![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 25. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by poser938 on January 25, 2014, at 22:11:09
That's the line many bring up when defending any flaws in the "Science" of Psychiatry. I've heard/read it many times. Someones (my) ability to live or experience anything close to resembling what people call "Life" is ruined by Psychiatric Drugs and all the sudden the Doctors, Psychiatrists and many people only discount my situation. The main idea they fall back on is "Correlation does not imply causation." Or they might say"Well myself and a few others I know haven't experienced anything like that from Psych Meds, so I find it unbelievable they caused your situation", paying no mind to the small world they describe where apparently only their experiences count.
Many even think "Science" is on their side. They think since the authorities and the really smart Psychiatrists promote these meds, that they can't be that bad. To some, they don't even believe these meds can induce or worsen suicidal thoughts. That the warning was just put on them to keep lawsuits from crazed people who wanted to correlate their worsening suicide feelings ever since starting the Med, as being caused by the med., and therefore filing a lawsuit. People are misled by the term "Antidepressant" or even referring to these chemicals can be misleading. It is simply a chemical that has been found to alter your brain chemistry. But the brain is so complex and eludes our understanding. Are we really ready to do work on it with our primitive understanding of it. But sure, some lives have been saved. But some lives have been ruined as well. As of right now, my life has been ruined by them. We are nowhere near the point where doctors can just hand out these prescriptions like they do. Nowhere near the point where we can just discount any lives ruined by them. Every brain is unique and responds in a unique way to them. So everyones experience should be seen in a unique way, and not be demeaning experiences where someone has what is a unique experience.
And speaking of Correlation NOT implying Causation. Why does this not apply to the process that's used to approve these drugs? After ingesting one of these chemicals in a Clinical Trial, a few weeks later someone notices their Depression has lessened. So then it is agreed that the Chemical played its role in lessening the patients Depression. This idea isn't even contested. Even though you can't measure the effects of this pill on their Depression like you can a Blood Pressure Med on Blood Pressure. So why do Drug Companies get to elude the idea of Correlation not implying Causation? ....OH! Its "Science",... right...
Yeah sure, I suppose this is a rant. But I'm just so sick of their being no help. No attention or credibility being given to those who have experienced the worst of Psychiatry and their meds. Much of what many think of as Science is just propaganda spewed by Drug Companies.
But I know my words fall on deaf ears...
Posted by Phillipa on January 25, 2014, at 22:42:06
In reply to Corelation does not imply causation, posted by poser938 on January 25, 2014, at 22:11:09
I hear you. And I also didn't have problems till went on ad's. I must admit benzos helped me. But now after all these years last night I thought took Xanax and because I thought I took it slept well. This morning found the pill on bedside table. Thought now isn't this interesting my mind thought I would be tired so slept. Time to get off the roller coaster of meds. And try to get back to who I used to be. Thanks for this thread. Phillipa
Posted by poser938 on January 25, 2014, at 22:52:17
In reply to Re: Corelation does not imply causation » poser938, posted by Phillipa on January 25, 2014, at 22:42:06
Wow. Thats so cool Philipa. I do hope you can get back to sleeping and functioning well without any "medicine". I do feel that therapy is way underutilized. It helped me very much at the very beginning. But I started on meds at the same time I started therapy. And after some time on them, my mood worsened into Severe Depression and I stopped responding to Therapy. But n the beginning, it helped very much to help me realize how my negative thought processes and emotions started. And how to avoid them, and see the good things in life.
Posted by jono_in_adelaide on January 26, 2014, at 2:36:55
In reply to Corelation does not imply causation, posted by poser938 on January 25, 2014, at 22:11:09
Well, its quite simple then - don't take them, just enjoy wallowing in your own misery
Posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2014, at 2:57:34
In reply to Corelation does not imply causation, posted by poser938 on January 25, 2014, at 22:11:09
correlation not implying causation is part of the rationale behind randomized double blind control trials being considered best standard of evidence.
because individuals are randomly assigned to treatment or control group (and nobody knows which group anybody is in) the ONLY difference between the control group and the treatment group (with respect to the populations) is the presence of the medication vs placebo.
thus if you find population level differences between one group feeling better or getting better or whatever for your measure of better... one can infer that the cause of that was the treatment.
without the control group - one would be left making (problematic) inferences from correlation to causation.
of course it might be that even though the people were randomly assigned it just happens to be the case that the people taking the active meds have dogs and the people in the control group don't. or the people in the active group are all under 25 but the people in the control group are over 40. or whatever... there are guidelines on sample sizes and margins of error to try and reduce these sorts of possible confounds...
though...
to be fair...
drug trials isn't so much science... as it is about the process of patenting an invention / product.
often it isn't about efficacy so much as about less side-effects than previous generation medication. efficacy... never was particularly good, i don't think. i'm fairly sure nobody much is claiming that newer generation medications are *more effective*. i was pretty sure *safer* was their main claim to fame... (largely because longitudinal data ain't in yet). which is convenient... given the life of a patient...
Posted by herpills on January 26, 2014, at 18:37:43
In reply to Corelation does not imply causation, posted by poser938 on January 25, 2014, at 22:11:09
I just wanted to say I can relate to this, as I'm sure others who read it will as well but might not respond. Just wanted to say I'm listening--its not falling on deaf ears. Its hard when treatments that are supposed to help, end up doing the opposite.
Posted by herpills on January 26, 2014, at 18:40:51
In reply to Re: Corelation does not imply causation, posted by jono_in_adelaide on January 26, 2014, at 2:36:55
> Well, its quite simple then - don't take them, just enjoy wallowing in your own misery
I'm curious, did you feel personally attacked because this person spoke negatively of psychiatric medication?
I usually enjoy your posts, but I found this response unnecessary...
Posted by herpills on January 26, 2014, at 18:42:28
In reply to Re: Corelation does not imply causation, posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2014, at 2:57:34
>
> drug trials isn't so much science... as it is about the process of patenting an invention / product.
>good point I think
Posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2014, at 19:28:48
In reply to Re: Corelation does not imply causation » alexandra_k, posted by herpills on January 26, 2014, at 18:42:28
> >
> > drug trials isn't so much science... as it is about the process of patenting an invention / product.
> >
>
> good point I think
>what is absolutely astounding to me is that it is considered a controversial one.
pharmaceutical company representatives (sales / marketing people) are allowed to present their '9 out of 10 dentists recommend our brand of toothbrush' data to medical students in educational settings *as education* along with bribes such as free food, stationary, and conference sponsorship (in exchange for free advertising).
you would think the best way to teach medical students to think critically would be to... teach them to tell the difference between education and advertising. and to teach them enough psychology to tell that there really is no such thing as a free lunch - the effects of advertising are insidious and defy conscious awareness.
Posted by poser938 on January 27, 2014, at 4:18:24
In reply to Re: Corelation does not imply causation » poser938, posted by herpills on January 26, 2014, at 18:37:43
Alexandra and Her pills, thank you guys. I get frustrated at times with dealing with Psychiatry and sometimes I just come to Psychobabble to let out of my thoughts. I've been kinda stuck in the psychiatric system since 2005. I consider myself as naive about it in 2005. I could not have imagined the experience awaiting me for at least the next 9 Years.
But Psychiatry seems so disgusting to me now. I'm glad you two see glaring flaws in the system, that there is no excuse for as well.
And with Jonos comment, I get that often. I can't understand either why people in online forums seem to take it personally, when I describe my experience and criticize Psychiatry.
Posted by SLS on January 27, 2014, at 7:30:16
In reply to Corelation does not imply causation, posted by poser938 on January 25, 2014, at 22:11:09
I guess the science is only as good as the scientists. I don't think there is anything wrong with the model of blinded drug trials. It is the design, preparation, and execution of the experiments that I find problems with, especially in the last 25 years. I actually favor the investigations of the 1970s and 1980s. I believe that they were less biased by the desires of drug companies, and the selection of subjects more stringent in their diagnosis of MDD. It was closer to being pure research. Interestingly, the placebo rate was lower and the response rate was higher during that period of investigation.
Are the more recently approved antidepressants worthless?
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on January 27, 2014, at 23:49:27
In reply to Re: Corelation does not imply causation » poser938, posted by SLS on January 27, 2014, at 7:30:16
> I guess the science is only as good as the scientists.
this is where i jump up and down. it gives science a bad name - but it shouldn't - because it isn't science.
drug design is more like engineering as an *application* of science than it is like a science.
they aren't really doing experiments in order to understand mental illness. they are doing what is required to be done in order for them to get the patient through in order to make money from sales.
this is why moving away from an academic *research* setting into working in industry, for pharma, is largely considered *selling out*. because it isn't about knowledge anymore. it is about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Posted by jono_in_adelaide on January 27, 2014, at 23:57:04
In reply to Re: Corelation does not imply causation, posted by alexandra_k on January 27, 2014, at 23:49:27
All i was saying was if you dont like or agree with psychiatry, dont go to a psychiatrist, if you dont like/agree with psychotrophic drugs, dont take them
I think natropaths and homeopaths are a crock of you know what, so I would never go to one, same thing here
Posted by alexandra_k on January 28, 2014, at 2:33:59
In reply to Re: Corelation does not imply causation, posted by alexandra_k on January 27, 2014, at 23:49:27
but engineering is different because there is some code of conduct about benefiting mankind.
i don't think that companies have such codes of conduct. though they might voluntarily adopt them, they don't have to.
i don't think.
but i don't actually know.
i guess that means you are only allowed to design / make weapons for the good guys.
Posted by poser938 on January 28, 2014, at 4:29:53
In reply to Re: Corelation does not imply causation » poser938, posted by SLS on January 27, 2014, at 7:30:16
>
> Are the more recently approved antidepressants worthless?
>
>
> - Scott
>I don't think we can get a clear picture of how worthless or effective these meds are. Or how they should be prescribed. Who they should be prescribed to. There are just too many conflicts of interest, too much misinformation. And most of the public is completely unaware of just how shady Psychiatry and Drug Companies are. Perhaps even the FDA as well. Often it seems the FDA sees its role is to protect Drug Companies and Corporations from lawsuits, instead of protecting Consumers.
It is clear to me that anyone with knowledge of how these drugs work, could very easily see the connection between them possibly causing a situation referred to as Tardive Dysphoria. Basically the over stimulation of a neurotransmitter system over time causing that system to become unresponsive. In my situation this has been seemingly permanent. This is all based on the idea that for every action, there is an opposite reaction.
But my reaction to meds isn't seen as legitimate. It doesn't actually exist in the medical knowledge world. Though I had read this reaction is mentioned in the 1991 USP DI Drug Information For Healthcare Providers. It may be in newer versions of the book as well.
I believe if Drug Companies had to pay for all the wrong they've caused in the lives of patients, they wouldn't exist. But many who have experienced the worst from medication, are swept under the rug. Our situation doesn't matter in this world. We will never get any compensation. Im oust left trying to be very careful and trying more meds to reverse what Mirapex caused for me.
I'm currently on Lexapro. And if this SSRI eventually does the same thing Mirapex did, but basically causing a shutdown of my Serotonin system, I am honestly afraid I could become uncontrollable. Possibly become violent even. But I have no other option but to try more meds.
Posted by SLS on January 28, 2014, at 6:39:23
In reply to Re: Corelation does not imply causation, posted by poser938 on January 28, 2014, at 4:29:53
Poser
I'm not sure where the weakenesses are in the system that allowed you to take drugs that harmed you. I don't think one can spread the criticism around equally because there are so many levels that exist between the pure science that leads to the discovery of novel substances to FDA approval to post marketing surveillance.
> I'm currently on Lexapro. And if this SSRI eventually does the same thing Mirapex did, but basically causing a shutdown of my Serotonin system, I am honestly afraid I could become uncontrollable. Possibly become violent even. But I have no other option but to try more meds.
I found myself saying the same things to myself in 1983, when it was proven by Columbia University that drug therapy produced robust antidepressant responses that, unfortunately, never lasted for more than a week. I got angry at the doctors most of all when I discovered that they did not have all of the tools and all of the answers. I was less angry with medical science, and only occasionally angry with God.
Sure... these drugs suck. I could wait another 100 years for psychiatry gets it right for me. Oops... I don't have another 100 years. I want to end the pain today. I want to build a life today. So, I came to the decision that I would invest myself in searching for a successful treatment. I knew that the journey would include even greater pain at times because it was observed that some drugs made me feel worse. Side effects would prove barely tolerable. AND I WASN'T GETTING BETTER! Looking around I realized that I had no better choice but to methodically try doctors' treatments and even design some of my own. I even saw doctors who took me through some alternative treatments, including megadoses of vitamins, supplements, and rotation diets.
It is my conclusion that many psychiatric drugs produce persistent changes in the brain that can remain long after treatment is discontinued. That's part of the gamble. The nature and magnitude of these effects has not been fully recognized by mainstream clinical psychiatry. There is quite a bit to consider when making a decision to consent to, or decline, a proposed treatment.
What better choice do I have?
For some people, it comes down to which is worse - the illness or the cure. Without treatment, I remain immobilized physically, and with no energy and no intelligent thought. I remain vegetative and mute. I lose most of my abilities to read, learn, and remember. I become a shut-in and interact only with computers and family. I lose jobs, marriages, and friends. Yet... I feel very fortunate. Things for me could be worse. I am not homeless or hungry. I am able to take care of myself - barely - but independence is more important to me than having to live by other people's rules. My goals continue to be responding robustly to my medical treatment and rejoin society. Probably the quickest way for me to do that is to go back to work.
What better choice do I have?
I want to live. I am not so much afraid of death as I am of never having lived.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on January 28, 2014, at 6:52:56
In reply to Re: Corelation does not imply causation, posted by alexandra_k on January 27, 2014, at 23:49:27
> > I guess the science is only as good as the scientists.
>
> this is where i jump up and down. it gives science a bad name - but it shouldn't - because it isn't science.
>
> drug design is more like engineering as an *application* of science than it is like a science.
>
> they aren't really doing experiments in order to understand mental illness. they are doing what is required to be done in order for them to get the patient through in order to make money from sales.
>
> this is why moving away from an academic *research* setting into working in industry, for pharma, is largely considered *selling out*. because it isn't about knowledge anymore. it is about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Sorry, Alexandra. I won't jump up and down, but I have followed the pure research being conducted by neuroscience and psychiatry. The amount of data being generated is overwhelming. However, there is a paucity of understanding.Specifically, what aspects of pharmaceutical company-sponsored clinical drug trials do you find fault with?
I can think of a few.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2014, at 13:49:32
In reply to Re: Corelation does not imply causation, posted by jono_in_adelaide on January 27, 2014, at 23:57:04
> Well, its quite simple then - don't take them, just enjoy wallowing in your own misery
> All i was saying was if you dont like or agree with psychiatry, dont go to a psychiatrist, if you dont like/agree with psychotrophic drugs, dont take them
I'm not sure it's so simple. What if someone doesn't like the science, or the propaganda, of psychiatry and doesn't like feeling miserable, either?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on January 28, 2014, at 19:47:29
In reply to Re: Corelation does not imply causation » jono_in_adelaide, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2014, at 13:49:32
> > Well, its quite simple then - don't take them, just enjoy wallowing in your own misery
>
> > All i was saying was if you dont like or agree with psychiatry, dont go to a psychiatrist, if you dont like/agree with psychotrophic drugs, dont take them
>
> I'm not sure it's so simple. What if someone doesn't like the science, or the propaganda, of psychiatry and doesn't like feeling miserable, either?
>
> Bobone could try and find a psychiatrist who has transcended psychiatry.
luck with that.
Posted by baseball55 on January 28, 2014, at 20:03:54
In reply to Re: Corelation does not imply causation » jono_in_adelaide, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2014, at 13:49:32
> I'm not sure it's so simple. What if someone doesn't like the science, or the propaganda, of psychiatry and doesn't like feeling miserable, either?
>
> BobI'm with Jono here. If you believe the drugs are not working, are all propaganda, and are the cause of your misery, then why take them at all? Why even go to a psychiatrist? Even if you're miserable, if you don't believe drugs will cure your misery -- indeed believe drugs caused your misery -- then why bother with psychiatry?
Posted by alexandra_k on January 28, 2014, at 21:24:12
In reply to Re: Corelation does not imply causation, posted by baseball55 on January 28, 2014, at 20:03:54
i ask community mental health to help me, even though i feel similarly about medication and about psychiatry.
i'm looking for a p-doc who has transcended psychiatry. i probably ain't gonna find one ha! but i still look... sigh.
a psychiatrist who is secure enough to know that sometimes meds aren't what is needed. and sometimes the 'you are broken' thing isn't so helpful, either. someone to... listen.
why a psychiatrist? why not a counselor or a church leader? why not a friend or a dog?
f*ck*d if i know, actually.
but there it is.
Posted by poser938 on January 30, 2014, at 15:37:17
In reply to Re: Corelation does not imply causation » poser938, posted by SLS on January 28, 2014, at 6:39:23
>
> I found myself saying the same things to myself in 1983, when it was proven by Columbia University that drug therapy produced robust antidepressant responses that, unfortunately, never lasted for more than a week. I got angry at the doctors most of all when I discovered that they did not have all of the tools and all of the answers. I was less angry with medical science, and only occasionally angry with God.
>
> Sure... these drugs suck. I could wait another 100 years for psychiatry gets it right for me. Oops... I don't have another 100 years. I want to end the pain today. I want to build a life today. So, I came to the decision that I would invest myself in searching for a successful treatment. I knew that the journey would include even greater pain at times because it was observed that some drugs made me feel worse. Side effects would prove barely tolerable. AND I WASN'T GETTING BETTER! Looking around I realized that I had no better choice but to methodically try doctors' treatments and even design some of my own. I even saw doctors who took me through some alternative treatments, including megadoses of vitamins, supplements, and rotation diets.
>
> It is my conclusion that many psychiatric drugs produce persistent changes in the brain that can remain long after treatment is discontinued. That's part of the gamble. The nature and magnitude of these effects has not been fully recognized by mainstream clinical psychiatry. There is quite a bit to consider when making a decision to consent to, or decline, a proposed treatment.
>
> For some people, it comes down to which is worse - the illness or the cure. Without treatment, I remain immobilized physically, and with no energy and no intelligent thought. I remain vegetative and mute. I lose most of my abilities to read, learn, and remember. I become a shut-in and interact only with computers and family. I lose jobs, marriages, and friends. Yet... I feel very fortunate. Things for me could be worse. I am not homeless or hungry. I am able to take care of myself - barely - but independence is more important to me than having to live by other people's rules. My goals continue to be responding robustly to my medical treatment and rejoin society. Probably the quickest way for me to do that is to go back to work.
>
> What better choice do I have?
>
> I want to live. I am not so much afraid of death as I am of never having lived.
>
> hi Scott, I would have replied sooner, but my internet was down.I just wish I would have had some idea of what kind of gamble taking psych meds could be before I made the decision to take them.
I had read a bit from doctors who spoke out against Psychiatric Meds back then. But the mainstream idea is that they are "Quacks", and that they had no credibility. I figured "This is America!", and that such a corrupt system couldn't exist in Mental Health Care in America.But you and I, and perhaps too many of us on Babble feel the same about not getting a chance to have lived. And not being afraid of death.
Posted by poser938 on January 30, 2014, at 15:40:09
In reply to Re: Corelation does not imply causation, posted by baseball55 on January 28, 2014, at 20:03:54
> > I'm not sure it's so simple. What if someone doesn't like the science, or the propaganda, of psychiatry and doesn't like feeling miserable, either?
> >
> > Bob
>
> I'm with Jono here. If you believe the drugs are not working, are all propaganda, and are the cause of your misery, then why take them at all? Why even go to a psychiatrist? Even if you're miserable, if you don't believe drugs will cure your misery -- indeed believe drugs caused your misery -- then why bother with psychiatry?Baseball, either you didn't read fully what I wrote in my different posts. Or you picked out certain points and exaggerated them a bit, while ignoring other things I wrote.
I feel no need to repeat myself.
Posted by AlexanderS on February 8, 2014, at 11:44:48
In reply to Corelation does not imply causation, posted by poser938 on January 25, 2014, at 22:11:09
I am currently reading a book called(translated from Danish) "Deadly medicine and orginased crime" by Peter C. Gøetszhe. It is absolutely damning, but it's based in reality and on facts. It pretty much validates every complaint we have made here on babble.
The author is a very clever guy who runs an indepedent institute that researchs the effects of medicine. He wrote this quite provocative article recently in a Danish newspaper
Posted by SLS on February 8, 2014, at 20:51:41
In reply to Re: Corelation does not imply causation, posted by AlexanderS on February 8, 2014, at 11:44:48
> The author is a very clever guy...
I agree.
- Scott
This is the end of the 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.