fitz which i will
go into later.As for depression and its suicidality, and
a causal relation, imho this does not exclude
the possibility of suicidality in drug withdrawal,
inappropriate drug, e.g. Prozac or ther conditions. There is one thing he says, which
makes sense - two things can be true and not
be related.You sound like you've been through this really
fascinating stage in the (hopefully) evolution of
psychopharmacology, but I am just a layman.Still reading - back when I'm done with any comments. Hope others find it interesting too.
Squiggles
> I'm perennially confounded in conversations with you, my friend. We are so different in style. I should not have used the word defense without having read the paper. How do you know it's an important paper?
>
> All I saw at pp. 200 and onwards was a very concise and precise definition of the role of anecdote in scientific inquiry. An extremely limited role, which upon revelation seems to raise the hackles of non-scientists. I struggle against it, here, myself. The hackle-raising, I mean. His example re: tonsils and tonsillectomy, is an excellent one.
>
> Lar
>
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.