Problems Other Than Alcoho...

[Virtualoso]

[excerpted from a newspaper columnist]

"Two things led to today's column. First, I was watching the news on TV
the other night and couldn't help but notice that every other
commercial was for some drug that, aside from a host of nasty side
effects, was something I just had to ask my doctor about right away."

"Second, I received here at the paper a big, fancy package from
pharmaceutical giant Pfizer ... explaining why direct-to-consumer, or
DTC, advertising is a vital component of modern health care."

"The timing of Pfizer's outreach isn't arbitrary. The Food and Drug
Administration plans to hold hearings this month on DTC ads and their
impact on consumers. The agency has warned that existing rules may be
rewritten."

"At issue is whether such ads mislead consumers into seeking
unnecessary and often expensive treatments, and whether pushing
prescription drugs on TV and in print drives up health-care costs."

"...we need to make sure that consumers aren't being misled or deceived
by promotional activity that violates the law," FDA Commissioner Mark
McClellan said in a speech last month."

"DTC ades have been especially effective, I think, in conveying the
message that conditions like depression and anxiety are more common
than people think and are treatable disorders."

"What concerns me - and, not incidentally, the FDA - is the fact that
these ads aren't just public service spots. They're selling a product."

"The New England Journal of Medicine published a study on DTC drug
advertising last year in which it noted that 'demand by patients is the
most common reason offered by physicians for inappropriate
prescribing.'"

"In other words, a patient will insist on that purple pill he saw on
TV, and no amount of explaining about alternative treatments will
change that person's mind."

"The Journal also observed that DTC ads increase doctor's workloads 'by
requiring them to help patients interpret the information presented by
advertisers.'"

"Meanwhile, the Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park released a study
this summer showing that DTC drug ads are having a substantial impact
on consumers' wallets."

"Spending on prescription drugs climbed by a $2.6 billion as a result
of DTC advertising, the study found. That may be a drop in the bucket
compared with almost $141 billion spent overall on prescription drugs,
but that's $2.6 billion that could have gone to other uses."

"Moreover, the Kaiser study determined that DTC ads have a clear impact
on drug companies' bottom lines. For every dollar spent by the industry
on DTC ads, it found, drug manufacturers reaped an additional $4.20 in
sales."

"That's a pretty good return," said Janet Lundy, senior program officer
at the foundation.

"When the FDA hears testimony on this subject Sept. 22 and 23,
hopefully someone will suggest that the DTC ads be refocused so that
greater emphasis is placed on information about medical conditions and
less prominence is given to the hawking of specific drugs."

"Ultimately," said Lundy at the Kaiser Family foundation, "we have to
ask if this is the best thing for the patient."


-----------
"The benefits of psychiatric drugs are vastly exaggerated, their
disadvantages are too often minimized, and there is far too little
information about how to *stop* taking them."

"In recent years, the virtues of psychiatric drugs have been widely
extolled, but an informed decision can be made only when people also
have access to both a more critical view of drugs and a frank analysis
of their hazards. The law also supports the right of people to be fully
informed about potential hazards before agreeing to a doctor's
recommendation for a drug."

"Do not let anyone pressure you into starting or continuing psychiatric
drugs. As a competent adult, you have ethical and legal right ... to be
completely informed in advance about the dangers of any psychiatric
drug, including its withdrawal effects."

"No matter how many doctors favor one or another psychiatric drug, you
can and should decide for yourself. Your decisions about taking or
rejecting drugs need to be made without coercive pressure from doctors
and in the absence of exaggeration, misinformation, and deception."

"Even if you and your doctor don't realize it, the psychiatric drugs
that you are taking could be causing you serious mental, emotional, or
physical harm. Your doctor may fail to appreciate that some of your
problems are being caused by the prescribed medication and, instead,
mistakenly increase your dose or add another drug to your regimen. This
prescription cycle - a common occurance - could expose you to increased
risks of adverse drug effects."

" When you reduce or skip your medication, you may experience painful
emotional or physical reactions as the effects of your drug wear off.
This is due to drug withdrawal between doses. But if you don't realize
that you are undergoing interdose withdrawal, you may wrongly assume
that you will *always* feel that uncomfortable if you stop the
medication. Similarly, your doctor may mistakenly insist that your
discomfort is proof that you need to take *more* of the drug or
additional drugs to control your discomfort."

"The reader may assume that these negative reactions to psychiatric
drugs are rare, but, in reality, they are quite common. Moreover, the
harm they cause often goes unrecognized or is attributed to something
other than the medications."

"In fact, stopping is often the only way to discover that psychiatric
drugs have been the source of your persistent symptoms."

Dr. P. Breggin & Dr. D. Cohen

[Bobby L.]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:120920031856047482%virtualoso@dot.com...
>
> [excerpted from a newspaper columnist]
>
> "Two things led to today's column. First, I was watching the news on TV
> the other night and couldn't help but notice that every other
> commercial was for some drug that, aside from a host of nasty side
> effects, was something I just had to ask my doctor about right away."
>
> "Second, I received here at the paper a big, fancy package from
> pharmaceutical giant Pfizer ... explaining why direct-to-consumer, or
> DTC, advertising is a vital component of modern health care."
>
> "The timing of Pfizer's outreach isn't arbitrary. The Food and Drug
> Administration plans to hold hearings this month on DTC ads and their
> impact on consumers. The agency has warned that existing rules may be
> rewritten."
>
> "At issue is whether such ads mislead consumers into seeking
> unnecessary and often expensive treatments, and whether pushing
> prescription drugs on TV and in print drives up health-care costs."
>
> "...we need to make sure that consumers aren't being misled or deceived
> by promotional activity that violates the law," FDA Commissioner Mark
> McClellan said in a speech last month."
>
> "DTC ades have been especially effective, I think, in conveying the
> message that conditions like depression and anxiety are more common
> than people think and are treatable disorders."
>
> "What concerns me - and, not incidentally, the FDA - is the fact that
> these ads aren't just public service spots. They're selling a product."
>
> "The New England Journal of Medicine published a study on DTC drug
> advertising last year in which it noted that 'demand by patients is the
> most common reason offered by physicians for inappropriate
> prescribing.'"
>
> "In other words, a patient will insist on that purple pill he saw on
> TV, and no amount of explaining about alternative treatments will
> change that person's mind."
>
> "The Journal also observed that DTC ads increase doctor's workloads 'by
> requiring them to help patients interpret the information presented by
> advertisers.'"
>
> "Meanwhile, the Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park released a study
> this summer showing that DTC drug ads are having a substantial impact
> on consumers' wallets."
>
> "Spending on prescription drugs climbed by a $2.6 billion as a result
> of DTC advertising, the study found. That may be a drop in the bucket
> compared with almost $141 billion spent overall on prescription drugs,
> but that's $2.6 billion that could have gone to other uses."
>
> "Moreover, the Kaiser study determined that DTC ads have a clear impact
> on drug companies' bottom lines. For every dollar spent by the industry
> on DTC ads, it found, drug manufacturers reaped an additional $4.20 in
> sales."
>
> "That's a pretty good return," said Janet Lundy, senior program officer
> at the foundation.
>
> "When the FDA hears testimony on this subject Sept. 22 and 23,
> hopefully someone will suggest that the DTC ads be refocused so that
> greater emphasis is placed on information about medical conditions and
> less prominence is given to the hawking of specific drugs."
>
> "Ultimately," said Lundy at the Kaiser Family foundation, "we have to
> ask if this is the best thing for the patient."
>
>
> -----------
> "The benefits of psychiatric drugs are vastly exaggerated, their
> disadvantages are too often minimized, and there is far too little
> information about how to *stop* taking them."
>
> "In recent years, the virtues of psychiatric drugs have been widely
> extolled, but an informed decision can be made only when people also
> have access to both a more critical view of drugs and a frank analysis
> of their hazards. The law also supports the right of people to be fully
> informed about potential hazards before agreeing to a doctor's
> recommendation for a drug."
>
> "Do not let anyone pressure you into starting or continuing psychiatric
> drugs. As a competent adult, you have ethical and legal right ... to be
> completely informed in advance about the dangers of any psychiatric
> drug, including its withdrawal effects."
>
> "No matter how many doctors favor one or another psychiatric drug, you
> can and should decide for yourself. Your decisions about taking or
> rejecting drugs need to be made without coercive pressure from doctors
> and in the absence of exaggeration, misinformation, and deception."
>
> "Even if you and your doctor don't realize it, the psychiatric drugs
> that you are taking could be causing you serious mental, emotional, or
> physical harm. Your doctor may fail to appreciate that some of your
> problems are being caused by the prescribed medication and, instead,
> mistakenly increase your dose or add another drug to your regimen. This
> prescription cycle - a common occurance - could expose you to increased
> risks of adverse drug effects."
>
> " When you reduce or skip your medication, you may experience painful
> emotional or physical reactions as the effects of your drug wear off.
> This is due to drug withdrawal between doses. But if you don't realize
> that you are undergoing interdose withdrawal, you may wrongly assume
> that you will *always* feel that uncomfortable if you stop the
> medication. Similarly, your doctor may mistakenly insist that your
> discomfort is proof that you need to take *more* of the drug or
> additional drugs to control your discomfort."
>
> "The reader may assume that these negative reactions to psychiatric
> drugs are rare, but, in reality, they are quite common. Moreover, the
> harm they cause often goes unrecognized or is attributed to something
> other than the medications."
>
> "In fact, stopping is often the only way to discover that psychiatric
> drugs have been the source of your persistent symptoms."
>
> Dr. P. Breggin & Dr. D. Cohen


'nuff said?

Bobby L

[Shawster]

I loved that ad for a sleeping pill. The ad where everyone uses a glowing
rope to lasso the moon.

"common side effects may include drowsiness..."

No shit, really?

[Michael H.]

"Shawster" <shawster@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Dwv8b.53309$Mb2.1722236@twister.tampabay.rr.c om...
> I loved that ad for a sleeping pill. The ad where everyone uses a glowing
> rope to lasso the moon.
>
> "common side effects may include drowsiness..."
>
> No shit, really?
>
>
>

Some great ads here:

http://www.adbusters.org/creativeresistance/spoofads/misc/prozac/

Peace
Michael H.

[blackout]

Good post. Raises a lot of recent "arguments" we've had lately. Give us more
when you can, please!


PS) I would love to respond to some of the nonsense in the article, but I
don't lmow where to begin.




"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:120920031856047482%virtualoso@dot.com...
>
> [excerpted from a newspaper columnist]
>
> "Two things led to today's column. First, I was watching the news on TV
> the other night and couldn't help but notice that every other
> commercial was for some drug that, aside from a host of nasty side
> effects, was something I just had to ask my doctor about right away."
>
> "Second, I received here at the paper a big, fancy package from
> pharmaceutical giant Pfizer ... explaining why direct-to-consumer, or
> DTC, advertising is a vital component of modern health care."
>
> "The timing of Pfizer's outreach isn't arbitrary. The Food and Drug
> Administration plans to hold hearings this month on DTC ads and their
> impact on consumers. The agency has warned that existing rules may be
> rewritten."
>
> "At issue is whether such ads mislead consumers into seeking
> unnecessary and often expensive treatments, and whether pushing
> prescription drugs on TV and in print drives up health-care costs."
>
> "...we need to make sure that consumers aren't being misled or deceived
> by promotional activity that violates the law," FDA Commissioner Mark
> McClellan said in a speech last month."
>
> "DTC ades have been especially effective, I think, in conveying the
> message that conditions like depression and anxiety are more common
> than people think and are treatable disorders."
>
> "What concerns me - and, not incidentally, the FDA - is the fact that
> these ads aren't just public service spots. They're selling a product."
>
> "The New England Journal of Medicine published a study on DTC drug
> advertising last year in which it noted that 'demand by patients is the
> most common reason offered by physicians for inappropriate
> prescribing.'"
>
> "In other words, a patient will insist on that purple pill he saw on
> TV, and no amount of explaining about alternative treatments will
> change that person's mind."
>
> "The Journal also observed that DTC ads increase doctor's workloads 'by
> requiring them to help patients interpret the information presented by
> advertisers.'"
>
> "Meanwhile, the Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park released a study
> this summer showing that DTC drug ads are having a substantial impact
> on consumers' wallets."
>
> "Spending on prescription drugs climbed by a $2.6 billion as a result
> of DTC advertising, the study found. That may be a drop in the bucket
> compared with almost $141 billion spent overall on prescription drugs,
> but that's $2.6 billion that could have gone to other uses."
>
> "Moreover, the Kaiser study determined that DTC ads have a clear impact
> on drug companies' bottom lines. For every dollar spent by the industry
> on DTC ads, it found, drug manufacturers reaped an additional $4.20 in
> sales."
>
> "That's a pretty good return," said Janet Lundy, senior program officer
> at the foundation.
>
> "When the FDA hears testimony on this subject Sept. 22 and 23,
> hopefully someone will suggest that the DTC ads be refocused so that
> greater emphasis is placed on information about medical conditions and
> less prominence is given to the hawking of specific drugs."
>
> "Ultimately," said Lundy at the Kaiser Family foundation, "we have to
> ask if this is the best thing for the patient."
>
>
> -----------
> "The benefits of psychiatric drugs are vastly exaggerated, their
> disadvantages are too often minimized, and there is far too little
> information about how to *stop* taking them."
>
> "In recent years, the virtues of psychiatric drugs have been widely
> extolled, but an informed decision can be made only when people also
> have access to both a more critical view of drugs and a frank analysis
> of their hazards. The law also supports the right of people to be fully
> informed about potential hazards before agreeing to a doctor's
> recommendation for a drug."
>
> "Do not let anyone pressure you into starting or continuing psychiatric
> drugs. As a competent adult, you have ethical and legal right ... to be
> completely informed in advance about the dangers of any psychiatric
> drug, including its withdrawal effects."
>
> "No matter how many doctors favor one or another psychiatric drug, you
> can and should decide for yourself. Your decisions about taking or
> rejecting drugs need to be made without coercive pressure from doctors
> and in the absence of exaggeration, misinformation, and deception."
>
> "Even if you and your doctor don't realize it, the psychiatric drugs
> that you are taking could be causing you serious mental, emotional, or
> physical harm. Your doctor may fail to appreciate that some of your
> problems are being caused by the prescribed medication and, instead,
> mistakenly increase your dose or add another drug to your regimen. This
> prescription cycle - a common occurance - could expose you to increased
> risks of adverse drug effects."
>
> " When you reduce or skip your medication, you may experience painful
> emotional or physical reactions as the effects of your drug wear off.
> This is due to drug withdrawal between doses. But if you don't realize
> that you are undergoing interdose withdrawal, you may wrongly assume
> that you will *always* feel that uncomfortable if you stop the
> medication. Similarly, your doctor may mistakenly insist that your
> discomfort is proof that you need to take *more* of the drug or
> additional drugs to control your discomfort."
>
> "The reader may assume that these negative reactions to psychiatric
> drugs are rare, but, in reality, they are quite common. Moreover, the
> harm they cause often goes unrecognized or is attributed to something
> other than the medications."
>
> "In fact, stopping is often the only way to discover that psychiatric
> drugs have been the source of your persistent symptoms."
>
> Dr. P. Breggin & Dr. D. Cohen

[blackout]

OK, why not...I just have some few things to add ( I know this article doees
not necessarily represent your personal opinions, Virtualoso, I may come off
as a little harsh, but just ignore it.)

> "The benefits of psychiatric drugs are vastly exaggerated, their
> disadvantages are too often minimized, and there is far too little
> information about how to *stop* taking them."

First of all, do you know what the authors are doctors of? Psychiatry or
psychology? I will assume it is psychology....But please, if you can figure
it out, I would be glad. ;) I assume they are mainly aiming at SSRIs, and
not anti-psychotics, tranquilizers and the like.

"The benefits of psychiatric drugs are vastly exaggerated...." that is one
statement that millions of people around the world would disagree with,
since they have had the luck of being cured of several psychiatric disorders
such as anxiety, panic attacks, depression, etc.that cognitive therapy can
not cure, and certainly not on a short-term basis.

"Disadvantages" I interpret as side-effects. These are well-known for SSRIs,
and they have been through extensive control and have been used for almost
20 years without any truly serious side-effects. One fatal side effect can
occur, Serotonin Syndrome, but this usually only occurs when combined with
recreational drugs (we're talking less than 5 incidents in 20 years, which
is incredible compared to non.psychotropic drugs)- which leads me to a very
important point concerning the doctor-patient relationsship.

But first, the so-called dependency problem and the problem of stopping the
medication. Real withdrawal symptoms usually only occur when the patient
does not understand or follow the specific instructions told by the doctor.
Tapering is key to this; I admit that some doctors may have a problem
explaining the importance of this to the patient, but usually a schedule for
tapering is made. Then the patient goes home, forgets to take his pills as
directed, says "hey, no bad feelings, I'll just stop them now", a few days
pass and withdrawal symptoms set in. Patient thinks he has brain damage from
the pills..This is definetely a problem, and something should be done to
extend proper information to the patient.

However, there are certain SSRIs that are very hard to taper from; you may
have heard of the Paxil-case. This is due to the very short half-life of the
drug, which means that the drug leaves the body quickly, and this can be
hard to manage. This is why people feel that Paxil has damaged them in some
way, and IMO, SSRIs with short half lives should only be used under strict
observation.

Furthermore, an important fact: There are NO studies that show that SSRIs
cause brain damage in any way. A slight change of neurons can be seen up to
14 days after tapering off, then things return to normal again.

>
> "In recent years, the virtues of psychiatric drugs have been widely
> extolled, but an informed decision can be made only when people also
> have access to both a more critical view of drugs and a frank analysis
> of their hazards. The law also supports the right of people to be fully
> informed about potential hazards before agreeing to a doctor's
> recommendation for a drug."

No need to comment on this. It should be obvious. (even though the authors
seem to say that the patient should *only* know about the sideeffects, and
not the potential benefits.)

> "Do not let anyone pressure you into starting or continuing psychiatric
> drugs. As a competent adult, you have ethical and legal right ... to be
> completely informed in advance about the dangers of any psychiatric
> drug, including its withdrawal effects."

Well, adults in difficult situations may have a hard time asserting
themselves, correct, but I do not like the way they talk about "competent"
adults; many psychiatric patients are *not* competent and pose an ethical
dilemma I won't discuss now.

More later.

>
> "No matter how many doctors favor one or another psychiatric drug, you
> can and should decide for yourself. Your decisions about taking or
> rejecting drugs need to be made without coercive pressure from doctors
> and in the absence of exaggeration, misinformation, and deception."
>
> "Even if you and your doctor don't realize it, the psychiatric drugs
> that you are taking could be causing you serious mental, emotional, or
> physical harm. Your doctor may fail to appreciate that some of your
> problems are being caused by the prescribed medication and, instead,
> mistakenly increase your dose or add another drug to your regimen. This
> prescription cycle - a common occurance - could expose you to increased
> risks of adverse drug effects."
>
> " When you reduce or skip your medication, you may experience painful
> emotional or physical reactions as the effects of your drug wear off.
> This is due to drug withdrawal between doses. But if you don't realize
> that you are undergoing interdose withdrawal, you may wrongly assume
> that you will *always* feel that uncomfortable if you stop the
> medication. Similarly, your doctor may mistakenly insist that your
> discomfort is proof that you need to take *more* of the drug or
> additional drugs to control your discomfort."
>
> "The reader may assume that these negative reactions to psychiatric
> drugs are rare, but, in reality, they are quite common. Moreover, the
> harm they cause often goes unrecognized or is attributed to something
> other than the medications."
>
> "In fact, stopping is often the only way to discover that psychiatric
> drugs have been the source of your persistent symptoms."
>
> Dr. P. Breggin & Dr. D. Cohen

[blackout]

> > "No matter how many doctors favor one or another psychiatric drug, you
> > can and should decide for yourself. Your decisions about taking or
> > rejecting drugs need to be made without coercive pressure from doctors
> > and in the absence of exaggeration, misinformation, and deception."

Naturally. Now, I am not exactly sure if doctors are money-chasing quacks in
the States (I know they are not in Denmark, where I live), but the authors
make it sound like that a little bit. ("Deception"?) Patients should always
choose the medication best suited for their needs, and the doctor should be
competent enough to know this. Otherwise something is rotten in the States
of America.

> >
> > "Even if you and your doctor don't realize it, the psychiatric drugs
> > that you are taking could be causing you serious mental, emotional, or
> > physical harm.

Again, there is NO scientific studies to support these allegations. 20 years
of experience with SSRIs have not even shown any anecdotal evidence, except
for the seldom allergic reaction, that SSRIs causes serious damage -
especially not physical. What are they thinking?!

Your doctor may fail to appreciate that some of your
> > problems are being caused by the prescribed medication and, instead,
> > mistakenly increase your dose or add another drug to your regimen. This
> > prescription cycle - a common occurance - could expose you to increased
> > risks of adverse drug effects."

This is true of the group of drugs called benzodiazepines (and some other
types of drugs), but the dangers of these drugs have actually been
acknowledged in the last couple of years. These drugs should be used
short-term only, because they cause true dependence and horrible
withdrawals.

> >
> > " When you reduce or skip your medication, you may experience painful
> > emotional or physical reactions as the effects of your drug wear off.
> > This is due to drug withdrawal between doses. But if you don't realize
> > that you are undergoing interdose withdrawal, you may wrongly assume
> > that you will *always* feel that uncomfortable if you stop the
> > medication. Similarly, your doctor may mistakenly insist that your
> > discomfort is proof that you need to take *more* of the drug or
> > additional drugs to control your discomfort."

True, although I do not like this tendency to distrust doctors - are they
really that bad over there?

> >
> > "The reader may assume that these negative reactions to psychiatric
> > drugs are rare, but, in reality, they are quite common. Moreover, the
> > harm they cause often goes unrecognized or is attributed to something
> > other than the medications."

SHOW ME THE STUDIES.

> >
> > "In fact, stopping is often the only way to discover that psychiatric
> > drugs have been the source of your persistent symptoms."

Pure BS. True of benzodiazepines, but not SSRIs, which is prescribed much
more.

> >
> > Dr. P. Breggin & Dr. D. Cohen

Doctors of what? Or just doctors?

[Virtualoso]

In article <N5y8b.71091$Kb2.3277900@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> OK, why not...I just have some few things to add ( I know this article doees
> not necessarily represent your personal opinions, Virtualoso, I may come off
> as a little harsh, but just ignore it.)
>
> > "The benefits of psychiatric drugs are vastly exaggerated, their
> > disadvantages are too often minimized, and there is far too little
> > information about how to *stop* taking them."
>
> First of all, do you know what the authors are doctors of? Psychiatry or
> psychology? I will assume it is psychology....But please, if you can figure
> it out, I would be glad. ;)

Psychiatry. And endorsed by (among others):

Dr. C. Pert, Research Prof. of Physiology and Biophysics at Georgetown
Univ. Medical Center

Dr. L. Mosher, Former Chief of a Center at the Nat'l Institute of
Mental Health

Dr. B. Karon, Prof. of Clinical Psychology, Mich. State Univ.

Dr. S. Rose, Prof, of Biology and Director of Brain and Behavior
Research Group, Open Univ.

Dr. T. Stanton, Psychiatric Consultant

Dr. A. Fergusson, Psychiatrist and Institute Director

Dr. M. Shore, Former Pres. American Orthopsychiatry Assoc. & recipient
of the Am. Psychological Assoc. Award

Dr. F. Bemak, Prof. & Section Head for the Wellness and Human Services
College of Education, Ohio State Univ.

Dr. D. Smith, Psychiatrist

Dr. W. Wolfensberger, Research Prof. of Education, Syracuse Univ.

Dr. R. Fisher, Clinical Psychologist

Dr. T. Greening, Prof. at Saybook Graduate School

Dr. T. Scheff, Prof. Emeritus, Univ. of CA.

Dr. D. Jacobs, Clinical Psychologist, CA Institute of Human Science

> "The benefits of psychiatric drugs are vastly exaggerated...." that is one
> statement that millions of people around the world would disagree with,
> since they have had the luck of being cured of several psychiatric disorders
> such as anxiety, panic attacks, depression, etc.that cognitive therapy can
> not cure, and certainly not on a short-term basis.

Biopsychiatry has not come up with even ONE "cure". Not one. What is
being testified to is that various drugs, among all that they do or
might do to the brain, do diminish various "symptoms" (usually while
inducing others, including seriously deleterious or outright harmful
onesl.)

Meanwhile, in the numerous tests the drug companies conducted in order
to get their own products passed by the FDA (which takes only two
"positive" tests), overall the plain sugar pills did as well as, or
better than, the "antidepressants." I'm guessing that all those
millions of people around the world regaling the antidepressants
probably weren't sold... er, given the sugar pills, though.

> "Disadvantages" I interpret as side-effects. These are well-known for SSRIs,
> and they have been through extensive control and have been used for almost
> 20 years without any truly serious side-effects.

Sure there are serious side effects. Commonly. In fact, about half the
folks that have ever taken them, to date, have quit at one time or
another specifically because of the "side effects." And experts in
psychiatry, neurology, and other such disciplines have been seriously
pondering whether the "side effects" may, in fact, be the main or only
effects -- acting as a "placebo booster" since when folks suffer... er,
experience them it convinces them that they are taking "powerful
medicine" supposedly to "treat" their "problem." Yet, some of the
serious side effects of the drugs include inducing depression, anxiety,
suicidal thinking, brain chemical imbalances and brain function
disruption and disabling, other physical discomforts, impotence, etc.

> One fatal side effect can
> occur, Serotonin Syndrome, but this usually only occurs when combined with
> recreational drugs (we're talking less than 5 incidents in 20 years, which
> is incredible compared to non.psychotropic drugs)- which leads me to a very
> important point concerning the doctor-patient relationsship.

It's not the only one. In fact, many "symptoms" that occur during
"treatment" with the drugs, especially when on the all too common
series of "trying" various dosages, other drugs, etc. are induced by
taking the drugs and only mistakenly regarded as "the problem" that's
being "treated" by the drugs.

> But first, the so-called dependency problem and the problem of stopping the
> medication. Real withdrawal symptoms usually only occur when the patient
> does not understand or follow the specific instructions told by the doctor.

Instructions about... what? Why, about withdrawal. Yet, we hear they
are not "habit forming". Then what's with the special withdrawal
instructions? Yet, this is commonly avoided by never really taking
anyone off the drugs, once their begun. That is one of the usual
"cures" isn't it -- just stay drugged?

> Tapering is key to this; I admit that some doctors may have a problem
> explaining the importance of this to the patient, but usually a schedule for
> tapering is made. Then the patient goes home, forgets to take his pills as
> directed, says "hey, no bad feelings, I'll just stop them now", a few days
> pass and withdrawal symptoms set in. Patient thinks he has brain damage from
> the pills..This is definetely a problem, and something should be done to
> extend proper information to the patient.

More often, once the discomforts of withdrawal are experienced,
everyone assumes they are suffering from a "chemical imbalance" that's
"returning" without the drugs. And so they're then put back on drugs.

> However, there are certain SSRIs that are very hard to taper from; you may
> have heard of the Paxil-case. This is due to the very short half-life of the
> drug, which means that the drug leaves the body quickly, and this can be
> hard to manage. This is why people feel that Paxil has damaged them in some
> way, and IMO, SSRIs with short half lives should only be used under strict
> observation.

Funny you never hear much anything about that, especially in the ads
for stuff like that. Nor in prescribing doctors offices prior to
dispensing the scripts.


> Furthermore, an important fact: There are NO studies that show that SSRIs
> cause brain damage in any way. A slight change of neurons can be seen up to
> 14 days after tapering off, then things return to normal again.

Are you aware of any studies that have checked for that?

> > "In recent years, the virtues of psychiatric drugs have been widely
> > extolled, but an informed decision can be made only when people also
> > have access to both a more critical view of drugs and a frank analysis
> > of their hazards. The law also supports the right of people to be fully
> > informed about potential hazards before agreeing to a doctor's
> > recommendation for a drug."
>
> No need to comment on this. It should be obvious. (even though the authors
> seem to say that the patient should *only* know about the sideeffects, and
> not the potential benefits.)

The only potential benefit is that some "symptom" might be drugged out
of their experience, somehow. At known costs. Rather than a sugar pill
or other options that are easier, less costly, less risky, etc.

> > "Do not let anyone pressure you into starting or continuing psychiatric
> > drugs. As a competent adult, you have ethical and legal right ... to be
> > completely informed in advance about the dangers of any psychiatric
> > drug, including its withdrawal effects."
>
> Well, adults in difficult situations may have a hard time asserting
> themselves, correct, but I do not like the way they talk about "competent"
> adults; many psychiatric patients are *not* competent and pose an ethical
> dilemma I won't discuss now.

Uh huh. Other options for anyone regarded by... someone... as
"incompetent" are severe electrical shocks and cutting parts of the
brain. Granted, that drugging them is comparatively "gentler."

> More later.

Okay.

[Virtualoso]

In article <%ly8b.71094$Kb2.3278080@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > "No matter how many doctors favor one or another psychiatric drug, you
> > > can and should decide for yourself. Your decisions about taking or
> > > rejecting drugs need to be made without coercive pressure from doctors
> > > and in the absence of exaggeration, misinformation, and deception."
>
> Naturally. Now, I am not exactly sure if doctors are money-chasing quacks in
> the States (I know they are not in Denmark, where I live), but the authors
> make it sound like that a little bit. ("Deception"?) Patients should always
> choose the medication best suited for their needs, and the doctor should be
> competent enough to know this. Otherwise something is rotten in the States
> of America.

Then perhaps something is rotten in the USA, including quite a bit of
likely well-meant blunders. Wouldn't be the first time.

> > > "Even if you and your doctor don't realize it, the psychiatric drugs
> > > that you are taking could be causing you serious mental, emotional, or
> > > physical harm.
>
> Again, there is NO scientific studies to support these allegations. 20 years
> of experience with SSRIs have not even shown any anecdotal evidence, except
> for the seldom allergic reaction, that SSRIs causes serious damage -
> especially not physical. What are they thinking?!

Apparently, they're looking at both the absence of "studies" that do
conclusively establish either any such thing as the supposed "chemical
imbalance" and they're looking at the obvious harmful "side effects"
(which are far more known and established) and if these "powerful
drugs" are mucking about with "brain chemistry" and "brain function"
and despite years of effort to show that it's the one thing it's
guessed but can't be shown, then something else is going on.

And it seems that the US does have more evidence of what that is than
Denmark. That is, assuming you're up on all the info there, too.

> Your doctor may fail to appreciate that some of your
> > > problems are being caused by the prescribed medication and, instead,
> > > mistakenly increase your dose or add another drug to your regimen. This
> > > prescription cycle - a common occurance - could expose you to increased
> > > risks of adverse drug effects."
>
> This is true of the group of drugs called benzodiazepines (and some other
> types of drugs), but the dangers of these drugs have actually been
> acknowledged in the last couple of years. These drugs should be used
> short-term only, because they cause true dependence and horrible
> withdrawals.

Gosh. "Actually been acknowledged" lately, eh? You mean the dangers
weren't acknowledged before? Imagine that.

> > > " When you reduce or skip your medication, you may experience painful
> > > emotional or physical reactions as the effects of your drug wear off.
> > > This is due to drug withdrawal between doses. But if you don't realize
> > > that you are undergoing interdose withdrawal, you may wrongly assume
> > > that you will *always* feel that uncomfortable if you stop the
> > > medication. Similarly, your doctor may mistakenly insist that your
> > > discomfort is proof that you need to take *more* of the drug or
> > > additional drugs to control your discomfort."
>
> True, although I do not like this tendency to distrust doctors - are they
> really that bad over there?

Sometimes we don't really like the truth, eh?

> > > "The reader may assume that these negative reactions to psychiatric
> > > drugs are rare, but, in reality, they are quite common. Moreover, the
> > > harm they cause often goes unrecognized or is attributed to something
> > > other than the medications."
>
> SHOW ME THE STUDIES.

NGs always arrive at this pretty quickly don't they? Try some Googling
and DejaNews first, and maybe I'll get around to some reposts.

> > > "In fact, stopping is often the only way to discover that psychiatric
> > > drugs have been the source of your persistent symptoms."
>
> Pure BS. True of benzodiazepines, but not SSRIs, which is prescribed much
> more.

So you say. Show me the studies.

[`F.H]

blackout wrote:

> Naturally. Now, I am not exactly sure if doctors are money-chasing quacks in
> the States (I know they are not in Denmark, where I live), but the authors
> make it sound like that a little bit. ("Deception"?) Patients should always
> choose the medication best suited for their needs, and the doctor should be
> competent enough to know this. Otherwise something is rotten in the States
> of America.

There's plenty rotten in the USA around drug prescriptions. My step
daughter has been on the receiving end of same. Details later. It's
late.

Welcome to araa.

Frank
From a long line of Rasmussen's by way of Copenhagen about a century
back.

[Virtualoso]

In article <N5y8b.71091$Kb2.3277900@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> ... I assume they are mainly aiming at SSRIs...
> millions of people around the world ... have had the luck of being cured of several
> psychiatric disorders
> such as anxiety, panic attacks, depression, etc.that cognitive therapy can
> not cure, and certainly not on a short-term basis.

In the tests conducted by the companies that make and sell SSRI's,
sugar pills did as well, or better.

> However, there are certain SSRIs that are very hard to taper from; you may
> have heard of the Paxil-case. ...

There are NO studies that show that SSRI's "correct" any so-called
"chemical imbalances" - nor involving serotonin, specifically, although
that is the main S in SSRI. If there's no way to tell that, then why
take SSRI's in the first place, and along with the known and proven
unfortunate or harmful "side effects," risks and withdrawal problems?

"There is still no valid biological test for depression"
- Dr. C. Chan

"A serotonin deficiency for depression has not been found.* ...* Still,
patients are often given the impression that a definitive serotonin
deficiency in depression is firmly established.* ...* The result is an
undue inflation of the drug market..."
- Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard
Medical School

A panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology
Assessment reported that "Prominent hypotheses concerning depression
have focused on altered function of the group of neurotransmitters
called monoamines (i.e., norepinephrine, epinephrine, serotonin,
dopamine), particularly norepinephrine (NE) and serotonin.*...
studies of the NE [norepinephrine] autoreceptor in depression have
found no specific evidence of an abnormality to date.* Currently, no
clear evidence links abnormal serotonin receptor activity in the brain
to depression.*... the data currently available do not provide
consistent evidence either for altered neurotransmitter levels or for
disruption of normal receptor activity" ( The Biology of Mental
Disorders , U.S. Gov't Printing Office )

[Ian W]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%ly8b.71094$Kb2.3278080@news010.worldonline.d k...
>
> SHOW ME THE STUDIES.
>
> > >
> > > "In fact, stopping is often the only way to discover that
psychiatric
> > > drugs have been the source of your persistent symptoms."
>
> Pure BS. True of benzodiazepines, but not SSRIs, which is prescribed
much
> more.
>
> > >
> > > Dr. P. Breggin & Dr. D. Cohen
>
> Doctors of what? Or just doctors?

See:-
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/breggin.html for Breggin's background

To quote:

Research? Unique private communications? Access to "secret" documents?
A big conspiracy? As far as I can tell, Breggin has made no systematic
clinical reports, and the book provides no relevant "insider
information" or alleged facts about any conspiracy. The suits to which
he refers were filed during the year 2000 in California, Florida, New
Jersey, Puerto Rico, and Texas and were not legitimate. The California
and Texas suits were dismissed by the courts for failure to state a
proper cause of action [20]. The New Jersey suit was withdrawn after
the judge made it clear that he was highly skeptical of plaintiffs'
allegations of conspiracy [21], and the others were quietly withdrawn.


Dr Cohen is a professor of social welfare ............
>
>

[blackout]

> There's plenty rotten in the USA around drug prescriptions. My step
> daughter has been on the receiving end of same. Details later. It's
> late.
>
> Welcome to araa.
Thanks!
>
> Frank
> From a long line of Rasmussen's by way of Copenhagen about a century
> back.

Hey! A fellow dane, almost! Good to meet you Rasmussen!

[blackout]

>
> > ... I assume they are mainly aiming at SSRIs...
> > millions of people around the world ... have had the luck of being cured
of several
> > psychiatric disorders
> > such as anxiety, panic attacks, depression, etc.that cognitive therapy
can
> > not cure, and certainly not on a short-term basis.
>
> In the tests conducted by the companies that make and sell SSRI's,
> sugar pills did as well, or better.

Think about how many companies produce SSRIs - there are quite a few, so
maybe we should be careful about putting them all in the same basket. Are
you thinking of a certain company?

But yes, it's correct, however, as I think you said earlier, the placebo
effect is not something to be taken lightly. Taking into consideration the
somewhat "staged" and artificial nature of these studies, I think that the
placebo effect can be even more powerful than normal. That *could* explain
this weird phenomenon,

Celexa, the currently most popular SSRI (it is the most selective of all the
SSRIs and it has a long halflife), and its succcesor, whatsitsname,
Celebrex? (basically the same drug, but "cleaner" in the sense that both
isomers are active, where Celexa only has one active isomer - less inactive
isomers could mean fewer side effects and lower dosages) was actually made
in Denmark by the medicinal company Lundbeck (but marketed in the States by
some other company), and as far as I remember, it fared a lot better on the
double-blind studies than usual.

> > However, there are certain SSRIs that are very hard to taper from; you
may
> > have heard of the Paxil-case. ...
>
> There are NO studies that show that SSRI's "correct" any so-called
> "chemical imbalances" - nor involving serotonin, specifically, although
> that is the main S in SSRI. If there's no way to tell that, then why
> take SSRI's in the first place, and along with the known and proven
> unfortunate or harmful "side effects," risks and withdrawal problems?

I think the "chemical imbalance"-explanation has been refined somewhat -
refer to my other post. (coming after this one, I just wrote the explanation
in another post)

>
> "There is still no valid biological test for depression"
> - Dr. C. Chan

Actually, in Denmark, researchers have come up with a scanner-like device
that can actually measure serotonin levels (and other relevant
neurotransmitters, if I remember correctly), and thus a patient with
depression can be diagnosed. It also makes it possible to pinpoint the areas
in the brain that are damaged by untreated long-term depression. Yes,
untreated long-term depression actually destroys certain neural systens .
and now it's possible to actually see it on-screen.

> "A serotonin deficiency for depression has not been found. ... Still,
> patients are often given the impression that a definitive serotonin
> deficiency in depression is firmly established. ... The result is an
> undue inflation of the drug market..."
> - Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard
> Medical School

Well, you read my paragraph on the device that actually does this - but that
doesn't mean that the drug market isn't inflated. It is truly a great
financial burden on our society (in Denmark, medicine is paid partly by the
state) But you could "translate" lost work hours and other negative effects
on the economy caused by depression (which is widespread in DK) to *money*
if you are open-minded, and I think an approximation was made that indicated
that the treatment of depression made up for some of the economic loss
caused by depression.


> A panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology
> Assessment reported that "Prominent hypotheses concerning depression
> have focused on altered function of the group of neurotransmitters
> called monoamines (i.e., norepinephrine, epinephrine, serotonin,
> dopamine), particularly norepinephrine (NE) and serotonin. ...
> studies of the NE [norepinephrine] autoreceptor in depression have
> found no specific evidence of an abnormality to date. Currently, no
> clear evidence links abnormal serotonin receptor activity in the brain
> to depression. ... the data currently available do not provide
> consistent evidence either for altered neurotransmitter levels or for
> disruption of normal receptor activity" ( The Biology of Mental
> Disorders , U.S. Gov't Printing Office )

But think of roengten rays (x-rays?), for example; it wasn't measurable or
detectable before the right equipment was there.

(ok bad example, but I'll leave it in anyway).

[blackout]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:120920032346194975%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <%ly8b.71094$Kb2.3278080@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
> <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "No matter how many doctors favor one or another psychiatric drug,
you
> > > > can and should decide for yourself. Your decisions about taking or
> > > > rejecting drugs need to be made without coercive pressure from
doctors
> > > > and in the absence of exaggeration, misinformation, and deception."
> >
> > Naturally. Now, I am not exactly sure if doctors are money-chasing
quacks in
> > the States (I know they are not in Denmark, where I live), but the
authors
> > make it sound like that a little bit. ("Deception"?) Patients should
always
> > choose the medication best suited for their needs, and the doctor should
be
> > competent enough to know this. Otherwise something is rotten in the
States
> > of America.
>
> Then perhaps something is rotten in the USA, including quite a bit of
> likely well-meant blunders. Wouldn't be the first time.
>
> > > > "Even if you and your doctor don't realize it, the psychiatric drugs
> > > > that you are taking could be causing you serious mental, emotional,
or
> > > > physical harm.
> >
> > Again, there is NO scientific studies to support these allegations. 20
years
> > of experience with SSRIs have not even shown any anecdotal evidence,
except
> > for the seldom allergic reaction, that SSRIs causes serious damage -
> > especially not physical. What are they thinking?!
>
> Apparently, they're looking at both the absence of "studies" that do
> conclusively establish either any such thing as the supposed "chemical
> imbalance"

The "chemical imbalance" is just a simplified way of explaining what
actually happens. The current theory is that once serotonin is increased in
and between synapses, a receptor downgrade happens, which means that the
brain actually has *less* serotonin to play around with. When serotonin
receptors are downgraded, the 5-HT levels stay more or less constant (which
results in the side effect of "not caring"), but it also has the effect of
levelling out the patient's mood. This in turn removes symptoms ( as you
say), but it also makes the patient able to deal with the disease more
easily.

That the diseases are not cured is correct, but that is because psychiatric
diseases are in fact epileptic damage, which cannot be repaired. This is the
reason why depression, anxiety, panic attacks have a tendency to surface
again, exactly like epileptic attacks.

and they're looking at the obvious harmful "side effects"
> (which are far more known and established) and if these "powerful
> drugs" are mucking about with "brain chemistry" and "brain function"
> and despite years of effort to show that it's the one thing it's
> guessed but can't be shown, then something else is going on.

Yes, the epileptic nature of psychiatric disorders..

> And it seems that the US does have more evidence of what that is than
> Denmark. That is, assuming you're up on all the info there, too.

You would think so, with that much funding, but see my other post.
>
> > Your doctor may fail to appreciate that some of your
> > > > problems are being caused by the prescribed medication and, instead,
> > > > mistakenly increase your dose or add another drug to your regimen.
This
> > > > prescription cycle - a common occurance - could expose you to
increased
> > > > risks of adverse drug effects."
> >
> > This is true of the group of drugs called benzodiazepines (and some
other
> > types of drugs), but the dangers of these drugs have actually been
> > acknowledged in the last couple of years. These drugs should be used
> > short-term only, because they cause true dependence and horrible
> > withdrawals.
>
> Gosh. "Actually been acknowledged" lately, eh? You mean the dangers
> weren't acknowledged before? Imagine that.

You do know that doctors hardly ever prescribe benzos now, compared to just
5-10 years ago...and before that, they handed them out like candy.

> > > > "The reader may assume that these negative reactions to psychiatric
> > > > drugs are rare, but, in reality, they are quite common. Moreover,
the
> > > > harm they cause often goes unrecognized or is attributed to
something
> > > > other than the medications."
> >
> > SHOW ME THE STUDIES.
>
> NGs always arrive at this pretty quickly don't they? Try some Googling
> and DejaNews first, and maybe I'll get around to some reposts.

I was actually adressing the article ;) how can they postulate that kind of
crap without references?

>
> > > > "In fact, stopping is often the only way to discover that
psychiatric
> > > > drugs have been the source of your persistent symptoms."
> >
> > Pure BS. True of benzodiazepines, but not SSRIs, which is prescribed
much
> > more.
>
> So you say. Show me the studies.

I don't think any serious studies will be made about SSRIs causing the
symptoms. That is simply not something that will be accepted by the medical
community (in DK, anyway), because it is simply without reason. There can be
"allergic" reactions, granted, but psychiatric disorders? Never.

[blackout]

> Dr Cohen is a professor of social welfare ............


He seems to be very critical of pathology and medicating, both in the
articles and the text in the link.
But I don't get it - conspiracy? How does this relate to the other posts,
except that it makes Dr. Cohen seem less trustworthy?

[blackout]

> > "The benefits of psychiatric drugs are vastly exaggerated...." that is
one
> > statement that millions of people around the world would disagree with,
> > since they have had the luck of being cured of several psychiatric
disorders
> > such as anxiety, panic attacks, depression, etc.that cognitive therapy
can
> > not cure, and certainly not on a short-term basis.
>
> Biopsychiatry has not come up with even ONE "cure". Not one. What is
> being testified to is that various drugs, among all that they do or
> might do to the brain, do diminish various "symptoms" (usually while
> inducing others, including seriously deleterious or outright harmful
> onesl.)

You're right, cured is not the right word. But they do "diminish varíous
symptoms" as you say, to the degree that the disorder is supressed. It may
resurface, because of psychiatric disorders' likeliness to epilepsi (refer
to my other post).

> Meanwhile, in the numerous tests the drug companies conducted in order
> to get their own products passed by the FDA (which takes only two
> "positive" tests), overall the plain sugar pills did as well as, or
> better than, the "antidepressants." I'm guessing that all those
> millions of people around the world regaling the antidepressants
> probably weren't sold... er, given the sugar pills, though.

Well, I know it ain't scientific evidence, but anecdotal evidence clearly
shows us that SSRIs work.I didn't want to bring it up, but my father is a
psychiatrist (in AA, btw), and he works with this every day. He dishes out
SSRIs every day. He sees the results. He knows they work, because he is in
close contact with his patients.

Maybe it would help if you could mention the specific SSRIs you are talking
about?

> > "Disadvantages" I interpret as side-effects. These are well-known for
SSRIs,
> > and they have been through extensive control and have been used for
almost
> > 20 years without any truly serious side-effects.
>
> Sure there are serious side effects. Commonly. In fact, about half the
> folks that have ever taken them, to date, have quit at one time or
> another specifically because of the "side effects."

Yes. But you have to differentiate between the different SSRIs, since they
are different and have different side effects. A lot of people stop eating
them because of weight gain, which is their choice to live with the symptoms
and not gain a few pounds. There are many reasons, but some SSRIs are not
that selective and therefore can make you feel "different", which is not
exactly a great feeling.

[blackout]

And experts in
> psychiatry, neurology, and other such disciplines have been seriously
> pondering whether the "side effects" may, in fact, be the main or only
> effects -- acting as a "placebo booster" since when folks suffer... er,
> experience them it convinces them that they are taking "powerful
> medicine" supposedly to "treat" their "problem." Yet, some of the
> serious side effects of the drugs include inducing depression, anxiety,
> suicidal thinking, brain chemical imbalances and brain function
> disruption and disabling, other physical discomforts, impotence, etc.


Those side effects are very rare with the newer SSRIs. Well, some of
them....impotence, some physical discomfort, those are not that rare, but
still (I remember saying this before); if I had the choice between taking a
good SSRI and the risk of having side effects, or being depressed, my choice
is clear.

> > One fatal side effect can
> > occur, Serotonin Syndrome, but this usually only occurs when combined
with
> > recreational drugs (we're talking less than 5 incidents in 20 years,
which
> > is incredible compared to non.psychotropic drugs)- which leads me to a
very
> > important point concerning the doctor-patient relationsship.
>
> It's not the only one.

The only *fatal* one I've heard about. Are there others?

In fact, many "symptoms" that occur during
> "treatment" with the drugs, especially when on the all too common
> series of "trying" various dosages, other drugs, etc. are induced by
> taking the drugs and only mistakenly regarded as "the problem" that's
> being "treated" by the drugs.

But it should be easy to differentiate between the original diagnosis and
side effects. The side effects first starts after (in some cases, weeks)
treatment has begun.

> > But first, the so-called dependency problem and the problem of stopping
the
> > medication. Real withdrawal symptoms usually only occur when the patient
> > does not understand or follow the specific instructions told by the
doctor.
>
> Instructions about... what? Why, about withdrawal. Yet, we hear they
> are not "habit forming". Then what's with the special withdrawal
> instructions?

Habit-forming is a word that is problematic, because you can form habits
from almost everything, from eating candy to watching TV, If you said
"addictive", it would be another discussion; SSRIs are not addictive
according to the formal criteria for addiction.

The only addiction that may pose a problem is psychologically, when the
disorder isn't completely supressed. But that's a question of making a
schedule with your doctor.
Again, tapering is extremely important (some SSRIs are worse than others),
and if it's done wrong (which happens often), the result may look and feel
like addiction.

Yet, this is commonly avoided by never really taking
> anyone off the drugs, once their begun. That is one of the usual
> "cures" isn't it -- just stay drugged?

Not as far as I know. SSRI treatment, if it works for the individual, should
continue for 6-12 months in order to ensure proper suppression. Depends on
the exact diagnosis.

>
> > Tapering is key to this; I admit that some doctors may have a problem
> > explaining the importance of this to the patient, but usually a schedule
for
> > tapering is made. Then the patient goes home, forgets to take his pills
as
> > directed, says "hey, no bad feelings, I'll just stop them now", a few
days
> > pass and withdrawal symptoms set in. Patient thinks he has brain damage
from
> > the pills..This is definetely a problem, and something should be done to
> > extend proper information to the patient.
>
> More often, once the discomforts of withdrawal are experienced,
> everyone assumes they are suffering from a "chemical imbalance" that's
> "returning" without the drugs. And so they're then put back on drugs.

Which they should be, so they can taper properly. This can take a LONG time,
depending on the SSRI, and many patients do not have the patience to taper
for months.
>
> > However, there are certain SSRIs that are very hard to taper from; you
may
> > have heard of the Paxil-case. This is due to the very short half-life of
the
> > drug, which means that the drug leaves the body quickly, and this can be
> > hard to manage. This is why people feel that Paxil has damaged them in
some
> > way, and IMO, SSRIs with short half lives should only be used under
strict
> > observation.
>
> Funny you never hear much anything about that, especially in the ads
> for stuff like that. Nor in prescribing doctors offices prior to
> dispensing the scripts.

Yes, I never quite understood the reason for producing a drug like Paxil. I
agree that finances may play too large a role in this; so we don't have that
problem in DK. We don't even allow ads for ADs.

>
>
> > Furthermore, an important fact: There are NO studies that show that
SSRIs
> > cause brain damage in any way. A slight change of neurons can be seen up
to
> > 14 days after tapering off, then things return to normal again.
>
> Are you aware of any studies that have checked for that?

About neurotransmitter levels returning to normal again? Yes, they exist for
sure, but no link, I'm afraid.

> > No need to comment on this. It should be obvious. (even though the
authors
> > seem to say that the patient should *only* know about the sideeffects,
and
> > not the potential benefits.)
>
> The only potential benefit is that some "symptom" might be drugged out
> of their experience, somehow. At known costs. Rather than a sugar pill
> or other options that are easier, less costly, less risky, etc.

But what are you proposing? Cognitive therapy? Sugar pills ;)?
>
> > > "Do not let anyone pressure you into starting or continuing
psychiatric
> > > drugs. As a competent adult, you have ethical and legal right ... to
be
> > > completely informed in advance about the dangers of any psychiatric
> > > drug, including its withdrawal effects."
> >
> > Well, adults in difficult situations may have a hard time asserting
> > themselves, correct, but I do not like the way they talk about
"competent"
> > adults; many psychiatric patients are *not* competent and pose an
ethical
> > dilemma I won't discuss now.
>
> Uh huh. Other options for anyone regarded by... someone... as
> "incompetent" are severe electrical shocks and cutting parts of the
> brain. Granted, that drugging them is comparatively "gentler."

I was not aware that you still used surgery in the States. In DK,
electroschock is only used in extreme cases where nothing else works, and
the patient poses a threat to himself or others.

[`F.H]

blackout wrote:
>
> > There's plenty rotten in the USA around drug prescriptions. My step
> > daughter has been on the receiving end of same. Details later. It's
> > late.
> >
> > Welcome to araa.
> Thanks!
> >
> > Frank
> > From a long line of Rasmussen's by way of Copenhagen about a century
> > back.
>
> Hey! A fellow dane, almost! Good to meet you Rasmussen!

Rasumssen is on my mothers side. Around here I'm Frank or Gramps (and a
few other less complimentary monikers).

Frank

[blackout]

> > Hey! A fellow dane, almost! Good to meet you Rasmussen!
>
> Rasumssen is on my mothers side. Around here I'm Frank or Gramps (and a
> few other less complimentary monikers).

Seems like I've had the same welcome commitee ;)
Ok, Frank, ya know, vikings are tough; we can take the abuse ;) But they'll
have to watch out for our longboat invasions...We've done it before, and
we'll do it again!

[Virtualoso]

In article <7SC8b.71247$Kb2.3282291@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, in Denmark, researchers have come up with a scanner-like device
> that can actually measure serotonin levels (and other relevant
> neurotransmitters, if I remember correctly), and thus a patient with
> depression can be diagnosed.

Please do reveal this. People have been looking forsomething like this
for decades. Where do I learn more?

[Virtualoso]

In article <v3D8b.71251$Kb2.3282230@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Apparently, they're looking at both the absence of "studies" that do
> > conclusively establish either any such thing as the supposed "chemical
> > imbalance"
>
> The "chemical imbalance" is just a simplified way of explaining what
> actually happens. The current theory is that once serotonin is .... [snip]

I'm aware of various "theories." The core fact is that, among the
several in vogue, none of them have been medically substantiated. And
there are anomalies to all of them.

For instance, even if we suppose that serotonin levels in a person's
livinng brain can be measured, and lowered levels are found in some
ratio of "depressed persons," it's still completely a conjecture that
that is a "cause" and not an "effect" of "depression." It's all still
basically at the "what if" and "let's suppose" phase, with no
particular reason to expect anything further.

> That the diseases are not cured is correct, but that is because psychiatric
> diseases are in fact epileptic damage, which cannot be repaired. ....

That would be yet another one among a number of pure theories, right?

> > > ..... but the dangers of these drugs have actually been
> > > acknowledged in the last couple of years. These drugs should be used
> > > short-term only, because they cause true dependence and horrible
> > > withdrawals.
> >
> > Gosh. "Actually been acknowledged" lately, eh? You mean the dangers
> > weren't acknowledged before? Imagine that.
>
> You do know that doctors hardly ever prescribe benzos now, compared to just
> 5-10 years ago...and before that, they handed them out like candy.

All the prior "antidepressants" eventually became "acknowledged" as
having had known dangers, too. And all the current ones, when they are
current ones, get hawked as though that's not the case.

> > So you say. Show me the studies.
>
> I don't think any serious studies will be made about SSRIs ... [snip]

Show me any studies that have conclusively shown that "depression" is a
biochemical "imbalance" in the brain, or that SSRI's do, indeed,
"correct" that. Not theory, but medical fact. I just haven't been able
to locate any yet.

[Virtualoso]

In article <tAE8b.71283$Kb2.3283664@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Biopsychiatry has not come up with even ONE "cure". Not one. What is
> > being testified to is that various drugs, among all that they do or
> > might do to the brain, do diminish various "symptoms" (usually while
> > inducing others, including seriously deleterious or outright harmful
> > onesl.)
>
> You're right, cured is not the right word. But they do "diminish varíous
> symptoms" as you say, to the degree that the disorder is supressed. It may
> resurface, because of psychiatric disorders' likeliness to epilepsi (refer
> to my other post).

Until Denmark maybe shares this secret medical proof of epilipsi, then
everyone else must continue with all the other, wholly mistaken
"theories" that everyone is being misled with.

> > Meanwhile, in the numerous tests the drug companies conducted in order
> > to get their own products passed by the FDA (which takes only two
> > "positive" tests), overall the plain sugar pills did as well as, or
> > better than, the "antidepressants." I'm guessing that all those
> > millions of people around the world regaling the antidepressants
> > probably weren't sold... er, given the sugar pills, though.
>
> Well, I know it ain't scientific evidence, but anecdotal evidence clearly
> shows us that SSRIs work......

Scientific evidence have gotten as far as demonstrating "work" to mean
placebo effect. Enough so, that now experts in the field are exploring
the "placebo boosting" aspect of the drugs and their "side effects"
which function as the "boosting" trick.

> > Sure there are serious side effects. Commonly. In fact, about half the
> > folks that have ever taken them, to date, have quit at one time or
> > another specifically because of the "side effects."
>
> Yes. But you have to differentiate between the different SSRIs, since they
> are different and have different side effects. .....

On what basis are the different ones being given to people? Any actual
medical tests involved? Or is it all really just a matter of "trying"
to see if people like it, regardless of manifest biophysiology?

[GaryE]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 15:37:19 +0200, "blackout"
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

..I would be interested in knowing both of you 'credentials'. I know
Virt is not going to give us his, because I don't' think he has any,
but how about you? I see your dad is a MD psychiatry...are you?

To comment on an observation for comparison, I see that AA as mostly
'placebo' effect. Yet I think Virt is a thumper, at least a pseudo
thumper in the 'science' of the AA Big Book. So, as a general rule,
his arguments opposing the field of medicine with sweeping
generalizations (obscuring even that by suggesting that
'pharmaceuticals' someone control the minds of all of the medical
profession as if they just sat around and dished out medications as
ignoramuses) . Virt is special and a very special intellect you see,
but sometimes he just gets a little extreme and binary.

It works if you work it, though. AA principle and most favorite
slogan. Proof is in the pudding and not in the preparation. And I
suppose the same 'principle' could apply to medicine, right? Who
really gives a shit if people find relief from suffering in AA or with
anti depressants (and yes, you are correct, they are not all alike in
their effects, as I experienced them. I took them for years until but
not for over a year now. Perhaps I can't know for sure what they did
for my depression, except that I had it less, far less, and other
people noticed a change in my mood, particularly family members.
Maybe it was sheer coincidence. The side effect most prominent was
not anything mind altering that I could tell, but sexual dysfunction.
I think that is what drives most people up a wall. It's a hell of a
trade off.

But folks who, as far as I can tell, have no skin in this medication
game, are crusaders, self appointed and if it weren't for Usenet,
would be totally ignored, because most of them (and us) are
irrelevant to larger questions of society, politics, medicine, the big
lot. . The problem as always, has been people vulnerable and open to
'advice' from people who have no credentials, period. And its not
related to alcohol, which, of course is the Thumpers area of expertise
and authority. Why anyone, with no skin in the game, would want to
interfere with others treatment of pain and misery is beyond me.
Narcissistic insensitivity, maybe. Ironically, I have found more
than a few 'insensitive assholes' in AA who know the 'scripture' by
heart, but that's about it. We've got a few of them in this NG who
practice pomposity more often than not. Go figure.

Best,
GaryE

[blackout]

> > Actually, in Denmark, researchers have come up with a scanner-like
device
> > that can actually measure serotonin levels (and other relevant
> > neurotransmitters, if I remember correctly), and thus a patient with
> > depression can be diagnosed.
>
> Please do reveal this. People have been looking forsomething like this
> for decades. Where do I learn more?

It is extremely exciting! Problem is, the device is located at some hospital
here, and I can't remember where, but I think it is Aarhus Kommunehospital
(if you got that one ;) If you somehow can search on google about it, do it,
but I will ask around and try to search on some Danish search engines. My
dad hadn't heard about it, strangely enough, but his area is
geronto-psychiatry (is that a word in English?). My mom is a nurse, but she
doesn't work there, so that's no help. If nothing else comes along, I will
call the hospital and get the facts straight and pass 'em on.

[Virtualoso]

In article <E7F8b.71292$Kb2.3284490@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> And experts in
> > psychiatry, neurology, and other such disciplines have been seriously
> > pondering whether the "side effects" may, in fact, be the main or only
> > effects -- acting as a "placebo booster" since when folks suffer... er,
> > experience them it convinces them that they are taking "powerful
> > medicine" supposedly to "treat" their "problem." Yet, some of the
> > serious side effects of the drugs include inducing depression, anxiety,
> > suicidal thinking, brain chemical imbalances and brain function
> > disruption and disabling, other physical discomforts, impotence, etc.
>
> Those side effects are very rare with the newer SSRIs. Well, some of
> them....impotence, some physical discomfort, those are not that rare, but
> still (I remember saying this before); if I had the choice between taking a
> good SSRI and the risk of having side effects, or being depressed, my choice
> is clear.

Apparently, quite some number of people would rather take drugs that
have them feeling ways they prefer, even if there are some distinct
deleterious effects of that. Some of the drugs are legal, some are not.

> In fact, many "symptoms" that occur during
> > "treatment" with the drugs, especially when on the all too common
> > series of "trying" various dosages, other drugs, etc. are induced by
> > taking the drugs and only mistakenly regarded as "the problem" that's
> > being "treated" by the drugs.
>
> But it should be easy to differentiate between the original diagnosis and
> side effects. The side effects first starts after (in some cases, weeks)
> treatment has begun.

Why "should it be easy"? Isn't "the diagnosis" mainly or exclusively
based simply on people reporting that they feel "depressed" and the
like? I mean, there aren't any actual medical tests involved, are
there? However, one of the glaring anomalies of the theories of the
drugs, is that there isn't any conclusive medical basis for why they
might "take weeks" to induce their "effects." Of course, since most
depressions naturally quell after about the same time span, it's not
necessarily surprising at all that a lot of people would feel better by
then. Unless the drugs have then been causing some havoc with their
brains and prolonging and/or inducing discomforts. Then, typically it's
time to tinker dosages and/or "try" other drugs. Etc.

> > > But first, the so-called dependency problem and the problem of stopping
> the
> > > medication. Real withdrawal symptoms usually only occur when the patient
> > > does not understand or follow the specific instructions told by the
> doctor.
> >
> > Instructions about... what? Why, about withdrawal. Yet, we hear they
> > are not "habit forming". Then what's with the special withdrawal
> > instructions?
>
> Habit-forming is a word that is problematic, because you can form habits
> from almost everything, from eating candy to watching TV, If you said
> "addictive", it would be another discussion; SSRIs are not addictive
> according to the formal criteria for addiction.

The "formal criteria"? What's that? Otherwise, a "physical dependency"
is a generally useful criteria for "addiction." And if one is in a
position of facing bad enough "withdrawal" then one is physically
depending on taking the drug to avoid that suffering of discontinuing.

> Again, tapering is extremely important (some SSRIs are worse than others),
> and if it's done wrong (which happens often), the result may look and feel
> like addiction.

Or it may look and feel as though the symptoms of a "mental illness"
are re-emerging, and so lead to being put back on drugs.


> Yet, this is commonly avoided by never really taking
> > anyone off the drugs, once their begun. That is one of the usual
> > "cures" isn't it -- just stay drugged?
>
> Not as far as I know. SSRI treatment, if it works for the individual, should
> continue for 6-12 months in order to ensure proper suppression. Depends on
> the exact diagnosis.

How are "exact diagnosis" made? Are there any real, biophysical medical
tests involved?

> > More often, once the discomforts of withdrawal are experienced,
> > everyone assumes they are suffering from a "chemical imbalance" that's
> > "returning" without the drugs. And so they're then put back on drugs.
>
> Which they should be, so they can taper properly. This can take a LONG time,
> depending on the SSRI, and many patients do not have the patience to taper
> for months.

Uh... just what is taking such a long time, if there is no addiction
and these drugs are so "harmless." only having specific, targeted
effects on just certain things? It only took a coupla's weeks to "take
effect" and the "effect" is supposedly beneficial, right? Why such a
protracted, risky "withdrawal" if they're not "addictive" or dangerous?

> > Funny you never hear much anything about that, especially in the ads
> > for stuff like that. Nor in prescribing doctors offices prior to
> > dispensing the scripts.
>
> Yes, I never quite understood the reason for producing a drug like Paxil. I
> agree that finances may play too large a role in this; so we don't have that
> problem in DK. We don't even allow ads for ADs.

Why not?

> > Are you aware of any studies that have checked for that?
>
> About neurotransmitter levels returning to normal again? Yes, they exist for
> sure, but no link, I'm afraid.

I'm not too surprised. Yes, studies do exist, but they do not support
the pro-drug advocacies nearly as much as pro-drug advocates would
like, or pretend. So they're always missing in these discussions. For
some reason.

> > The only potential benefit is that some "symptom" might be drugged out
> > of their experience, somehow. At known costs. Rather than a sugar pill
> > or other options that are easier, less costly, less risky, etc.
>
> But what are you proposing? Cognitive therapy? Sugar pills ;)?

I'm not advocating prefrontal lobotomies and I'm not advocating brain
drugs.

> > Uh huh. Other options for anyone regarded by... someone... as
> > "incompetent" are severe electrical shocks and cutting parts of the
> > brain. Granted, that drugging them is comparatively "gentler."
>
> I was not aware that you still used surgery in the States. In DK,
> electroschock is only used in extreme cases where nothing else works, and
> the patient poses a threat to himself or others.

Psychiatric drugs, including "anti-depressants" have been involved in
quite a number of incidents of people harming themselves and others,
including suicide and homocide.

[blackout]

> Until Denmark maybe shares this secret medical proof of epilipsi, then
> everyone else must continue with all the other, wholly mistaken
> "theories" that everyone is being misled with.

I am pretty sure it's no secret. I attended a seminar with my dad featuring
one of the leading psychiatrists in Denmark, that's where I learned about
it. Why it hasn't been spread can have several reasons; USA is a big country
.. maybe someone there is working on it? Or maybe sceptiscim is the key; but
I have to say that his data was *impressive*.

> > Well, I know it ain't scientific evidence, but anecdotal evidence
clearly
> > shows us that SSRIs work......
>
> Scientific evidence have gotten as far as demonstrating "work" to mean
> placebo effect. Enough so, that now experts in the field are exploring
> the "placebo boosting" aspect of the drugs and their "side effects"
> which function as the "boosting" trick.

Hm...I'm not sure i understand nor agree with you ;) There is no placebo
research going on right now, because we have a sufficiently effective drug
that we know works, Celexa (again, I get my facts mainly from my dad, and
personal research.)

>
> > > Sure there are serious side effects. Commonly. In fact, about half the
> > > folks that have ever taken them, to date, have quit at one time or
> > > another specifically because of the "side effects."
> >
> > Yes. But you have to differentiate between the different SSRIs, since
they
> > are different and have different side effects. .....
>
> On what basis are the different ones being given to people? Any actual
> medical tests involved?

Well, most psychiatrists prefer to prescribe Celexa, both in the States and
in DK, simply because it is the most selective and effective (though I think
Seroxat comes close....) There are very few side effects because of this,
and the patient usually don't feel different at all (except some impotence,
according to the dose). And now Celebrex (still not sure that's the right
name) is coming on the market, and it is even better (see my other posts).

Or is it all really just a matter of "trying"
> to see if people like it, regardless of manifest biophysiology?

There will always be genetic heterogeneity that makes some people prefer
older SSRIs, for example Zoloft.

[blackout]

> .I would be interested in knowing both of you 'credentials'.
I know> Virt is not going to give us his, because I don't' think he has
any,
> but how about you? I see your dad is a MD psychiatry...are you?

No, I am not a psychiatrist like my dad....I attend university with my
specialty in philology.
>
> To comment on an observation for comparison, I see that AA as mostly
> 'placebo' effect. Yet I think Virt is a thumper, at least a pseudo
> thumper in the 'science' of the AA Big Book. So, as a general rule,
> his arguments opposing the field of medicine with sweeping
> generalizations (obscuring even that by suggesting that
> 'pharmaceuticals' someone control the minds of all of the medical
> profession as if they just sat around and dished out medications as
> ignoramuses) .

I've noticed a strong antagonism against pathology and medication in general
in his posts.

Virt is special and a very special intellect you see,
> but sometimes he just gets a little extreme and binary.
>
> It works if you work it, though. AA principle and most favorite
> slogan. Proof is in the pudding and not in the preparation. And I
> suppose the same 'principle' could apply to medicine, right? Who
> really gives a shit if people find relief from suffering in AA or with
> anti depressants (and yes, you are correct, they are not all alike in
> their effects, as I experienced them. I took them for years until but
> not for over a year now. Perhaps I can't know for sure what they did
> for my depression, except that I had it less, far less, and other
> people noticed a change in my mood, particularly family members.
> Maybe it was sheer coincidence.

I sincerely doubt that.

The side effect most prominent was
> not anything mind altering that I could tell, but sexual dysfunction.
> I think that is what drives most people up a wall. It's a hell of a
> trade off.

Yes, it is one of the many reasons people drop their medication, with bad
experiences as the result....It sounds like you got some of the newer SSRIs,
since you felt no different at all. Probably Celexa.

[Virtualoso]

In article <50H8b.71319$Kb2.3288515@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > Actually, in Denmark, researchers have come up with a scanner-like
> device
> > > that can actually measure serotonin levels (and other relevant
> > > neurotransmitters, if I remember correctly), and thus a patient with
> > > depression can be diagnosed.
> >
> > Please do reveal this. People have been looking forsomething like this
> > for decades. Where do I learn more?
>
> It is extremely exciting! Problem is, the device is located at some hospital
> here, and I can't remember where, but I think it is Aarhus Kommunehospital
> (if you got that one ;) If you somehow can search on google about it, do it,
> but I will ask around and try to search on some Danish search engines. My
> dad hadn't heard about it, strangely enough, but his area is
> geronto-psychiatry (is that a word in English?). My mom is a nurse, but she
> doesn't work there, so that's no help. If nothing else comes along, I will
> call the hospital and get the facts straight and pass 'em on.

Huh? There's only one of these devices and it's hard to even find out
about it? There's a multi-billion dollar industry here that's been
doing backflips for decades trying to come up with something like that.
I suppose it could go the way of the 100 mile per gallon carburator
that that guy in Texarcana once came up with, though.

[Virtualoso]

In article <ivc6mv8i4s8j31ncam75pub14ldtr8a93a@4ax.com>, GaryE
<garyexxx@swbell.net> wrote:

> .I would be interested in knowing both of you 'credentials'.

And yours?

> ... Yet I think Virt is a thumper, at least a pseudo
> thumper in the 'science' of the AA Big Book. So, as a general rule,
> his arguments ....

Virt isn't a member of AA. Discussion of supposed medical basis for
"depression" is quite aside from any such thing anyway, and Virt
includes quite a few direct quotes from credentialled, qualified and
even prominent experts in the field being discussed.

But I understand why you'd rather simplisticly attempt, even if feebly,
to discredit or dismiss the messenger, when you don't like the message
or the raw facts of the matter.

> ... Who
> really gives a shit if people find relief from suffering ... with
> anti depressants (and yes, you are correct, they are not all alike in
> their effects, as I experienced them. I took them for years until but
> not for over a year now. Perhaps I can't know for sure what they did
> for my depression, except that I had it less, far less, and other
> people noticed a change in my mood, particularly family members.
> Maybe it was sheer coincidence. The side effect most prominent was
> not anything mind altering that I could tell, but sexual dysfunction.
> I think that is what drives most people up a wall. It's a hell of a
> trade off.
>
> ...... The problem as always, has been people vulnerable and open to
> 'advice' from people who have no credentials, period. ....

So you basically just don't know and figure it doesn't matter if the
general population is being drugged for no real medical reason, even
though it's being assured that there is such a thing. Meanwhile, there
are non-brain drug ways that have been scientifically demonstrated,
along with just as credible theoretical basis to support them, showing
the same beneficial reliefs. Without being officially identified as
being "mentally ill." Without having to buy expensive drugs with known
hazards.

You're fine with just taking drugs to feel a way that you'd prefer,
regardless of basis or deleterious effects involved. Well, okay.
Regarding yourself, that is.


--------------

Unhappiness or "depression" alleged to be the result of biological
abnormality is called "biological" or "endogenous" or "clinical"
depression.* In her book The Broken Brain: The Biological Revolution
in Psychiatry, University of Iowa psychiatry professor Nancy Andreasen,
M.D., Ph.D., says "The older term endogenous implies that the
depression `grows from within' or is biologically caused, with the
implication that unfortunate and painful events such as losing a job
or lover cannot be considered contributing causes" (Harper & Row, p.
203). * Similarly, in the Chicago Tribune newspaper columnist Joan Beck
alleged: "depressive disorders are basically biochemical - and not
caused by events or environmental circumstances or personal
relationships" (Sec. 1, p. 16).

* * * * * * The concept of biological or endogenous depression is
important to psychiatry for two reasons.* First, it is the most common
supposed mental illness.* As Victor I. Reus, M.D., wrote: "The history
of the diagnosis and treatment of melancholia could serve as a history
of psychiatry itself" (appearing in: H. H. Goldman, editor, Review of
General Psychiatry, 2nd Edition, Appleton & Lange, p. 332).* Second,
all of psychiatry's biological "treatments" for depression - whether
it is drugs, electroshock, or psychosurgery - are based on the idea
that the unhappiness we call depression can be caused by a biological
malfunction rather than life experience.* The erroneous belief in
biological causation justifies the otherwise unjustifiable use of
biological therapies.*

* * * * * * Many professional and lay people today think depression
can be caused by "chemical imbalance" in the brain even though none of
the "chemical imbalance" theories of depression have been verified.*
Some of them are discussed by Dr. Andreasen in her book The Broken
Brain.

* * * * * One of the theories she describes is the belief that
"depression" (what should be called simply unhappiness or severe
unhappiness) is the result of neuroendocrine abnormalities indicated
by excessive cortisol in the blood.* The test for this is called the
dexamethasone-suppression test or DST.* The theory behind this test
and the claims of its usefulness were found to be mistaken, however,
because, in Dr. Andreasen's words, "so many patients with well-defined
depressive illness have normal DSTs" (pp. 180-182).* An article in the
Harvard Medical School Health Letter reached a similar conclusion.*
The article, titled "Diagnosing Depression: How Good is the `DST'?",
reported that "For every three office patients with an abnormal DST,
only one is likely to have true depression.* ... [And] a large fraction
of people who are depressed by other criteria will still have normal
results on the DST" (p. 5).*

Similarly, in an article in the Archives of Internal Medicine three
physicians concluded that "Data from studies currently available do not
support the use of the dexamethasone ST [Suppression Test]" (Martin F.
Shapiro, M.D., et al., "Biases in the Laboratory Diagnosis of
Depression in Medical Practice", Vol. 143, p. 2085).* In her book If It
Runs In Your Family: Depression, Connie S. Chan, Ph.D., acknowledges
that "There is still no valid biological test for depression" (Bantam
Books, p. 106).* But despite its having been discredited, some
biologically oriented psychiatrists are (apparently) so eager for
biological explanations for people's unhappiness or "depression" that
they continue to use the DST anyway.*

* * * * * In The Broken Brain, Dr. Andreasen also describes what she
calls "the most widely accepted theory about the cause of
depression...the `catecholamine hypothesis.'"* She emphasizes that
"the catecholamine hypothesis is theory rather than fact" (p. 231).*
She says "This hypothesis suggests that patients suffering from
depression have a deficit of norepinephrine in the brain" (p. 183),
norepinephrine being one of the "major catecholamine systems" in the
brain (pp. 231-232).* One way the catecholamine hypothesis is evaluated
is by studying one of the breakdown products of norepinephrine, called
MHPG, in urine.* People with so-called depressive illness "tended to
have lower MHPG" (p. 234).* The problem with this theory, according
to Dr. Andreasen, is that "not all patients with depression have low
MHPG" (ibid).* She accordingly concludes that this catecholamine
hypothesis "has not yet explained the mechanism causing depression"
(p. 184).

* * * * * Another theory is that severe unhappiness ("depression") is
caused by lowered levels or abnormal use of another brain chemical,
serotonin.* A panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Congress Office
of Technology Assessment reported that "Prominent hypotheses concerning
depression have focused on altered function of the group of
neurotransmitters called monoamines (i.e., norepinephrine,
epinephrine, serotonin, dopamine), particularly norepinephrine (NE)
and serotonin.*... studies of the NE [norepinephrine] autoreceptor in
depression have found no specific evidence of an abnormality to date.*
Currently, no clear evidence links abnormal serotonin receptor
activity in the brain to depression.*... the data currently available
do not provide consistent evidence either for altered neurotransmitter
levels or for disruption of normal receptor activity" (The Biology of
Mental Disorders, U.S. Gov't Printing Office, pp. 82 & 84).

* * * * * Even if it was shown there is some biological change or
abnormality "associated" with depression, the question would remain
whether this is a cause or an effect of the "depression".* At least
one brain-scan study (using positron emission tomography or PET scans)
found that simply asking normal people to imagine or recall a
situation that would make them feel very sad resulted in significant
changes in blood flow in the brain (Jose V. Pardo, M.D., Ph.D., et
al., "Neural Correlates of Self-Induced Dysphoria", American Journal
of Psychiatry, p. 713).* Other research will probably confirm it is
emotions that cause biological changes in the brain rather than
biological changes in the brain causing emotions.

* * * * * One of the more popular theories of biologically caused
depression has been hypoglycemia, which is low blood sugar.* In his
book Fighting Depression, published in 1976, Harvey M. Ross, M.D.,
said "In my experience as an orthomolecular psychiatrist, I find that
many patients who complain of depression have hypoglycemia (low blood
sugar).* ... Because depression is so common in those with
hypoglycemia, any person who is depressed without a clear cut obvious
cause for that depression should be suspected of having low blood
sugar" (Larchmont Books, p. 76 & 93).* But in their book Do You Have A
Depressive Illness?, psychiatrists Donald Klein, M.D., and Paul Wender,
M.D., list hypoglycemia in a section titled "Illnesses That Don't
Cause Depression" (Plume, p. 61).* The idea of hypoglycemia as a cause
of depression was also rejected in the front page article of a Harvard
Medical School Health Letter, titled "Hypoglycemia - Fact or Fiction?"

* * * * * Another theory of a physical disease causing psychological
unhappiness or "depression" is hypothyroidism.* In her book Can
Psychotherapists Hurt You? psychologist Judi Striano, Ph.D., includes a
chapter titled "Is It Depression - Or An Underactive Thyroid?"
(Professional Press).* Similarly, three psychiatry professors asserted
"Frank hypothyroidism has long been known to cause depression" (Alan I.
Green, M.D., et al., The New Harvard Guide to Psychiatry, Harvard
Univ. Press, p. 135).* The theory here is that the thyroid gland,
which is located in the neck, normally secretes hormones which reach
the brain through the bloodstream necessary for a feeling of
psychological well being and that if the thyroid produces too little
of these hormones, the affected person can start feeling unhappy even
if no problems result from the endocrine (gland) problem other than
the unhappiness.*

The American Medical Association Encyclopedia of Medicine lists many
symptoms of hypothyroidism: "muscle weakness, cramps, a slow heart
rate, dry and flaky skin, hair loss* ...*" (Random House, p. 563).*
The Encyclopedia does not list unhappiness or "depression" as one of
the consequences of hypothyroidism.* But suppose you began to
experience "muscle weakness, cramps...dry and flaky skin, hair loss
.... "?* How would this make you feel emotionally? - depressed,
probably.* Just as hypothyroidism (hypo = low) is a thyroid gland that
produces too little, hyperthyroidism is a thyroid glad that produces
too much.* Therefore, if hypothyroidism causes depression, then it
seems logical to assume hyperthyroidism has the opposite effect, that
is, that it makes a person happy.* But this is not what happens.

As psychiatrist Mark S. Gold, M.D., points out in his book The Good
News About Depression: "Depression occurs in hyperthyroidism, too" (p.
150).* What are the consequences of hyperthyroidism?: Dr. Gold lists
abundant sweating, fatigue, soft moist skin, heart palpitations,
frequent bowel movements, muscular weakness, and protruding eyeballs.*
So both hypo- and hyper- thyroidism cause physical problems in the
body.* And both cause "depression".* This is only logical.* It is hard
to feel anything but bad emotionally when your body doesn't feel well
or work properly.* It has never been proved hypothyroidism affects
mood other than through its effect on the victim's experience of
feeling physically unhealthy.

* * * * * Some people believe women experience undesirable mood
changes for biological reasons because of menopause.* However, a study
by psychologists at University of Pittsburgh reported that "Menopause
usually doesn't trigger stress or depression in healthy women, and it
even improves mental health for some".* According to Rena Wing, one of
the psychologists who did the study, "Everyone expects menopause to be
a stressful event, but we didn't find any support for this myth"
("Menopausal stress may be a myth", USA Today, p. 1D).

* * * * * It is also widely believed that women go through a period of
depression for biological reasons after giving birth to a child.* It's
called postpartum depression.* In his book The Making of a
Psychiatrist, Dr. David Viscott quotes Dr. George Maslow, a physician
doing an obstetrical residency, making the following remark: "Come on,
Viscott, do you really believe in postpartum depression?* I've seen
maybe two in the last three years.* I think it's a lot of shit you
guys [you psychiatrists] imagined to drum up business" (Pocket Books,
p. 88).

* * * * * A careful reading of the books and articles by psychiatrists
and psychologists alleging biological causes of the severe unhappiness
we call depression usually reveals purely psychological causes that
explain it adequately, even when the author believes he has given a
good example of biologically caused depression.* For example, in
Holiday of Darkness: A Psychologist's Personal Journey Out of His
Depression (John Wiley & Sons), an autobiographical book by York
University psychology professor Norman S. Endler, Ph.D., he alleges
his unhappiness or so-called depression "was biochemically induced"
(p. xiv).* He says "my affective disorder was primarily biochemical
and physiological" (p. 162).* But from his own words it's obvious his
depression was due primarily to unreturned love when a woman he got
emotionally involved with, Ann, decided to "wind down" her
relationship with him (pp. 2-5) and when he suffered a career setback
(loss of a research grant) at about the same time (p. 23).* Despite
his claims of biochemical causation, nowhere does he cite any medical
or biological tests showing he had any kind of biological,
biochemical, or neurological abnormalities.* He can't, because no valid
biological test exists that tests for the presence of any so-called
mental illness, including allegedly biologically caused unhappiness
(or "depression").*

There is no convincing evidence unhappiness or "depression" is ever
biologically caused.* The brain is part of our biology, but there is
no evidence severe unhappiness or "depression" is sometimes
biologically caused any more than bad TV programs are sometimes
electronically caused.* "[T]he question is not how to get cured, but
how to live" (Joseph Conrad, quoted by psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz,
Syracuse Univ. Press).* "When mental health professionals point to
spurious genetic and biochemical causes," of depression and recommend
drugs rather than learning better ways of living, "they encourage
psychological helplessness and discourage personal and social growth"
of the sort needed to really avoid unhappiness or "depression" and
live a meaningful and happy life (Peter Breggin, M.D., "Talking Back
to Prozac" Psychology Today magazine, p. 72).

[blackout]

> > >
> > > Apparently, they're looking at both the absence of "studies" that do
> > > conclusively establish either any such thing as the supposed "chemical
> > > imbalance"
> >
> > The "chemical imbalance" is just a simplified way of explaining what
> > actually happens. The current theory is that once serotonin is ....
[snip]
>
> I'm aware of various "theories." The core fact is that, among the
> several in vogue, none of them have been medically substantiated. And
> there are anomalies to all of them.

You're right, but the problem is that the next step requires a big
technological step (like the device I mentioned). I can only say that 20
years of experience rules out that it is simply a placebo effect.

>
> For instance, even if we suppose that serotonin levels in a person's
> livinng brain can be measured, and lowered levels are found in some
> ratio of "depressed persons," it's still completely a conjecture that
> that is a "cause" and not an "effect" of "depression." It's all still
> basically at the "what if" and "let's suppose" phase, with no
> particular reason to expect anything further.

You're talking chicken and the egg, right? You're right; I can't hit you
over the head with a big scientific study, but I listen to the professional
medicators, and SSRIs work, one way or the other.

> > That the diseases are not cured is correct, but that is because
psychiatric
> > diseases are in fact epileptic damage, which cannot be repaired. ....
>
> That would be yet another one among a number of pure theories, right?

Actually no, the researcher had done extensive studies on mice....which is
where all this kind of science begins. He was extremely pro-pathological,
and had lots of statistical data from people with mental disorders. He had
done his homework.
>

> All the prior "antidepressants" eventually became "acknowledged" as
> having had known dangers, too. And all the current ones, when they are
> current ones, get hawked as though that's not the case.

I'm not sure I understand you. Benzos are not ADs. It was looked upon as a
miracle drug when it first came out in the 50-60s, but in the 70s, people
slowly began to reliase the dangers.

You could mention tricyclic ADs, or the even older ADs, MAOIs - these ADs
were known to be directly dangerous from the beginning. And there really
haven't been others (except tetracyclics, but they were more or less like
tricyclics, just less dangerous).

SSRIs are simply better versions of the older ADs; their method of action is
more or less the same, except for the key word selective.

>
> > > So you say. Show me the studies.
> >
> > I don't think any serious studies will be made about SSRIs ... [snip]

I hope you read that part, because I think you have a little misunderstandig
going on.

>
> Show me any studies that have conclusively shown that "depression" is a
> biochemical "imbalance" in the brain,

I can't, because that is not the case.

or that SSRI's do, indeed,
> "correct" that.

They don't - it is much more complicated than that.If you affect one chain
of neurons, you automatically affect others and create a chain reaction.
This is how SSRIs work, and as close to explaining it right now as we can
get.


Not theory, but medical fact. I just haven't been able
> to locate any yet.

Not surprising, since there isn't any (EXCEPT that device in Aarhus - I will
try to find out if it's the missing link.)

[Virtualoso]

In article <0lH8b.71320$Kb2.3289100@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Until Denmark maybe shares this secret medical proof of epilipsi, then
> > everyone else must continue with all the other, wholly mistaken
> > "theories" that everyone is being misled with.
>
> I am pretty sure it's no secret. I attended a seminar with my dad featuring
> one of the leading psychiatrists in Denmark, that's where I learned about
> it. Why it hasn't been spread can have several reasons; USA is a big country
> . maybe someone there is working on it? Or maybe sceptiscim is the key; but
> I have to say that his data was *impressive*.

No shortage of impressive data, variously. Mostly, that's been far
short of a conclusive finding, though.

Skepticism? From an entire, hefty industry trying hard for a long time
and spending fortunes to somehow produce actual convincing medical
proof of a manifest, medical basis for pure, unsubstantiated theories
otherwise?

Interestingly, regardless, is that this obscure breakthrough would then
show the falsehood to all the other supposed, pitched basis for the
thing that have been assured and sold, wouldn't it?

> > > Well, I know it ain't scientific evidence, but anecdotal evidence
> clearly
> > > shows us that SSRIs work......
> >
> > Scientific evidence have gotten as far as demonstrating "work" to mean
> > placebo effect. Enough so, that now experts in the field are exploring
> > the "placebo boosting" aspect of the drugs and their "side effects"
> > which function as the "boosting" trick.
>
> Hm...I'm not sure i understand nor agree with you ;) There is no placebo
> research going on right now, because we have a sufficiently effective drug
> that we know works, Celexa (again, I get my facts mainly from my dad, and
> personal research.)

Dr. Andrew Leuchter, a professor of psychiatry at UCLA, published a
study in the American Journal of Psychiatry, in which he tracked some
of the brain changes associated with drugs such as Prozac and Effexor,
which are called 'serotonin reuptake inhibitors' (SSRI). When Dr.
Leuchter compared the brain changes in patients on placebosk, he was
amazed to find that many of them had changes in the same parts of the
brain that are thought to control important facets of moods.

Dr. Leuchter also said, "We like to think we give people treatments
annd they get better. We have this fallacy of success, but we don't
know in any individual why they get better."

Dr. A. Khan, a psychiatrist, studied placebo effects in trials
conducted by the drug manufacturers including those submitted to the
FDA. This included 96 antidepressant trials over 17 years, finding that
in the overall majority, the effect of the antidepressant could not be
distinguished from that of the placebo. The makes of Prozac had to run
five trials to obtain two that were "positive" (the minimum required
for passing FDA) and the makers of Paxil and Zoloft had to run even
more.

Dr. T. Walsh, a psychiatrist at Columbia University, recently found
that the placebo effect has grown in recent years. He found that
greater percentages of people tended to get better on placebos during
trials of antidepressants.

Dr. H. Mayberg, head of neuropsychiatry at the Rotman Research
Institute at the University of Toronto, said that these drugs are
"placebo plus" treatment, owing to the convincing influence of "side
effects" and that "doctors" are prescribing a "powerful medication".

Dr. Mayberg also said,"This is a thousand piece puzzle with no picture
on the box."

Dr. T. Laughre, who heads the group of scientists at the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration that evaluates the drugs for possible approvals for
sale to the public, states: "Psychiatric diagnosis is descriptive. We
don't really understand psychiatric disorders at a biological level."
He explained that scientists donj't understand the neural mechanisms of
depression -- or why drugs like Prozac, Paxil, or Effexor "work" when
they appear to.

> > > > Sure there are serious side effects. Commonly. In fact, about half the
> > > > folks that have ever taken them, to date, have quit at one time or
> > > > another specifically because of the "side effects."
> > >
> > > Yes. But you have to differentiate between the different SSRIs, since
> they
> > > are different and have different side effects. .....
> >
> > On what basis are the different ones being given to people? Any actual
> > medical tests involved?
>
> Well, most psychiatrists prefer to prescribe Celexa, both in the States and
> in DK, simply because it is the most selective and effective (though I think
> Seroxat comes close....) There are very few side effects because of this,
> and the patient usually don't feel different at all (except some impotence,
> according to the dose). And now Celebrex (still not sure that's the right
> name) is coming on the market, and it is even better (see my other posts).

Of course, reduction of subjectively perceivable deleterious effects
seems desireable. However, to the extent there are other, non
subjectively experienced damaging brain effects of the drugs, it could
make it all the more difficult to tell that the harm is taking place,
especially since the technology for doing so is still so sketchy. And
all this, without any medical, objective method of establishing that
there's anything biophysically "wrong" in the first place, nor that
these drugs actually do anything at all to "correct" such a guessed,
supposed or entirely imagined problem.

> Or is it all really just a matter of "trying"
> > to see if people like it, regardless of manifest biophysiology?
>
> There will always be genetic heterogeneity that makes some people prefer
> older SSRIs, for example Zoloft.

People that favor drugs, often have their own particular favorites, yes.

[`F.H]

blackout wrote:
>
> > > Hey! A fellow dane, almost! Good to meet you Rasmussen!
> >
> > Rasumssen is on my mothers side. Around here I'm Frank or Gramps (and a
> > few other less complimentary monikers).
>
> Seems like I've had the same welcome commitee ;)

A word of caution, you are dealing with legitimate marathoners.

> Ok, Frank, ya know, vikings are tough; we can take the abuse ;) But they'll
> have to watch out for our longboat invasions...We've done it before, and
> we'll do it again!

No doubt. I still wonder how my grandparents wound up farming in
Nebraska. Bout as far as you can get from an ocean. I, on the other
hand, feel a great bond with the sea. Must have filtered through the
genes.

Frank

[blackout]

> > Those side effects are very rare with the newer SSRIs. Well, some of
> > them....impotence, some physical discomfort, those are not that rare,
but
> > still (I remember saying this before); if I had the choice between
taking a
> > good SSRI and the risk of having side effects, or being depressed, my
choice
> > is clear.
>
> Apparently, quite some number of people would rather take drugs that
> have them feeling ways they prefer, even if there are some distinct
> deleterious effects of that. Some of the drugs are legal, some are not.

There are no " deleterious" (I had to find my dictionary for that one, for
god¨s sake!) effects from SSRIs. Yes, I would choose the true and tried
method of SSRIs at any time if the alterntative was coginitive therepy
(which doesn't really work) or .... what? It's all we have!

And don't compare SSRIs to recreational drugs; that is completely useless.



> > But it should be easy to differentiate between the original diagnosis
and
> > side effects. The side effects first starts after (in some cases, weeks)
> > treatment has begun.
>
> Why "should it be easy"? Isn't "the diagnosis" mainly or exclusively
> based simply on people reporting that they feel "depressed"

No. Shows how much you know about this. Serotonergic-related disorders are a
very heterogenic group.

and the
> like? I mean, there aren't any actual medical tests involved, are
> there?

Not yet.

However, one of the glaring anomalies of the theories of the
> drugs, is that there isn't any conclusive medical basis for why they
> might "take weeks" to induce their "effects."

You would know this if you had read my posts; receptor downgrading takes
time.

Of course, since most
> depressions naturally quell after about the same time span, it's not
> necessarily surprising at all that a lot of people would feel better by
> then.

Ok, that is the stupidest thing you've said so far- have you never heard of
long-term depression - it can last forever if untreated. Very few real
depressions lasts a lot longer than 3 weeks. I mentioned this in a post too.

Unless the drugs have then been causing some havoc with their
> brains and prolonging and/or inducing discomforts. Then, typically it's
> time to tinker dosages and/or "try" other drugs. Etc.
>
> > > > But first, the so-called dependency problem and the problem of
stopping
> > the
> > > > medication. Real withdrawal symptoms usually only occur when the
patient
> > > > does not understand or follow the specific instructions told by the
> > doctor.
> > >
> > > Instructions about... what? Why, about withdrawal. Yet, we hear they
> > > are not "habit forming". Then what's with the special withdrawal
> > > instructions?
> >
> > Habit-forming is a word that is problematic, because you can form habits
> > from almost everything, from eating candy to watching TV, If you said
> > "addictive", it would be another discussion; SSRIs are not addictive
> > according to the formal criteria for addiction.
>
> The "formal criteria"? What's that?

Well, they are on the net somewhere....maybe you should start on studying a
bit, you seem very interested in these things.

Otherwise, a "physical dependency"
> is a generally useful criteria for "addiction." And if one is in a
> position of facing bad enough "withdrawal" then one is physically
> depending on taking the drug to avoid that suffering of discontinuing.
>
> > Again, tapering is extremely important (some SSRIs are worse than
others),
> > and if it's done wrong (which happens often), the result may look and
feel
> > like addiction.
>
> Or it may look and feel as though the symptoms of a "mental illness"
> are re-emerging, and so lead to being put back on drugs.

Doctors are not that stupid. When in the taper phase, the doctor will of
course be aware of this possibility (otherwise he should be fired).

>
>
> > Yet, this is commonly avoided by never really taking
> > > anyone off the drugs, once their begun. That is one of the usual
> > > "cures" isn't it -- just stay drugged?
> >
> > Not as far as I know. SSRI treatment, if it works for the individual,
should
> > continue for 6-12 months in order to ensure proper suppression. Depends
on
> > the exact diagnosis.
>
> How are "exact diagnosis" made? Are there any real, biophysical medical
> tests involved?

There are certain criteria that has ti be met. And no, they don't crack your
skull open to check ;)

>
> > > More often, once the discomforts of withdrawal are experienced,
> > > everyone assumes they are suffering from a "chemical imbalance" that's
> > > "returning" without the drugs. And so they're then put back on drugs.
> >
> > Which they should be, so they can taper properly. This can take a LONG
time,
> > depending on the SSRI, and many patients do not have the patience to
taper
> > for months.
>
> Uh... just what is taking such a long time, if there is no addiction
> and these drugs are so "harmless." only having specific, targeted
> effects on just certain things? It only took a coupla's weeks to "take
> effect" and the "effect" is supposedly beneficial, right? Why such a
> protracted, risky "withdrawal" if they're not "addictive" or dangerous?

Because the serotonin receptors have to upgrade again, and´this takes longer
than downgrading.

>
> > > Funny you never hear much anything about that, especially in the ads
> > > for stuff like that. Nor in prescribing doctors offices prior to
> > > dispensing the scripts.
> >
> > Yes, I never quite understood the reason for producing a drug like
Paxil. I
> > agree that finances may play too large a role in this; so we don't have
that
> > problem in DK. We don't even allow ads for ADs.
>
> Why not?

To avoid the problems that apparently exist in the states; doctors
prescribing inferior SSRIs and other drugs for economic reasons.

>
> > > Are you aware of any studies that have checked for that?
> >
> > About neurotransmitter levels returning to normal again? Yes, they exist
for
> > sure, but no link, I'm afraid.
>
> I'm not too surprised. Yes, studies do exist, but they do not support
> the pro-drug advocacies nearly as much as pro-drug advocates would
> like, or pretend.

Excuse me, but where do you get that fact from?

So they're always missing in these discussions. For
> some reason.

Yes; I can't find them on the net. And´that's it. For god's sake, read some
book about neurobiology, or talk to a shrink who is neutral towards drugs.

>
> > > The only potential benefit is that some "symptom" might be drugged out
> > > of their experience, somehow. At known costs. Rather than a sugar pill
> > > or other options that are easier, less costly, less risky, etc.
> >
> > But what are you proposing? Cognitive therapy? Sugar pills ;)?
>
> I'm not advocating prefrontal lobotomies and I'm not advocating brain
> drugs.

THEN WHAT are you advocating? just letting your brain rot from depression?

Are you sure you still perform lobotomies in the states?

>
> > > Uh huh. Other options for anyone regarded by... someone... as
> > > "incompetent" are severe electrical shocks and cutting parts of the
> > > brain. Granted, that drugging them is comparatively "gentler."
> >
> > I was not aware that you still used surgery in the States. In DK,
> > electroschock is only used in extreme cases where nothing else works,
and
> > the patient poses a threat to himself or others.
>
> Psychiatric drugs, including "anti-depressants" have been involved in
> quite a number of incidents of people harming themselves and others,
> including suicide and homocide.

Well, I have to say that there is NO WAY you can prove that ADs were the
reason. Anti-psychotic drugs are designed to be sedative, so thats not an
option either.

[Michael H.]

`> In article <50H8b.71319$Kb2.3288515@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
> <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Actually, in Denmark, researchers have come up with a scanner-like
> > device
> > > > that can actually measure serotonin levels (and other relevant
> > > > neurotransmitters, if I remember correctly), and thus a patient with
> > > > depression can be diagnosed.
> > >
> > > Please do reveal this. People have been looking forsomething like this
> > > for decades. Where do I learn more?
> >
> > It is extremely exciting! Problem is, the device is located at some
hospital
> > here, and I can't remember where, but I think it is Aarhus
Kommunehospital
> > (if you got that one ;) If you somehow can search on google about it, do
it,
> > but I will ask around and try to search on some Danish search engines.
My
> > dad hadn't heard about it, strangely enough, but his area is
> > geronto-psychiatry (is that a word in English?). My mom is a nurse, but
she
> > doesn't work there, so that's no help. If nothing else comes along, I
will
> > call the hospital and get the facts straight and pass 'em on.
>
> Huh? There's only one of these devices and it's hard to even find out
> about it? There's a multi-billion dollar industry here that's been
> doing backflips for decades trying to come up with something like that.
> I suppose it could go the way of the 100 mile per gallon carburator
> that that guy in Texarcana once came up with, though.



This a start?


HEALTH - RELATED ARTICLES

Science leaves the Enterprise in its' wake
By John von Radowitz, London
Reported in the magazine New Scientist. Based on an article published in the
journal Measurement Science and Technology.


It was Dr McCoy's trademark - a gadget you simply waved across a patient's
body to provide an instant diagnosis. Now British scientists have invented a
real-life version of the Star Trek technology used by the Enterprise's
medical officer. Their super-sensor can monitor a person's heartbeat or
brainwaves from a meter away, and could mark the start of a revolution in
remote medical testing.

The team at the University of Sussex in Brighton made the breakthrough while
setting out to improve the accuracy of electrocardiograms. Via stick-on
contacts, ECGs measure minute voltages on the surface of the skin that
correspond to electrical activity in the heart. The data are displayed as a
wave on a screen, or a printout. But conventional ECGs suffer from the fact
that the skin contacts drain some of the current, so the signal is weak and
distorted.

The Sussex team, led by Terry Clark, a physicist, set about developing a
system that measures the changing electric field in the air generated by the
shifting voltages on the skin's surface. Their prototype remote device,
unlike Dr McCoy's, is not hand-held but fastened rigidly in front of the
seated patient. It does not look particularly space-age either, consisting
of a copper disc mounted on the end of a metal box.

Details of the technology are being kept secret because of patents pending.
But the results of tests on student volunteers have been so startling that
Professor Clark is convinced it will transform the business of monitoring
patients' vital signs. "What we're talking about is a real paradigm shift.
These devices are orders of magnitude more sensitive than anything that has
gone before, yet they are cheap and relatively easy to produce," he said.

At present the signals are displayed as a conventional wave pattern on a
screen. But in future the technology could be refined to produce
scanner-like moving images of organs based on the electrical pathways
running through them. Remote monitoring could be invaluable for doctors
treating patients who cannot be touched, such as severe burns victims. Used
for monitoring brain activity, the system could open up new areas of
research. It may also help scientists unravel the secrets of acupuncture,
which many experts believe works by altering electrical pathways in the
body.

Professor Clark predicted that the technology could even give rise to a form
of electro-acupuncture. "The body runs on electrical signals. If you can
pick them up in a way that hasn't been possible before and learn about the
relationship individual signals have with the overall harmony of the body,
clearly there's a possibility that you could feed back signals and alter
activity in the body."

[Virtualoso]

In article <dUH8b.71337$Kb2.3290179@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > >
> > > > Apparently, they're looking at both the absence of "studies" that do
> > > > conclusively establish either any such thing as the supposed "chemical
> > > > imbalance"
> > >
> > > The "chemical imbalance" is just a simplified way of explaining what
> > > actually happens. The current theory is that once serotonin is ....
> [snip]
> >
> > I'm aware of various "theories." The core fact is that, among the
> > several in vogue, none of them have been medically substantiated. And
> > there are anomalies to all of them.
>
> You're right...

Well, I'm only personally right about this, in the sense that so many
actual qualified experts in the field have been reporting this for all
these years. It just doesn't get near the attention, popular media, or
general public play that the unsubstantiated and even disproven
erroneous notions do. Just look what happens when the facts of the
matter are put in front of folks. They immediately react defensively
and begin touting the unsubstantiated and disproven stuff, or attempt
to "discredit" the source of the information. Very common and typical.
Especially by folks that are apparently ready to proclaim themselves as
being "mentally ill" otherwise, and have been or yet are taking the
unproven drugs.


> ...but the problem is that the next step requires a big
> technological step (like the device I mentioned).

The only "problem" there is, is in concertedly, continuously attempting
to "prove" something in particular that's somewhy cleaved to on a
purely guesswork basis in the first place. Why the intense attachment
to just that notion, then propelling all this "problem" with finding
supportive evidence for it?

> I can only say that 20
> years of experience rules out that it is simply a placebo effect.

Apparently not. In fact, quite the opposite. The 20 years of not only
experience, but actual scientific research and medical investigation
has only been able to find placebo effect, with anything like
certainty.

> > For instance, even if we suppose that serotonin levels in a person's
> > livinng brain can be measured, and lowered levels are found in some
> > ratio of "depressed persons," it's still completely a conjecture that
> > that is a "cause" and not an "effect" of "depression." It's all still
> > basically at the "what if" and "let's suppose" phase, with no
> > particular reason to expect anything further.
>
> You're talking chicken and the egg, right? You're right; I can't hit you
> over the head with a big scientific study ...

Of course not. There is not scientific substantiation for the pure
guesswork or wholly unproven idea that any such thing "causes" some
supposedly distinct "thing" as "depression," or that any of the drugs
do anything in particular to "treat" that -- other than as a placebo or
by possibly deleteriously or damagingly disrupting or disabling normal
brain functions.

> , but I listen to the professional
> medicators, and SSRIs work, one way or the other.

"Work" meaning, just what? Apparently, medically, it's only as placebo.

> > > That the diseases are not cured is correct, but that is because
> psychiatric
> > > diseases are in fact epileptic damage, which cannot be repaired. ....
> >
> > That would be yet another one among a number of pure theories, right?
>
> Actually no, the researcher had done extensive studies on mice....which is
> where all this kind of science begins. He was extremely pro-pathological,
> and had lots of statistical data from people with mental disorders. He had
> done his homework.

Given that a "diagnosis" of "depression" is entirelyk dependent on a
person reporting that they simply "feel depressed," one can only wonder
how it might be "diagnosed" that a mouse is "depressed." Or, since the
only way to tell if a drug is "working" is also based on a person
reporting that they "feel better," how a mouse might also be able to
report that, either.

> > All the prior "antidepressants" eventually became "acknowledged" as
> > having had known dangers, too. And all the current ones, when they are
> > current ones, get hawked as though that's not the case.
>
> I'm not sure I understand you. ..........
>
> You could mention tricyclic ADs, or the even older ADs, MAOIs - these ADs
> were known to be directly dangerous from the beginning. And there really
> haven't been others (except tetracyclics, but they were more or less like
> tricyclics, just less dangerous).

Seems you understand well enough: ALL the previous "antidepressants"
were eventually shown to clearly have deleterious and/or seriously
dangerous properties and effects. Yet, when they were current, ALL of
them were not "acknowledged" like that, especially when being pitched
and sold. Just like the current batch.

> SSRIs are simply better versions of the older ADs; their method of action is
> more or less the same, except for the key word selective.

Which doesn't medically mean anything much in particular, medically
regarding the supposed "correction" of speculated but unsubstantiated
"causes" of some "thing" referred to as "depression."

> > > > So you say. Show me the studies.
> > >
> > > I don't think any serious studies will be made about SSRIs ... [snip]
>
> I hope you read that part, because I think you have a little misunderstandig
> going on.

Show the studies that conclusively find that "depression" is a
biophysical malfunction and that it's actually, manifestly "corrected"
with any particular drug in some particular way. That ought to clear
things right up.

> > Show me any studies that have conclusively shown that "depression" is a
> > biochemical "imbalance" in the brain,
>
> I can't, because that is not the case.

Agreed. Not so difficult, eh? '-)

> or that SSRI's do, indeed,
> > "correct" that.
>
> They don't - it is much more complicated than that.If you affect one chain
> of neurons, you automatically affect others and create a chain reaction.
> This is how SSRIs work, and as close to explaining it right now as we can
> get.

Yeah, there's a LOT of complication and lingo involved, isn't there?
Yet, experts in the field find that it can most certainly be translated
to much simpler language and upshot: at best, the entire premise is a
pure speculation that remains medically basically unproven or
disproven.

> Not theory, but medical fact. I just haven't been able
> > to locate any yet.
>
> Not surprising, since there isn't any ......

Agreed. Not so difficult, eh? '-)

> (EXCEPT that device in Aarhus - I will
> try to find out if it's the missing link.)

I can hardly wait.

[Michael H.]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:130920030920513284%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <50H8b.71319$Kb2.3288515@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
> <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Actually, in Denmark, researchers have come up with a scanner-like
> > device
> > > > that can actually measure serotonin levels (and other relevant
> > > > neurotransmitters, if I remember correctly), and thus a patient with
> > > > depression can be diagnosed.
> > >
> > > Please do reveal this. People have been looking forsomething like this
> > > for decades. Where do I learn more?
> >
> > It is extremely exciting! Problem is, the device is located at some
hospital
> > here, and I can't remember where, but I think it is Aarhus
Kommunehospital
> > (if you got that one ;) If you somehow can search on google about it, do
it,
> > but I will ask around and try to search on some Danish search engines.
My
> > dad hadn't heard about it, strangely enough, but his area is
> > geronto-psychiatry (is that a word in English?). My mom is a nurse, but
she
> > doesn't work there, so that's no help. If nothing else comes along, I
will
> > call the hospital and get the facts straight and pass 'em on.
>
> Huh? There's only one of these devices and it's hard to even find out
> about it? There's a multi-billion dollar industry here that's been
> doing backflips for decades trying to come up with something like that.
> I suppose it could go the way of the 100 mile per gallon carburator
> that that guy in Texarcana once came up with, though.

I think this is more "it".

http://makeashorterlink.com/?O547124E5

Peace
Michael H.

Now this is fun!

[Virtualoso]

In article <uqI8b.71344$Kb2.3291825@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Apparently, quite some number of people would rather take drugs that
> > have them feeling ways they prefer, even if there are some distinct
> > deleterious effects of that. Some of the drugs are legal, some are not.
>
> There are no " deleterious" (I had to find my dictionary for that one, for
> god¨s sake!) effects from SSRIs.

Sure there are. And it's the major reason that about half the people
subjected to them are known to attempt to quit them, at some point.
Unfortunately, they are all too often misled into resuming some version
of the drugging, on highly dubious basis. Unless, of course, you can
provide the authoritative medical substantiation that's clearly
established what you assure otherwise.

> Yes, I would choose the true and tried
> method of SSRIs at any time if the alterntative was coginitive therepy
> (which doesn't really work) or .... what? It's all we have!

Heck, we just had another correspondant in a recent similar thread
assuring us that "cognitive behavioral therapy" (whatever that might
be) was somehow proven to be the most effective thing. Sure no shortage
of pure advocacies is there?

I just love the idea that these drugs are somehow "all we have." Why,
merely because someone brewed them up and hawks and sells them? Gee,
that then amounts to "all we have"? Even despite the raw facts that
sugar pills work as well, or better? Or that regular exercise and
reasonable diet work, too? Or that St. John's Wort performed as well or
better than the drugs, in clinical trials? Or that the entire notion
that "depression" is a "brain disorder" is flat mistaken and so the
experience is better addressed in an entirely different way?

> And don't compare SSRIs to recreational drugs; that is completely useless.

"Useless"? For what use? We seem to be able to find any other actual,
medical basis for considering them as bona fide "medicine" for any
manifest medical purpose, aside from purely "let's suppose" or
pretend.

After all, many "substances" are reverted to and relied on by very many
people to simply feel better or "relieve suffering." Probably most of
them aren't necessarily potentially harmful or dangerous prescription
drugs, either. And most all of them can certainly be verbally described
in highly complex and special lingo, including the biochemical and
neurophysiological terminologies. But it all amounts to the same thing,
lacking any other true medical substantiation -- which apparently
remains elusive.

> > > But it should be easy to differentiate between the original diagnosis
> and
> > > side effects. The side effects first starts after (in some cases, weeks)
> > > treatment has begun.
> >
> > Why "should it be easy"? Isn't "the diagnosis" mainly or exclusively
> > based simply on people reporting that they feel "depressed"
>
> No. Shows how much you know about this. Serotonergic-related disorders are a
> very heterogenic group.

Only if one merely "believes" that might be the case, yet lacking any
actual conclusive scientific, medical substantiation. Even as you've
progressively agreed, there isn't any. That leaves pure Belief in a
particular idea, with no other compelling basis for it, other than
inclination to Believe it.

> and the
> > like? I mean, there aren't any actual medical tests involved, are
> > there?
>
> Not yet.

Agreed. Not so difficult, eh? '-)

> Of course, since most
> > depressions naturally quell after about the same time span, it's not
> > necessarily surprising at all that a lot of people would feel better by
> > then.
>
> Ok, that is the stupidest thing you've said so far- have you never heard of
> long-term depression - it can last forever if untreated. Very few real
> depressions lasts a lot longer than 3 weeks. I mentioned this in a post too.

I suppose if the very definition of the term "real depressions" is
reserved exclusively for some range of "depression" lasting a lot
longer than 3 weeks, then it's only true by dint of pure jargon
definition.

However, most "depressions" (including those routinely classified as
"disorders," "mental illness," and "clinical") are known to naturally
quell after about 6-8 weeks. Very often, it's only after someone's
been feeling this way for at least a little while that they seek the
"professional help" and then there's that inexplicable coupla' weeks
before the drugs "work" -- all which roughly describes about the same
span of time, overall. Except now they're buying and using costly drugs
which they are instructed to keep using these supposedly "harmless" and
"targetted" drugs for months or years, which also require special
medical help in ever getting off of, with frequent suffering and known
medical and psychological risks incurred, when and if attempted.

> > > > Instructions about... what? Why, about withdrawal. Yet, we hear they
> > > > are not "habit forming". Then what's with the special withdrawal
> > > > instructions?
> > >
> > > Habit-forming is a word that is problematic, because you can form habits
> > > from almost everything, from eating candy to watching TV, If you said
> > > "addictive", it would be another discussion; SSRIs are not addictive
> > > according to the formal criteria for addiction.
> >
> > The "formal criteria"? What's that?
>
> Well, they are on the net somewhere....maybe you should start on studying a
> bit, you seem very interested in these things.

You don't have that handy or known yourself, along with all this other
stuff you're being sure to type in?

> > Or it may look and feel as though the symptoms of a "mental illness"
> > are re-emerging, and so lead to being put back on drugs.
>
> Doctors are not that stupid. When in the taper phase, the doctor will of
> course be aware of this possibility (otherwise he should be fired).

Well, we have doctors assuring us that many doctors are "that stupid,"
indeed. In fact, it's been checked and found that a lot of the doctors
that give people these drugs are either ignorant about quite a bit of
the facts and/or have mistaken promotional literature from the drug
makers/sellers as actual independent, medical reference. In the U.S.
the overall majority of doctors that are giving these drugs to people
are general MD's, not even psychiatrists. MD's typically have little to
no particular training in neurophysiology, neurochemistry,
biopsychiatry, or mental illness and proper treatment of it, either.
You, for instance, may very well be more informed than they are. But
they are legally able to prescribe the drugs, and they are the major
providers of them to the general public.

> > >
> > > Not as far as I know. SSRI treatment, if it works for the individual,
> should
> > > continue for 6-12 months in order to ensure proper suppression. Depends
> on
> > > the exact diagnosis.
> >
> > How are "exact diagnosis" made? Are there any real, biophysical medical
> > tests involved?
>
> There are certain criteria that has ti be met. And no, they don't crack your
> skull open to check ;)

And you'd rather not just include such a basic pivotal thing here. For
some reason. Not that it's because it turns out to be rather groundless
and vaguely nebulous, eh? '-)

> > Uh... just what is taking such a long time, if there is no addiction
> > and these drugs are so "harmless." only having specific, targeted
> > effects on just certain things? It only took a coupla's weeks to "take
> > effect" and the "effect" is supposedly beneficial, right? Why such a
> > protracted, risky "withdrawal" if they're not "addictive" or dangerous?
>
> Because the serotonin receptors have to upgrade again, and´this takes longer
> than downgrading.

That's the pure unproven or disproven theory, alright.

> > > problem in DK. We don't even allow ads for ADs.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> To avoid the problems that apparently exist in the states; doctors
> prescribing inferior SSRIs and other drugs for economic reasons.

Could be a smart move, especially given that there's as much a case as
anything otherwise for all SSRI's to be "inferior" things to be
prescribing at all.

> > > > Are you aware of any studies that have checked for that?
> > >
> > > About neurotransmitter levels returning to normal again? Yes, they exist
> for
> > > sure, but no link, I'm afraid.
> >
> > I'm not too surprised. Yes, studies do exist, but they do not support
> > the pro-drug advocacies nearly as much as pro-drug advocates would
> > like, or pretend.
>
> Excuse me, but where do you get that fact from?

Might be the same places you're withhout links or references for. Ya'
think?

> So they're always missing in these discussions. For
> > some reason.
>
> Yes; I can't find them on the net. And´that's it. For god's sake, read some
> book about neurobiology, or talk to a shrink who is neutral towards drugs.

I have. Yet any such substantiating info for the drug advocacies is
always missing entirely from these discussions. For some reason.

> > > > The only potential benefit is that some "symptom" might be drugged out
> > > > of their experience, somehow. At known costs. Rather than a sugar pill
> > > > or other options that are easier, less costly, less risky, etc.
> > >
> > > But what are you proposing? Cognitive therapy? Sugar pills ;)?
> >
> > I'm not advocating prefrontal lobotomies and I'm not advocating brain
> > drugs.
>
> THEN WHAT are you advocating? just letting your brain rot from depression?

First take a moment to simply realize that the groundlessness of
unsubstantiated, purely "theoretical" and disproven things, is not
necessarily or inherently a simultaneous specific advocacy otherwise.

For instance, we have no medically proven treatments for other things
and the sensible acknowledgement of that absence doesn't equate with
advocating some certain other thing. But it can provide a much better
context for considering options, especially once misleading or false
assurances otherwise are realistically recognized.

Somehow, when it comes to these pure Beliefs about some really blurry
concept of "clinical biological depression" and the brain drugs and the
inability to establish any clear, conclusive or reliable medical,
scientific basis for that, there is this immediate reversion to piqued
concern over presumed or anticipated "advocacies" elsewise.

> > Psychiatric drugs, including "anti-depressants" have been involved in
> > quite a number of incidents of people harming themselves and others,
> > including suicide and homocide.
>
> Well, I have to say that there is NO WAY you can prove that ADs were the
> reason.

That could only be because there's NO WAY anyone can prove that ADs are
the "reason" for anything in particular, including "working" other than
pure placebos.

> Anti-psychotic drugs are designed to be sedative, so thats not an
> option either.

And they cause specific, even irreversible, brain damage. Which any and
all brain drugs very well may do.

[Michael H.]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:130920031008314901%virtualoso@dot.com...

>
> People that favor drugs, often have their own particular favorites, yes.

Wonder drugs of the day and some of my personal favorites:

http://frogs_fotos.tripod.com/coke3.jpg
http://frogs_fotos.tripod.com/coke4.jpg
http://frogs_fotos.tripod.com/coke2.jpg

Don't forget when Seconal and Dexedrine were given out like candy by docs.
Kind of like a process of experimentation with the population. I really like
the deal with aspartame currently going on. Deep shit. And then there's the
antibiotics in meat and irradiated genetically enhanced food or the scents
we wear and cleaning products we use. Something in this process tends to
point to less is more. That's where the spiritual and meditative connection
with the manipulation of internal "serotonin" type levels is the
opportunity. But hey...who wants to live a whole life when you can take a
pill...or drink a coke or have a starbucks.

Peace
Michael H.

http://www.heroin.org/

[Virtualoso]

In article <bjvk7a$npv58$1@ID-190703.news.uni-berlin.de>, Michael H.
<mgh111@hotmail.com> wrote:

> `> In article <50H8b.71319$Kb2.3288515@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
> > <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Actually, in Denmark, researchers have come up with a scanner-like
> > > device that can actually measure serotonin levels ... and thus a patient with
> > > > > depression can be diagnosed.
> > > >
> > > > Please do reveal this. People have been looking forsomething like this
> > > > for decades. Where do I learn more?
> > >
> > > .........Problem is, the device is located at some hospital
> > > here, and I can't remember where..............
> >
> > Huh? There's only one of these devices and it's hard to even find out
> > about it? There's a multi-billion dollar industry here that's been
> > doing backflips for decades trying to come up with something like that.
> > I suppose it could go the way of the 100 mile per gallon carburator
> > that that guy in Texarcana once came up with, though.

> This a start?
>
>
> ....... a gadget you simply waved across a patient's
> body to provide an instant diagnosis. ...... a person's heartbeat or
> brainwaves .......

Not really, no. Apparently it has nothing to do with measuring
serotonin levels or medically diagnosing "depression" at all.
But then, nothing else seems to, either, so in that sense it may be as
relevent as all the other stuff presented as supposedly doing so.

[Virtualoso]

In article <3F63506D.163825CC@earthlink.net>, `F.H
<disconnectu@earthlink.net> wrote:

> blackout wrote:
> >
> > > > Hey! A fellow dane, almost! Good to meet you Rasmussen!
> > >
> > > Rasumssen is on my mothers side. Around here I'm Frank or Gramps (and a
> > > few other less complimentary monikers).
> >
> > Seems like I've had the same welcome commitee ;)
>
> A word of caution, you are dealing with legitimate marathoners.

Who ya' cautioning? Blackout responded to one of my intial postings,
then adding, inviting and encouraging quite more extensive pursuit.
Perhaps a marathoner, indeed. '-)

[Virtualoso]

In article <bjvlcg$nesfr$1@ID-190703.news.uni-berlin.de>, Michael H.
<mgh111@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > .... Problem is, the device is located at some hospital
> > > here, and I can't remember where.........
> >
> > Huh? There's only one of these devices and it's hard to even find out
> > about it? There's a multi-billion dollar industry here that's been
> > doing backflips for decades trying to come up with something like that.
> > I suppose it could go the way of the 100 mile per gallon carburator
> > that that guy in Texarcana once came up with, though.
>
> I think this is more "it".......
>
> Now this is fun!

".... Pharmacological and postmortem investigations
suggest that patients with major depressive disorder
have alterations in function or density of brain
serotonin1A (5-HT1A) receptors. .......
Methods: Positron emission tomographic scans with
[11C]WAY-100635 were performed on 25 patients with
major depressive disorder. These included 15 unmedicated
depressed patients. Ten of these unmedicated
patients were scanned again during selective serotonin
reuptake inhibitor treatment. A further 10 patients with
major depressive disorder were scanned on one occasion
only while taking selective serotonin reuptake
inhibitors. Comparisons were made with [11C]WAY-
100635 positron emission tomographic scans in 18
healthy volunteer subjects. Region of interest analysis
and statistical parametric mapping were performed on
binding potential images generated using a reference
tissue model.
Results: Binding potential values were reduced across
many of the regions examined, including frontal, temporal,
and limbic cortex in both unmedicated and medicated
depressed patients compared with healthy volunteers.
Binding potential values in medicated patients were
similar to those in unmedicated patients.
Conclusions: Major depressive disorder is associated with
a widespread reduction in 5-HT1A receptor binding.

Pretty thick stuff, eh? Use PET scans on dead brain tissues and then
compare some certain, specific serotinin structures with a few (25
total)living brains, both those that report being "depressed" and those
that don't, some taking some drugs and some not.

What does that accomplish or tell us, really? Well, as usual, we can
ponder what it might "suggest" or some angles that may be "associated"
somehow. However, we're left with the very same basic premise that
such stuff could be the brain effects of being depressed, rather than
any "cause" of it. And, even if the brain drugs include some effects in
these miniscule things (among whatever else they're doing, and perhaps
more so), it doesn't at all establish that they're "treated" any "brain
disorder" at all.

In fact, the conclusion arrives at:

"This reduced 5-HT1A receptor binding was not changed by selective
serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment.
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57:174-180"

In other words: the drugs didn't work for what they were meant to.

[Virtualoso]

In article <bjvnc3$nvdtr$1@ID-190703.news.uni-berlin.de>, Michael H.
<mgh111@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:130920031008314901%virtualoso@dot.com...
>
> >
> > People that favor drugs, often have their own particular favorites, yes.
>
> Wonder drugs of the day and some of my personal favorites:
>
> http://frogs_fotos.tripod.com/coke3.jpg
> http://frogs_fotos.tripod.com/coke4.jpg
> http://frogs_fotos.tripod.com/coke2.jpg
>
> Don't forget when Seconal and Dexedrine were given out like candy by docs.
> Kind of like a process of experimentation with the population. I really like
> the deal with aspartame currently going on. Deep shit. And then there's the
> antibiotics in meat and irradiated genetically enhanced food or the scents
> we wear and cleaning products we use. Something in this process tends to
> point to less is more. That's where the spiritual and meditative connection
> with the manipulation of internal "serotonin" type levels is the
> opportunity. But hey...who wants to live a whole life when you can take a
> pill...or drink a coke or have a starbucks.

Just so long as the cokes, starbucks, sugar, adrenalin producing
activites, etc. are kept in proper "chemical balance" in the brain.
Otherwise, we theoretically get stuck in just certain modes. I can only
wonder why it's so epidemicly "depression" instead of, say, bliss.

[Michael H.]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:130920031147482292%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <bjvlcg$nesfr$1@ID-190703.news.uni-berlin.de>, Michael H.
> <mgh111@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > .... Problem is, the device is located at some hospital
> > > > here, and I can't remember where.........
> > >
> > > Huh? There's only one of these devices and it's hard to even find out
> > > about it? There's a multi-billion dollar industry here that's been
> > > doing backflips for decades trying to come up with something like
that.
> > > I suppose it could go the way of the 100 mile per gallon carburator
> > > that that guy in Texarcana once came up with, though.
> >
> > I think this is more "it".......
> >
> > Now this is fun!
>
> ".... Pharmacological and postmortem investigations
> suggest that patients with major depressive disorder
> have alterations in function or density of brain
> serotonin1A (5-HT1A) receptors. .......
> Methods: Positron emission tomographic scans with
> [11C]WAY-100635 were performed on 25 patients with
> major depressive disorder. These included 15 unmedicated
> depressed patients. Ten of these unmedicated
> patients were scanned again during selective serotonin
> reuptake inhibitor treatment. A further 10 patients with
> major depressive disorder were scanned on one occasion
> only while taking selective serotonin reuptake
> inhibitors. Comparisons were made with [11C]WAY-
> 100635 positron emission tomographic scans in 18
> healthy volunteer subjects. Region of interest analysis
> and statistical parametric mapping were performed on
> binding potential images generated using a reference
> tissue model.
> Results: Binding potential values were reduced across
> many of the regions examined, including frontal, temporal,
> and limbic cortex in both unmedicated and medicated
> depressed patients compared with healthy volunteers.
> Binding potential values in medicated patients were
> similar to those in unmedicated patients.
> Conclusions: Major depressive disorder is associated with
> a widespread reduction in 5-HT1A receptor binding.
>
> Pretty thick stuff, eh? Use PET scans on dead brain tissues and then
> compare some certain, specific serotinin structures with a few (25
> total)living brains, both those that report being "depressed" and those
> that don't, some taking some drugs and some not.
>
> What does that accomplish or tell us, really? Well, as usual, we can
> ponder what it might "suggest" or some angles that may be "associated"
> somehow. However, we're left with the very same basic premise that
> such stuff could be the brain effects of being depressed, rather than
> any "cause" of it. And, even if the brain drugs include some effects in
> these miniscule things (among whatever else they're doing, and perhaps
> more so), it doesn't at all establish that they're "treated" any "brain
> disorder" at all.
>
> In fact, the conclusion arrives at:
>
> "This reduced 5-HT1A receptor binding was not changed by selective
> serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment.
> Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57:174-180"
>
> In other words: the drugs didn't work for what they were meant to.

Hey...I was just talkin about the scanner!

Peace
Michael H.

[Michael H.]

"Virtualoso" virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message

> People that favor drugs, often have their own particular favorites, yes.

This page is a link from Heroin.org and many of the links are circular.

http://www.antidepressants.com/

I like this running thorugh this knowledge base because it just seems more
inclusive. It enhances my viewing of scientific research with a sense of
additional perspectives.

Peace
Michael H.


By way of illustration, it's worth contemplating one far-fetched scenario.
How might an everlasting-happiness drug - a drug which (implausibly!) left
someone who tried it once living happily-ever-after - find itself described
in the literature?
"Substance x induces severe, irreversible structural damage to
neurotransmitter subsystem y. Its sequelae include mood-congruent cognitive
delusions, treatment-resistant euphoria, and toxic affective psychosis."
Eeek! Needless to say, no responsible adult would mess around with a potent
neurotoxin under this description.

[Virtualoso]

In article <bjvq3j$n0v98$1@ID-190703.news.uni-berlin.de>, Michael H.
<mgh111@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:130920031147482292%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > In article <bjvlcg$nesfr$1@ID-190703.news.uni-berlin.de>, Michael H.
> > <mgh111@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > .... Problem is, the device is located at some hospital
> > > > > here, and I can't remember where.........
> > > >
> > > > Huh? There's only one of these devices and it's hard to even find out
> > > > about it? There's a multi-billion dollar industry here that's been
> > > > doing backflips for decades trying to come up with something like
> that.
> > > > I suppose it could go the way of the 100 mile per gallon carburator
> > > > that that guy in Texarcana once came up with, though.
> > >
> > > I think this is more "it".......
> > >
> > > Now this is fun!
> >
> > ".... Pharmacological and postmortem investigations
> > suggest that patients with major depressive disorder
> > have alterations in function or density of brain
> > serotonin1A (5-HT1A) receptors. .......
> > Methods: Positron emission tomographic scans with
> > [11C]WAY-100635 were performed on 25 patients with
> > major depressive disorder. These included 15 unmedicated
> > depressed patients. Ten of these unmedicated
> > patients were scanned again during selective serotonin
> > reuptake inhibitor treatment. A further 10 patients with
> > major depressive disorder were scanned on one occasion
> > only while taking selective serotonin reuptake
> > inhibitors. Comparisons were made with [11C]WAY-
> > 100635 positron emission tomographic scans in 18
> > healthy volunteer subjects. Region of interest analysis
> > and statistical parametric mapping were performed on
> > binding potential images generated using a reference
> > tissue model.
> > Results: Binding potential values were reduced across
> > many of the regions examined, including frontal, temporal,
> > and limbic cortex in both unmedicated and medicated
> > depressed patients compared with healthy volunteers.
> > Binding potential values in medicated patients were
> > similar to those in unmedicated patients.
> > Conclusions: Major depressive disorder is associated with
> > a widespread reduction in 5-HT1A receptor binding.
> >
> > Pretty thick stuff, eh? Use PET scans on dead brain tissues and then
> > compare some certain, specific serotinin structures with a few (25
> > total)living brains, both those that report being "depressed" and those
> > that don't, some taking some drugs and some not.
> >
> > What does that accomplish or tell us, really? Well, as usual, we can
> > ponder what it might "suggest" or some angles that may be "associated"
> > somehow. However, we're left with the very same basic premise that
> > such stuff could be the brain effects of being depressed, rather than
> > any "cause" of it. And, even if the brain drugs include some effects in
> > these miniscule things (among whatever else they're doing, and perhaps
> > more so), it doesn't at all establish that they're "treated" any "brain
> > disorder" at all.
> >
> > In fact, the conclusion arrives at:
> >
> > "This reduced 5-HT1A receptor binding was not changed by selective
> > serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment.
> > Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57:174-180"
> >
> > In other words: the drugs didn't work for what they were meant to.
>
> Hey...I was just talkin about the scanner!

At least one brain-scan study (using positron emission tomography or
PET scans) found that simply asking normal people to imagine or recall
a situation that would make them feel very sad resulted in significant
changes in blood flow in the brain (Jose V. Pardo, M.D., Ph.D., et
al., "Neural Correlates of Self-Induced Dysphoria", American Journal
of Psychiatry, p. 713).

[`F.H]

Virtualoso wrote:
>
> In article <3F63506D.163825CC@earthlink.net>, `F.H
> <disconnectu@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > blackout wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Hey! A fellow dane, almost! Good to meet you Rasmussen!
> > > >
> > > > Rasumssen is on my mothers side. Around here I'm Frank or Gramps (and a
> > > > few other less complimentary monikers).
> > >
> > > Seems like I've had the same welcome commitee ;)
> >
> > A word of caution, you are dealing with legitimate marathoners.
>
> Who ya' cautioning? Blackout responded to one of my intial postings,
> then adding, inviting and encouraging quite more extensive pursuit.
> Perhaps a marathoner, indeed. '-)

LOL, you make marathoner sound like a bad thing. Think stamina,
dedication.

Frankie Carnegie

[Virtualoso]

In article <bjvr28$n2pgr$1@ID-190703.news.uni-berlin.de>, Michael H.
<mgh111@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Virtualoso" virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
>
> > People that favor drugs, often have their own particular favorites, yes.
>
> This page is a link from Heroin.org and many of the links are circular.
>
> http://www.antidepressants.com/
>
> I like this running thorugh this knowledge base because it just seems more
> inclusive. It enhances my viewing of scientific research with a sense of
> additional perspectives.

> By way of illustration, it's worth contemplating one far-fetched scenario.
> How might an everlasting-happiness drug - a drug which (implausibly!) left
> someone who tried it once living happily-ever-after - find itself described
> in the literature?
> "Substance x induces severe, irreversible structural damage to
> neurotransmitter subsystem y. Its sequelae include mood-congruent cognitive
> delusions, treatment-resistant euphoria, and toxic affective psychosis."
> Eeek! Needless to say, no responsible adult would mess around with a potent
> neurotoxin under this description.

Sounds kind of science-fictiony doesn't it? But then, so do so many of
the science fictions... er, "theories" about drugging the brain to Feel
Better, without any other undue nature to that.


"What you need is a gramme of Soma. ... Take a holiday from reality
whenever you like, and come back without so much as a headache or a
mythology ... Stability was practically assured ... 'One cubic
centimeter cures ten gloomy sentiments,' said the Assistant
Predestinator citing a piece of homely hypnopaedic wisdom. In only
remained to conquer old age ... And do remember that a gramme is better
than a damn. They went out laughing ..."
- Aldous Huxley

[Virtualoso]

In article <3F63740A.88FE4506@earthlink.net>, `F.H
<disconnectu@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > > > Seems like I've had the same welcome commitee ;)
> > >
> > > A word of caution, you are dealing with legitimate marathoners.
> >
> > Who ya' cautioning? Blackout responded to one of my intial postings,
> > then adding, inviting and encouraging quite more extensive pursuit.
> > Perhaps a marathoner, indeed. '-)
>
> LOL, you make marathoner sound like a bad thing.

I did? How did I manage to do that?

> Think stamina, dedication.

Seems to be a risk of continuing with a consistent topic to any extent.
Surely, any more than one day within the same thread/subject line must
be clinically "obsessed" though, and reduced to mere asserting,
claiming, spouting, spewing, etc. Sort of a Bi-Polarized Disordered
Discussion and Symptomological Presentation or whatnot. Might trigger
a depressive neurological episode of imbalanced synaptical soup, too.

Thank God (or whatever preferred abritrary, wholly subjective
cognitive-perceptual, purely individualisticly and personally
interpreted unique metaphoricly conceptualized existential abstraction)
folks like GaryE come to the aid with their timely, although
not-personal, Ad Hom compassionate treatment for that, though.

Proof is in the pudding. AND it's a delicious philosophical wax.

[`F.H]

Virtualoso wrote:
>
> `F.H disconnectu@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > LOL, you make marathoner sound like a bad thing.
>
> I did? How did I manage to do that?
>
> > Think stamina, dedication.
>
> Seems to be a risk of continuing with a consistent topic to any extent.
> Surely, any more than one day within the same thread/subject line must
> be clinically "obsessed" though, and reduced to mere asserting,
> claiming, spouting, spewing, etc. Sort of a Bi-Polarized Disordered
> Discussion and Symptomological Presentation or whatnot. Might trigger
> a depressive neurological episode of imbalanced synaptical soup, too.

Especially if one has been left alone for the day (as I have) with a
half gallon of Rocky Road and a couple of spoiled mutts. Talk about
neurological episodes. Did you know that ice cream makes dogs crazy
too?

> Proof is in the pudding. AND it's a delicious philosophical wax.

Stick with ice cream, the highs are higher and the hangovers are short.
A little night sweating and you're as good as new.

Gramps

[Virtualoso]

In article <3F638812.726C6BE7@earthlink.net>, `F.H
<disconnectu@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Virtualoso wrote:
> >
> > `F.H disconnectu@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > LOL, you make marathoner sound like a bad thing.
> >
> > I did? How did I manage to do that?
> >
> > > Think stamina, dedication.
> >
> > Seems to be a risk of continuing with a consistent topic to any extent.
> > Surely, any more than one day within the same thread/subject line must
> > be clinically "obsessed" though, and reduced to mere asserting,
> > claiming, spouting, spewing, etc. Sort of a Bi-Polarized Disordered
> > Discussion and Symptomological Presentation or whatnot. Might trigger
> > a depressive neurological episode of imbalanced synaptical soup, too.
>
> Especially if one has been left alone for the day (as I have) with a
> half gallon of Rocky Road and a couple of spoiled mutts. Talk about
> neurological episodes.

Talk about psychological abuse.

> Did you know that ice cream makes dogs crazy
> too?

Well, there's our Darwinian link.

> > Proof is in the pudding. AND it's a delicious philosophical wax.
>
> Stick with ice cream, the highs are higher and the hangovers are short.
> A little night sweating and you're as good as new.

You don't have to convince me. I've long been a Self Medicator with
pasteurized substances. Especially with the encounters of the 'ose
kind.

[blackout]

Just a thought; are you a native speaker of English? Your choice of words
sometimes feel like you pulled them right out of Webster¨s. How about
"detrimental" instead of "deleterious"? I would be happy if you could
simplify your language when posting to me; your posts would be read a lot
faster and without the misunderstandings. I am not a native speaker.
You have to have some sort of academic background; actually, your
language at times reminds me of the "Postmodern Essay Creator", if you know
it. ;)

> > > >
> > > > The "chemical imbalance" is just a simplified way of explaining what
> > > > actually happens. The current theory is that once serotonin is ....
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > I'm aware of various "theories." The core fact is that, among the
> > > several in vogue, none of them have been medically substantiated. And
> > > there are anomalies to all of them.

Explain anomalies. Anomalies = something not normal, right?

But did you read and understand the theory I offered? Of course the true
scientific physiological evidence is still missing (this is what you are
lookijg for, right), but it sure beats the "chemical balance"-theory. It's
the theory currently accepted here in DK, even though every psychiatrist
here is also aware of the "chicken and egg".problem.


> >
> > You're right...
>
> Well, I'm only personally right about this, in the sense that so many
> actual qualified experts in the field have been reporting this for all
> these years. It just doesn't get near the attention, popular media, or
> general public play that the unsubstantiated and even disproven
> erroneous notions do. Just look what happens when the facts of the
> matter are put in front of folks. '

Well, I would say that the exact same thing could be said about your own
personal beliefs about medical treatment. No scientific data, no
physiological evidence, no nothing. As far as I am concerned, it's status
quo.

>
> > ...but the problem is that the next step requires a big
> > technological step (like the device I mentioned).
>
> The only "problem" there is, is in concertedly, continuously attempting
> to "prove" something in particular that's somewhy cleaved to on a
> purely guesswork basis in the first place. Why the intense attachment
> to just that notion, then propelling all this "problem" with finding
> supportive evidence for it?

Because it is impossible that placebo-effects can account for all the
succcessful treatment done with SSRIs. As I said, my dad, the psychiatrist
(it sounds juvenile, I know) has worked in the field for over 30 years,
dishing out SSRIs and keeping in close contact with his patients. He
monitors them closely, and since he works with old people, I am sure most of
them don't truly understand what's given to them (hmm), which disproves your
theory of "now I have this miracle drug, now I'm gonna be fine"-theory.

>
> > I can only say that 20
> > years of experience rules out that it is simply a placebo effect.

> Apparently not. In fact, quite the opposite. The 20 years of not only
> experience, but actual scientific research and medical investigation
> has only been able to find placebo effect, with anything like
> certainty.

Yes, from a purely theoretical viewpoint. But there is something called the
Real World too,´where things are very different.

>
> > > For instance, even if we suppose that serotonin levels in a person's
> > > livinng brain can be measured, and lowered levels are found in some
> > > ratio of "depressed persons," it's still completely a conjecture that
> > > that is a "cause" and not an "effect" of "depression." It's all still
> > > basically at the "what if" and "let's suppose" phase, with no
> > > particular reason to expect anything further.
> >
> > You're talking chicken and the egg, right? You're right; I can't hit you
> > over the head with a big scientific study ...
>
> Of course not. There is not scientific substantiation for the pure
> guesswork or wholly unproven idea that any such thing "causes" some
> supposedly distinct "thing" as "depression," or that any of the drugs
> do anything in particular to "treat" that -- other than as a placebo or
> by possibly deleteriously or damagingly disrupting or disabling normal
> brain functions.

Again, status quo; you have just as little evidence as "we" do, only you
lack the experience of 20 years actually working with patients.


> > > > That the diseases are not cured is correct, but that is because
> > psychiatric> > > > diseases are in fact epileptic damage, which cannot
be repaired. ....
> > >
> > > That would be yet another one among a number of pure theories, right?
> >
> > Actually no, the researcher had done extensive studies on mice....which
is
> > where all this kind of science begins. He was extremely
pro-pathological,
> > and had lots of statistical data from people with mental disorders. He
had
> > done his homework.
>
> Given that a "diagnosis" of "depression" is entirelyk dependent on a
> person reporting that they simply "feel depressed," one can only wonder
> how it might be "diagnosed" that a mouse is "depressed." Or, since the
> only way to tell if a drug is "working" is also based on a person
> reporting that they "feel better," how a mouse might also be able to
> report that, either.

Very funny. There are other ways of measuring these things; behavioural
observation for instance.
>
> > > All the prior "antidepressants" eventually became "acknowledged" as
> > > having had known dangers, too. And all the current ones, when they are
> > > current ones, get hawked as though that's not the case.
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand you. ..........
> >
> > You could mention tricyclic ADs, or the even older ADs, MAOIs - these
ADs
> > were known to be directly dangerous from the beginning. And there really
> > haven't been others (except tetracyclics, but they were more or less
like
> > tricyclics, just less dangerous).
>
> Seems you understand well enough: ALL the previous "antidepressants"
> were eventually shown to clearly have deleterious and/or seriously
> dangerous properties and effects. Yet, when they were current, ALL of
> them were not "acknowledged" like that, especially when being pitched
> and sold. Just like the current batch.

Read my paragraph again, It was WELL KNOWN that maois and tricyclics were
potential dangerous drugs right from the start.
>
> > SSRIs are simply better versions of the older ADs; their method of
action is
> > more or less the same, except for the key word selective.
>
> Which doesn't medically mean anything much in particular, medically
> regarding the supposed "correction" of speculated but unsubstantiated
> "causes" of some "thing" referred to as "depression."

I say tomato, you say potatoe... ;) Unless you have some serious scientific
data, we still are 20 years of expeirience ahead.

>
> > > > > So you say. Show me the studies.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think any serious studies will be made about SSRIs ...
[snip]
> >
> > I hope you read that part, because I think you have a little
misunderstandig
> > going on.
>
> Show the studies that conclusively find that "depression" is a
> biophysical malfunction and that it's actually, manifestly "corrected"
> with any particular drug in some particular way. That ought to clear
> things right up.

I have a better idea; You show me the studies that show that SSRIs can cause
disease or reinforce symptoms (on a broad scale; no "increased anxiety"
shit, because I don't buy it. People are just scared of eaating pills. The
symptoms have to be existant prior to treatment.)
>
> > > Show me any studies that have conclusively shown that "depression" is
a
> > > biochemical "imbalance" in the brain,

I won't because I dont believe it. Again, I ask you to read my post about
the "current theory in vogue" for a more detailed description.

> > or that SSRI's do, indeed,
> > > "correct" that.
> >
> > They don't - it is much more complicated than that.If you affect one
chain
> > of neurons, you automatically affect others and create a chain reaction.
> > This is how SSRIs work, and as close to explaining it right now as we
can
> > get.
>

[Michael H.]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:130920031227184526%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <bjvq3j$n0v98$1@ID-190703.news.uni-berlin.de>, Michael H.
> <mgh111@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> > news:130920031147482292%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > > In article <bjvlcg$nesfr$1@ID-190703.news.uni-berlin.de>, Michael H.
> > > <mgh111@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > .... Problem is, the device is located at some hospital
> > > > > > here, and I can't remember where.........
> > > > >
> > > > > Huh? There's only one of these devices and it's hard to even find
out
> > > > > about it? There's a multi-billion dollar industry here that's been
> > > > > doing backflips for decades trying to come up with something like
> > that.
> > > > > I suppose it could go the way of the 100 mile per gallon
carburator
> > > > > that that guy in Texarcana once came up with, though.
> > > >
> > > > I think this is more "it".......
> > > >
> > > > Now this is fun!
> > >
> > > ".... Pharmacological and postmortem investigations
> > > suggest that patients with major depressive disorder
> > > have alterations in function or density of brain
> > > serotonin1A (5-HT1A) receptors. .......
> > > Methods: Positron emission tomographic scans with
> > > [11C]WAY-100635 were performed on 25 patients with
> > > major depressive disorder. These included 15 unmedicated
> > > depressed patients. Ten of these unmedicated
> > > patients were scanned again during selective serotonin
> > > reuptake inhibitor treatment. A further 10 patients with
> > > major depressive disorder were scanned on one occasion
> > > only while taking selective serotonin reuptake
> > > inhibitors. Comparisons were made with [11C]WAY-
> > > 100635 positron emission tomographic scans in 18
> > > healthy volunteer subjects. Region of interest analysis
> > > and statistical parametric mapping were performed on
> > > binding potential images generated using a reference
> > > tissue model.
> > > Results: Binding potential values were reduced across
> > > many of the regions examined, including frontal, temporal,
> > > and limbic cortex in both unmedicated and medicated
> > > depressed patients compared with healthy volunteers.
> > > Binding potential values in medicated patients were
> > > similar to those in unmedicated patients.
> > > Conclusions: Major depressive disorder is associated with
> > > a widespread reduction in 5-HT1A receptor binding.
> > >
> > > Pretty thick stuff, eh? Use PET scans on dead brain tissues and then
> > > compare some certain, specific serotinin structures with a few (25
> > > total)living brains, both those that report being "depressed" and
those
> > > that don't, some taking some drugs and some not.
> > >
> > > What does that accomplish or tell us, really? Well, as usual, we can
> > > ponder what it might "suggest" or some angles that may be "associated"
> > > somehow. However, we're left with the very same basic premise that
> > > such stuff could be the brain effects of being depressed, rather than
> > > any "cause" of it. And, even if the brain drugs include some effects
in
> > > these miniscule things (among whatever else they're doing, and perhaps
> > > more so), it doesn't at all establish that they're "treated" any
"brain
> > > disorder" at all.
> > >
> > > In fact, the conclusion arrives at:
> > >
> > > "This reduced 5-HT1A receptor binding was not changed by selective
> > > serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment.
> > > Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57:174-180"
> > >
> > > In other words: the drugs didn't work for what they were meant to.
> >
> > Hey...I was just talkin about the scanner!
>
> At least one brain-scan study (using positron emission tomography or
> PET scans) found that simply asking normal people to imagine or recall
> a situation that would make them feel very sad resulted in significant
> changes in blood flow in the brain (Jose V. Pardo, M.D., Ph.D., et
> al., "Neural Correlates of Self-Induced Dysphoria", American Journal
> of Psychiatry, p. 713).

I can dig it!

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K27D434E5

Peace
Michael H.

[Michael H.]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:130920031251221115%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <bjvr28$n2pgr$1@ID-190703.news.uni-berlin.de>, Michael H.
> <mgh111@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Virtualoso" virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > People that favor drugs, often have their own particular favorites,
yes.
> >
> > This page is a link from Heroin.org and many of the links are circular.
> >
> > http://www.antidepressants.com/
> >
> > I like this running thorugh this knowledge base because it just seems
more
> > inclusive. It enhances my viewing of scientific research with a sense of
> > additional perspectives.
>
> > By way of illustration, it's worth contemplating one far-fetched
scenario.
> > How might an everlasting-happiness drug - a drug which (implausibly!)
left
> > someone who tried it once living happily-ever-after - find itself
described
> > in the literature?
> > "Substance x induces severe, irreversible structural damage to
> > neurotransmitter subsystem y. Its sequelae include mood-congruent
cognitive
> > delusions, treatment-resistant euphoria, and toxic affective psychosis."
> > Eeek! Needless to say, no responsible adult would mess around with a
potent
> > neurotoxin under this description.
>
> Sounds kind of science-fictiony doesn't it? But then, so do so many of
> the science fictions... er, "theories" about drugging the brain to Feel
> Better, without any other undue nature to that.
>
>
> "What you need is a gramme of Soma. ... Take a holiday from reality
> whenever you like, and come back without so much as a headache or a
> mythology ... Stability was practically assured ... 'One cubic
> centimeter cures ten gloomy sentiments,' said the Assistant
> Predestinator citing a piece of homely hypnopaedic wisdom. In only
> remained to conquer old age ... And do remember that a gramme is better
> than a damn. They went out laughing ..."
> - Aldous Huxley

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.....
{Exit stage left}

Peace
Michael H.

[blackout]

> > > Apparently, quite some number of people would rather take drugs that
> > > have them feeling ways they prefer, even if there are some distinct
> > > deleterious effects of that. Some of the drugs are legal, some are
not.

Yup. Why? They feel a need to medicate themselves somehow. Do you by the way
believe that fx. cocaine is purely placebo too? I don't see the difference
between studies of cocaine and SSRIs.

> >
> > There are no " deleterious" (I had to find my dictionary for that one,
for
> > god¨s sake!) effects from SSRIs.
>
> Sure there are.

refereence?

And it's the major reason that about half the people
> subjected to them are known to attempt to quit them, at some point.

No. Things like gaining weight are much more important to people (in the
female part of the population, anway. This is known through interviews with
people stopping SSRI treatment.)

> Unfortunately, they are all too often misled into resuming some version
> of the drugging, on highly dubious basis. Unless, of course, you can
> provide the authoritative medical substantiation that's clearly
> established what you assure otherwise.

We have the same rules here; you show yours, I'll show you mine. ;)

> > Yes, I would choose the true and tried
> > method of SSRIs at any time if the alterntative was coginitive therepy
> > (which doesn't really work) or .... what? It's all we have!
>
> Heck, we just had another correspondant in a recent similar thread
> assuring us that "cognitive behavioral therapy" (whatever that might
> be) was somehow proven to be the most effective thing. Sure no shortage
> of pure advocacies is there?

Don't believe that for a second. Cognitive therapy can cure simple,
behavioural issues, but it can't go further.

>
> I just love the idea that these drugs are somehow "all we have." Why,
> merely because someone brewed them up and hawks and sells them?

No, because we simply DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT TRULY WORKS. It's as
simple as that.

Gee,
> that then amounts to "all we have"? Even despite the raw facts that
> sugar pills work as well, or better?

They don´t, except in artificial situations like doubleblind studies.. For
example, ¨go to any home for old people or institutes for depressed people,
havens for ssris, and replace them with sugar pills over time without them
knowing. I promise you, you will see that suicidal tendicies, depression,
anxiety etc will have taken over. In no time.

Or that regular exercise and
> reasonable diet work, too? Or that St. John's Wort performed as well or
> better than the drugs, in clinical trials?

That's a laugh. True, they have some influence, but they will never be able
to do anything about the serious conditions. Look at the indications on st.
johns wart bottles; only supposed to be used for light depresision.

Or that the entire notion
> that "depression" is a "brain disorder" is flat mistaken and so the
> experience is better addressed in an entirely different way?

Where would you locate it, then=

> After all, many "substances" are reverted to and relied on by very many
> people to simply feel better or "relieve suffering."

If you're talking illegal drugs (or euphoric drugs), chances are that they
are way too neurotoxic (which I don't hope you question. And SSRIs have
never been scientifically identified as neurotoxic).

>
> > > > But it should be easy to differentiate between the original
diagnosis
> > and
> > > > side effects. The side effects first starts after (in some cases,
weeks)
> > > > treatment has begun.
> > >
> > > Why "should it be easy"? Isn't "the diagnosis" mainly or exclusively
> > > based simply on people reporting that they feel "depressed"

No. Behavioural examination is an important factor. Again, there is a formal
list of criteria for defining depression.

> >
> > No. Shows how much you know about this. Serotonergic-related disorders
are a
> > very heterogenic group.
>
> Only if one merely "believes" that might be the case, yet lacking any
> actual conclusive scientific, medical substantiation. Even as you've
> progressively agreed, there isn't any. That leaves pure Belief in a
> particular idea, with no other compelling basis for it, other than
> inclination to Believe it.

You mean, exactly the same thing you do? Without the expeirence?
>
> > Of course, since most
> > > depressions naturally quell after about the same time span, it's not
> > > necessarily surprising at all that a lot of people would feel better
by
> > > then.
> >
> > Ok, that is the stupidest thing you've said so far- have you never heard
of
> > long-term depression - it can last forever if untreated. Very few real
> > depressions lasts a lot longer than 3 weeks. I mentioned this in a post
too.
>
> I suppose if the very definition of the term "real depressions" is
> reserved exclusively for some range of "depression" lasting a lot
> longer than 3 weeks, then it's only true by dint of pure jargon
> definition.
>
> However, most "depressions" (including those routinely classified as
> "disorders," "mental illness," and "clinical") are known to naturally
> quell after about 6-8 weeks.

That's a bold assumption. NOR is it true in any way. Depressions have no
natural ending; they can continue until you die, or stop a few weeks later.

Very often, it's only after someone's
> been feeling this way for at least a little while that they seek the
> "professional help" and then there's that inexplicable coupla' weeks
> before the drugs "work" -- all which roughly describes about the same
> span of time, overall. Except now they're buying and using costly drugs
> which they are instructed to keep using these supposedly "harmless" and
> "targetted" drugs for months or years, which also require special
> medical help in ever getting off of, with frequent suffering and known
> medical and psychological risks incurred, when and if attempted.

That's simply too cheap an argument, and it has no basis in reality.

[Virtualoso]

In article <_7N8b.71427$Kb2.3309603@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > I'm aware of various "theories." The core fact is that, among the
> > > > several in vogue, none of them have been medically substantiated. And
> > > > there are anomalies to all of them.
>
> Explain anomalies. Anomalies = something not normal, right?

Anomalies are evidences that do are not consistent with theories
otherwise. In other words, they are at least manifest challenges to
theories or outright "disproofs."

> But did you read and understand the theory I offered? Of course the true
> scientific physiological evidence is still missing (this is what you are
> lookijg for, right), but it sure beats the "chemical balance"-theory. It's
> the theory currently accepted here in DK, even though every psychiatrist
> here is also aware of the "chicken and egg".problem.

I grasp any number of the theories. And I appreciate that none of them
have yet been near conclusively established with clearly substantiating
scientific physiological/medical evidence.

While of course they are very elaborate, highly technical and naturally
"based" on all kinds of various bits and pieces of real
biophysiological elements, as a theoretical construct they simply are
no more than educated guesses, at best. However, the more "popularized"
versions are pitched as quite more than that -- even so-called
scientifiically proven Truth. No way.

> > > You're right...
> >
> > Well, I'm only personally right about this, in the sense that so many
> > actual qualified experts in the field have been reporting this for all
> > these years. It just doesn't get near the attention, popular media, or
> > general public play that the unsubstantiated and even disproven
> > erroneous notions do. Just look what happens when the facts of the
> > matter are put in front of folks. '
>
> Well, I would say that the exact same thing could be said about your own
> personal beliefs about medical treatment. No scientific data, no
> physiological evidence, no nothing. As far as I am concerned, it's status
> quo.

My personal beliefs are what you've agreed with, yourself: there's no
conclusive scientific proof for any of the various theories about this
stuff. It remains essentially unknown whether or not any of them are
valid. That includes so-called "depression" as any distinct brain
dysfunction and the drugs as being any "medication" for such a thing.

> > > ...but the problem is that the next step requires a big
> > > technological step (like the device I mentioned).
> >
> > The only "problem" there is, is in concertedly, continuously attempting
> > to "prove" something in particular that's somewhy cleaved to on a
> > purely guesswork basis in the first place. Why the intense attachment
> > to just that notion, then propelling all this "problem" with finding
> > supportive evidence for it?
>
> Because it is impossible that placebo-effects can account for all the
> succcessful treatment done with SSRIs. As I said, my dad, the psychiatrist
> (it sounds juvenile, I know) has worked in the field for over 30 years,
> dishing out SSRIs and keeping in close contact with his patients. He
> monitors them closely, and since he works with old people, I am sure most of
> them don't truly understand what's given to them (hmm), which disproves your
> theory of "now I have this miracle drug, now I'm gonna be fine"-theory.

No, it doesn't disprove a thing. There are other psychiatrists with at
least as much experience that assure that the drugs do not "cure" or
even biophysically "treat" anything at all. Rather, there is the
placebo effect along with chemical disruption and disabling of normal
brain functions, which can be mistakenly construed or presumed as that
-- the drugs are touted as "highly selective," but given that there's
no substantiation for either the supposed "disorder" as any medical
"cause," nor any for their supposed "correction" of anything, it's more
like a "highly selective stupor" of just certain normal brain
functions. And rather distinct "side effects" -- "detrimental" ones, as
you prefer to put it.

> > > I can only say that 20
> > > years of experience rules out that it is simply a placebo effect.
>
> > Apparently not. In fact, quite the opposite. The 20 years of not only
> > experience, but actual scientific research and medical investigation
> > has only been able to find placebo effect, with anything like
> > certainty.
>
> Yes, from a purely theoretical viewpoint. But there is something called the
> Real World too,´where things are very different.

If only you had any actual, medical reality proof of any particular
difference, which by now you've plainly agreed you're lacking. It's
okay. There's plenty of reality that remains unknown otherwise, too.

> > > > For instance, even if we suppose that serotonin levels in a person's
> > > > livinng brain can be measured, and lowered levels are found in some
> > > > ratio of "depressed persons," it's still completely a conjecture that
> > > > that is a "cause" and not an "effect" of "depression." It's all still
> > > > basically at the "what if" and "let's suppose" phase, with no
> > > > particular reason to expect anything further.
> > >
> > > You're talking chicken and the egg, right? You're right; I can't hit you
> > > over the head with a big scientific study ...
> >
> > Of course not. There is not scientific substantiation for the pure
> > guesswork or wholly unproven idea that any such thing "causes" some
> > supposedly distinct "thing" as "depression," or that any of the drugs
> > do anything in particular to "treat" that -- other than as a placebo or
> > by possibly deleteriously or damagingly disrupting or disabling normal
> > brain functions.
>
> Again, status quo; you have just as little evidence as "we" do, only you
> lack the experience of 20 years actually working with patients.

In other words, I have as much evidence as you do. And any number of
experts in the field have quite more than 20 years experience actually
working with patients, assuring us that the basic lack of evidence of
the pro-drug advocates along with all that direct experience shows the
error of those pro-drug beliefs.

> > Given that a "diagnosis" of "depression" is entirelyk dependent on a
> > person reporting that they simply "feel depressed," one can only wonder
> > how it might be "diagnosed" that a mouse is "depressed." Or, since the
> > only way to tell if a drug is "working" is also based on a person
> > reporting that they "feel better," how a mouse might also be able to
> > report that, either.
>
> Very funny. There are other ways of measuring these things; behavioural
> observation for instance.

So much for the scientific significance of mouse depression, eh?
"Behavioral observation" sounds pretty scientific too, doesn't it? But
actually means just what? Construing and presuming that what's watched
"means" something in particular, that's guessed.

> > > I'm not sure I understand you. ..........

> > Seems you understand well enough: ALL the previous "antidepressants"
> > were eventually shown to clearly have deleterious and/or seriously
> > dangerous properties and effects. Yet, when they were current, ALL of
> > them were not "acknowledged" like that, especially when being pitched
> > and sold. Just like the current batch.
>
> Read my paragraph again, It was WELL KNOWN that maois and tricyclics were
> potential dangerous drugs right from the start.

Perhaps. I was addressing whether or not that was "acknowledged" in any
particular way, especially to the people being drugged with them. And
then there's simply the track record of essentially ALL biopsychiatric
treatments having a history and pedigree of doing serious damage and
harm, including the "antidepressant" lineage.

> > > SSRIs are simply better versions of the older ADs; their method of
> action is
> > > more or less the same, except for the key word selective.
> >
> > Which doesn't medically mean anything much in particular, medically
> > regarding the supposed "correction" of speculated but unsubstantiated
> > "causes" of some "thing" referred to as "depression."
>
> I say tomato, you say potatoe... ;) Unless you have some serious scientific
> data, we still are 20 years of expeirience ahead.

No, you're 20+ years into failed attempts to scientifically validate
the unsubstantiated guesswork, despite a great deal of effort to do so.
And sugar pills and the like continue to do as well. Meanwhile, the
scientific research that's been challenging the feigns and feints of
the pro-drug advocacy has made strides in pulling back the curtain of
pretense about all that.

> > Show the studies that conclusively find that "depression" is a
> > biophysical malfunction and that it's actually, manifestly "corrected"
> > with any particular drug in some particular way. That ought to clear
> > things right up.
>
> I have a better idea; You show me ........

Uh huh. Well, without ANY clear scientific/medical basis for taking
drugs that are not only well-known for their detrimental effects, but
are dangerous enough to require prescription, then there's no
established reason to declare one's self "mentally ill" and be drugged
with them. Especially on a complicated pretense that there's some
actual, biophysical brain malfunction that can't be demonstrated that
these chemicals can't be shown to "treat" in ways that can't be proven.

> > > > Show me any studies that have conclusively shown that "depression" is
> > > > a biochemical "imbalance" in the brain,
>
> I won't because I dont believe it. Again, I ask you to read my post about
> the "current theory in vogue" for a more detailed description.

Theories abound. Long have. Just which may be "in vogue" with just whom
is moot. But the changing vogue, itself, casts the light of error back
on all the prior ones that were assured every bit as much at the time.

> > > or that SSRI's do, indeed, "correct" that.
> > >
> > > They don't - it is much more complicated than that.If you affect one
> > > chain of neurons, you automatically affect others and create a chain reaction.
> > > This is how SSRIs work, and as close to explaining it right now as we can
> > > get.

In other words: it's just too complex to explain properly. Just take
our word for it and take your drugs.

[Virtualoso]

In article <HBN8b.71431$Kb2.3310673@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Apparently, quite some number of people would rather take drugs that
> > > > have them feeling ways they prefer, even if there are some distinct
> > > > deleterious effects of that. Some of the drugs are legal, some are
> not.
>
> Yup. Why? They feel a need to medicate themselves somehow.

They apparently feel like drugging themselves. The word "medicate" is
unnecessary and inappropriate.

> Do you by the way
> believe that fx. cocaine is purely placebo too? I don't see the difference
> between studies of cocaine and SSRIs.

Except you'd just posted that there was no sensible basis for comparing
SSRIs to "recreational drugs" didn't you?

But SSRIs most definitely have real chemical effects, euphemisticly
referred to as "side effects," rather than the probable main or only
effects that they are in fact.

"If people do feel better when drinking alcohol or smoking marijuana,
it is because they feel better when their brain is impaired.
Psychiatric drugs are no different. The people who take such drugs may
feel less of their emotional suffering. They may even reach a state of
relative anesthesia. But to the degree that they feel better, it is
because they are experiencing intoxication with the drugs."
- Dr. Breggin

> And it's the major reason that about half the people
> > subjected to them are known to attempt to quit them, at some point.
>
> No. Things like gaining weight are much more important to people (in the
> female part of the population, anway. This is known through interviews with
> people stopping SSRI treatment.)

No, it's distinct discomfort, anxiety, "weird" physical sensations,
impotence, etc.

> > Unfortunately, they are all too often misled into resuming some version
> > of the drugging, on highly dubious basis. Unless, of course, you can
> > provide the authoritative medical substantiation that's clearly
> > established what you assure otherwise.
>
> We have the same rules here; you show yours, I'll show you mine. ;)

A panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology
Assessment reported that "Prominent hypotheses concerning depression
have focused on altered function of the group of neurotransmitters
called monoamines (i.e., norepinephrine, epinephrine, serotonin,
dopamine), particularly norepinephrine (NE) and serotonin.*...
studies of the NE [norepinephrine] autoreceptor in depression have
found no specific evidence of an abnormality to date.* Currently, no
clear evidence links abnormal serotonin receptor activity in the brain
to depression.*... the data currently available do not provide
consistent evidence either for altered neurotransmitter levels or for
disruption of normal receptor activity" (The Biology of Mental
Disorders, U.S. Gov't Printing Office, pp. 82 & 84).

There's "no specific evidence" of such a "problem" nor any true
substantiation that SSRI's, which are expressly designed to "treat"
this nonexistent problem, can do so. However, it's also better known
and proven that SSRI's induce various "detrimental" (as you prefer to
put it) so-called "side effects". Thus, the "dosage adjusting" and
"trying" of yet other unproven/disproven drugs when they're suffered,
is a groundless circle of drug inducing effects that "cause" further
drugging attempting to "treat" the drug induced effects.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > Yes, I would choose the true and tried
> > > method of SSRIs at any time if the alterntative was coginitive therepy
> > > (which doesn't really work) or .... what? It's all we have![/color]
> >
> > Heck, we just had another correspondant in a recent similar thread
> > assuring us that "cognitive behavioral therapy" (whatever that might
> > be) was somehow proven to be the most effective thing. Sure no shortage
> > of pure advocacies is there?[/color]
>
> Don't believe that for a second. Cognitive therapy can cure simple,
> behavioural issues, but it can't go further.[/color]

Well, when it comes to a matter of pure Beliefs... just who do we
believe, then, and just why?
[color=blue][color=green]
> > I just love the idea that these drugs are somehow "all we have." Why,
> > merely because someone brewed them up and hawks and sells them?[/color]
>
> No, because we simply DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT TRULY WORKS. It's as
> simple as that.[/color]

Sure "we" do. I was at a bookstore just last night and the shelves have
quite a number of new books by doctors, psychiatrists, etc. explaining
quite an array of proven, non-drug options that work. And the drugs
don't "truly work" -- at least in any particular way anyone can be
objectively sure of aside from perhaps a boosted placebo effect or
disabling of normal brain functions, that is.
[color=blue]
> Gee,[color=green]
> > that then amounts to "all we have"? Even despite the raw facts that
> > sugar pills work as well, or better?[/color]
>
> They don´t, except in artificial situations like doubleblind studies.. For
> example, ¨go to any home for old people or institutes for depressed people,
> havens for ssris, and replace them with sugar pills over time without them
> knowing. I promise you, you will see that suicidal tendicies, depression,
> anxiety etc will have taken over. In no time.[/color]

You're simply guessing, which is an empty promise. But I can easily
accept that giving people chemicals and drugs that disrupt and disable
normal, natural brain functions could dull their emotional sensations
and moods, even when in depressing situations.
[color=blue]
> Or that regular exercise and[color=green]
> > reasonable diet work, too? Or that St. John's Wort performed as well or
> > better than the drugs, in clinical trials?[/color]
>
> That's a laugh. True, they have some influence, but they will never be able
> to do anything about the serious conditions. Look at the indications on st.
> johns wart bottles; only supposed to be used for light depresision.[/color]

That's according to labeling laws, isn't it? Some St. John's Wort
packages don't say anything specifically about "depression" at all. So?
The scientific tests conducted by the drug manufacturers themselves
produced the proof that it works as well as their drugs for "clinical
depression" as severe as they tested their own drugs on.

You really just don't like these facts, do you?
[color=blue]
> Or that the entire notion[color=green]
> > that "depression" is a "brain disorder" is flat mistaken and so the
> > experience is better addressed in an entirely different way?[/color]
>
> Where would you locate it, then=[/color]

"It"? "Locate"? What are you assuming?
[color=blue][color=green]
> > After all, many "substances" are reverted to and relied on by very many
> > people to simply feel better or "relieve suffering."[/color]
>
> If you're talking illegal drugs (or euphoric drugs), chances are that they
> are way too neurotoxic (which I don't hope you question. And SSRIs have
> never been scientifically identified as neurotoxic).[/color]

Have they been scientifically identified as nonneurotoxic? However,
since SSRI's themselves are restricted to prescription, it's illegal
for them to be sold/distributed otherwise. They, too, are illegal drugs
used for the purpose of altering moods/sensations.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > > But it should be easy to differentiate between the original
> > > > > diagnosis and side effects. .......
> > > >
> > > > Why "should it be easy"? Isn't "the diagnosis" mainly or exclusively
> > > > based simply on people reporting that they feel "depressed"[/color][/color]
>
> No. Behavioural examination is an important factor. Again, there is a formal
> list of criteria for defining depression.[/color]

For "construing" or presuming some "thing" as that. Which remains
otherwise entirely unproven, medically or biophsyiologically.

"Psychiatric diagnosis is descriptive. We don't really understand
psychiatric disorders at a biological level."
- Dr. T. Laughren, head of the group of scientists at the FDA which
allows SSRI's to be publicly commercially marketed.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Only if one merely "believes" that might be the case, yet lacking any
> > actual conclusive scientific, medical substantiation. Even as you've
> > progressively agreed, there isn't any. That leaves pure Belief in a
> > particular idea, with no other compelling basis for it, other than
> > inclination to Believe it.[/color]
>
> You mean, exactly the same thing you do? Without the expeirence?[/color]

I rely on the extensive experience and research of a number of well
known experts in the field. For instance:

"We like to think that we give people treatments and they get better.
We have this fallacy of success, but we don't know in any individual
why they get better."
- Dr. A. Leuchter, professor of psychiatry, Univ. of CA
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > Of course, since most
> > > > depressions naturally quell after about the same time span, it's not
> > > > necessarily surprising at all that a lot of people would feel better[/color][/color]
> by[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > then.
> > >
> > > Ok, that is the stupidest thing you've said so far- have you never heard[/color][/color]
> of[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > long-term depression - it can last forever if untreated. Very few real
> > > depressions lasts a lot longer than 3 weeks. I mentioned this in a post[/color][/color]
> too.[color=green]
> >
> > I suppose if the very definition of the term "real depressions" is
> > reserved exclusively for some range of "depression" lasting a lot
> > longer than 3 weeks, then it's only true by dint of pure jargon
> > definition.
> >
> > However, most "depressions" (including those routinely classified as
> > "disorders," "mental illness," and "clinical") are known to naturally
> > quell after about 6-8 weeks.[/color]
>
> That's a bold assumption. NOR is it true in any way. Depressions have no
> natural ending; they can continue until you die, or stop a few weeks later.[/color]

Except for the actual research that revealed that that, indeed, most
folks seeking "treatment" for "depression" felt as much better than
those receiving "treatment" in the same span of time.

I realize you're having a lot of trouble with your pure beliefs
otherwise.
[color=blue]
> Very often, it's only after someone's[color=green]
> > been feeling this way for at least a little while that they seek the
> > "professional help" and then there's that inexplicable coupla' weeks
> > before the drugs "work" -- all which roughly describes about the same
> > span of time, overall. Except now they're buying and using costly drugs
> > which they are instructed to keep using these supposedly "harmless" and
> > "targetted" drugs for months or years, which also require special
> > medical help in ever getting off of, with frequent suffering and known
> > medical and psychological risks incurred, when and if attempted.[/color]
>
> That's simply too cheap an argument, and it has no basis in reality.[/color]

Seems you've reduced yourself to less than even cheap argument, all the
way down to groundless, cheap dismissal.

But not too unusual for pro-drug folks, especially after they've
outright admitted that there's just no real scientific substantiation
for their non-scientific beliefs about the stuff.

[Virtualoso]

In article <HBN8b.71431$Kb2.3310673@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Apparently, quite some number of people would rather take drugs that
> > > > have them feeling ways they prefer, even if there are some distinct
> > > > deleterious effects of that. Some of the drugs are legal, some are
> not.
>
> Yup. Why? They feel a need to medicate themselves somehow. Do you by the way
> believe that fx. cocaine is purely placebo too? I don't see the difference
> between studies of cocaine and SSRIs.
>
> > >
> > > There are no " deleterious" (I had to find my dictionary for that one,
> > > for god¨s sake!) effects from SSRIs.
> >
> > Sure there are.
>
> refereence?

Well, how about from the packaging of one of the leading manufacturers'
(SmithKline Beecham) own SSRI product?

"WARNING

A small number of people taking fluoxetine have experienced intense,
violent, suicidal thoughts, agitation, and impulsivity. ... Patients
are advised to consider telling relatives and friends about their use
of this drug and the risk of suicidal obsession and self-injurious
behavior."

"Fluoxetine (floo ox uh teen), paroxetine (pa rox uh teen), sertraline
(ser tral leen), and fluvoxamine (floo vox uh meen) all belong to the
family of antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake
inhibitors (SSRIs). "

'Common Adverse Reactions of Antidepressant Drugs

....SSRI adverse effects commonly involve the gastrointestinal tract,
especially causing nausea and diarrhea and sexual dysfunction is more
common with these drugs."

"When the number of people who stopped taking an antidepressant in 58
clinical trials were studied there was no clinically important
difference between the SSRIs and the older tricyclic and related
antidepressants. "

"...but there is no evidence that the death rate from suicides with
antidepressants has decreased with the widespread use of fluoxetine
and the other SSRI antidepressants.

....However, there have been a few reports that fluoxetine may actually
induce suicidal thoughts in selected patients... Public Citizens Health
Research Group petitioned the Food and Drug Administration in 1991 to
require a box warning in the professional product labeling for
fluoxetine warning doctors that a small minority of persons taking the
drug have experienced intense, violent, suicidal thoughts, agitation,
and impulsivity after starting treatment with the drug. You should not
take this drug for mild depression or anxiety, or as a sleeping pill.

.... When the results of many clinical trials were pooled, called a
meta-analysis, no clear benefit was found for the new drugs over the
older antidepressants. The adverse effects of the new and old
antidepressants have little in common except for withdrawal symptoms.
.... On the other hand, SSRIs adverse effects commonly affect the
gastrointestinal tract, especially causing nausea and diarrhea, and
may also cause insomnia, agitation, extrapyramidal symptoms
(drug-induced parkinsonism), and withdrawal effects.

One group of adverse effects is traded for another between the SSRIs
and tricyclic antidepressants and there does not appear to be any
difference in the proportion of people who can tolerate these two
groups of antidepressants. When the number of people who stopped
taking an antidepressant in 58 clinical trials were studied there was
no clinically important difference between the SSRIs and the tricyclic
and related antidepressants.

When you take these medicines you may experience some adverse effects.
The most frequently reported include nausea, anxiety, headache, and
insomnia. ... Akathisia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing,
and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may also occur. Dry
mouth, sweating, diarrhea, tremor, loss of appetite, and dizziness are
also common adverse effects.

The length of time it takes an antidepressant to work can overlap with
the time of spontaneous recovery..."

[blackout]

> > > > > Apparently, quite some number of people would rather take drugs
that
> > > > > have them feeling ways they prefer, even if there are some
distinct
> > > > > deleterious effects of that. Some of the drugs are legal, some are
> > not.
> >
> > Yup. Why? They feel a need to medicate themselves somehow.
>
> They apparently feel like drugging themselves. The word "medicate" is
> unnecessary and inappropriate.

Self-medicating (due to depression or similar conditioins) with recreational
drugs is quite common and well documented, just look at DK's stats of
alcoholics; 300.000 out of 5 million. (insane, btw). Do you dismiss the
"good feelings" or euphoria experienced when taking drugs like cocaine,
amphetamine, GHB, Extacy, etc? There is no physiological, scientific study
that show that these drugs "work" either.

> > Do you by the way
> > believe that fx. cocaine is purely placebo too? I don't see the
difference
> > between studies of cocaine and SSRIs.
>
> Except you'd just posted that there was no sensible basis for comparing
> SSRIs to "recreational drugs" didn't you?

I never said that. I said there is no difference between the studies of
cocaine and SSRIs. But we do agree that cocaine works, right? Maybe it's
through "disruption of the brain's functions" or whatever you said, or maybe
the euphoria is a side effect too?

> But SSRIs most definitely have real chemical effects, euphemisticly
> referred to as "side effects," rather than the probable main or only
> effects that they are in fact.

You say that SSRIs' method of supressing symptoms is through "side effects",
right? And the patient is then somehow mysteriously straightened out. I
still don't understand how you can explain that - there is no study to
confirm it. Back to the beliefs again - that we both have.

>
> "If people do feel better when drinking alcohol or smoking marijuana,
> it is because they feel better when their brain is impaired.
> Psychiatric drugs are no different.

Yes. They are not neurotoxic.

>
> > And it's the major reason that about half the people
> > > subjected to them are known to attempt to quit them, at some point.
> >
> > No. Things like gaining weight are much more important to people (in the
> > female part of the population, anway. This is known through interviews
with
> > people stopping SSRI treatment.)
>
> No, it's distinct discomfort, anxiety, "weird" physical sensations,
> impotence, etc.

I will admit that the SSRI that I know the most about is Celexa (I assume
you know it?), and its side effects are NOT as common compared to the older,
more "dirty" SSRIs.. It is the newest and most selective drug (VERY
selective), and side effects are much less pronounced. I admit to consulting
my father about most of what I write, and his patients rarely complain about
these side effects. Actually, they hardly feel anything but relief. (and,
alas, weight gain, which seems to be inavoidable with any AD).
And, actually, they fared a lot better in the double blind studies than any
other SSRI (but read the paragraphs below about SJW....)

>
> > > Unfortunately, they are all too often misled into resuming some
version
> > > of the drugging, on highly dubious basis. Unless, of course, you can
> > > provide the authoritative medical substantiation that's clearly
> > > established what you assure otherwise.
> >
> > We have the same rules here; you show yours, I'll show you mine. ;)
> (and now read your reply to my request of a study...)

> A panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology
> Assessment reported that "Prominent hypotheses concerning depression
> have focused on altered function of the group of neurotransmitters
> called monoamines (i.e., norepinephrine, epinephrine, serotonin,
> dopamine), particularly norepinephrine (NE) and serotonin. ...
> studies of the NE [norepinephrine] autoreceptor in depression have
> found no specific evidence of an abnormality to date. Currently, no
> clear evidence links abnormal serotonin receptor activity in the brain
> to depression. ... the data currently available do not provide
> consistent evidence either for altered neurotransmitter levels or for
> disruption of normal receptor activity" (The Biology of Mental
> Disorders, U.S. Gov't Printing Office, pp. 82 & 84).

Where does it say that patients are lured into taking more or other drugs
and continue to be drugged in that paragraph? (maybe it belongs to another
argument; this thread is a little messy, I give you that.)

>
> There's "no specific evidence" of such a "problem" nor any true
> substantiation that SSRI's, which are expressly designed to "treat"
> this nonexistent problem, can do so. However, it's also better known
> and proven that SSRI's induce various "detrimental" (as you prefer to
> put it) so-called "side effects".

But they are not permanent. In contrast to the neurotoxicty of rec drugs,
especially Extacy.

Thus, the "dosage adjusting" and
> "trying" of yet other unproven/disproven drugs when they're suffered,
> is a groundless circle of drug inducing effects that "cause" further
> drugging attempting to "treat" the drug induced effects.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > Yes, I would choose the true and tried
> > > > method of SSRIs at any time if the alterntative was coginitive[/color][/color]
therepy[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > (which doesn't really work) or .... what? It's all we have!
> > >
> > > Heck, we just had another correspondant in a recent similar thread
> > > assuring us that "cognitive behavioral therapy" (whatever that might
> > > be) was somehow proven to be the most effective thing. Sure no[/color][/color]
shortage[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > of pure advocacies is there?
> >
> > Don't believe that for a second. Cognitive therapy can cure simple,
> > behavioural issues, but it can't go further.[/color]
>
> Well, when it comes to a matter of pure Beliefs... just who do we
> believe, then, and just why?[/color]

Again, my father ... cognitive therapy cannot cure serious condititions,
that usually are the result of epileptic damage in either the frontal lopes
or some other part of the brain that I cant remember. Isn't it interesting
that anti-epileptic medicine actually also works on most psychiatric
disorders? (from that seminar I attended....and yes, there were studies
made).

>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > I just love the idea that these drugs are somehow "all we have." Why,
> > > merely because someone brewed them up and hawks and sells them?
> >
> > No, because we simply DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT TRULY WORKS. It's[/color][/color]
as[color=green]
> > simple as that.
>
> Sure "we" do.[/color]

We, as in the human race.

I was at a bookstore just last night and the shelves have
> quite a number of new books by doctors, psychiatrists, etc. explaining
> quite an array of proven, non-drug options that work.

Can you tell me which options those were?

And the drugs
> don't "truly work" -- at least in any particular way anyone can be
> objectively sure of aside from perhaps a boosted placebo effect or
> disabling of normal brain functions, that is.

We don't know how they work. True. But experience tells us they do.
[color=green]
> > Gee,[color=darkred]
> > > that then amounts to "all we have"? Even despite the raw facts that
> > > sugar pills work as well, or better?[/color][/color]

See below about your "sugar pill" theory.
[color=green]
> >
> > They don´t, except in artificial situations like doubleblind studies..[/color]
For[color=green]
> > example, ¨go to any home for old people or institutes for depressed[/color]
people,[color=green]
> > havens for ssris, and replace them with sugar pills over time without[/color]
them[color=green]
> > knowing. I promise you, you will see that suicidal tendicies,[/color]
depression,[color=green]
> > anxiety etc will have taken over. In no time.
>
> You're simply guessing, which is an empty promise. But I can easily
> accept that giving people chemicals and drugs that disrupt and disable
> normal, natural brain functions could dull their emotional sensations
> and moods, even when in depressing situations.[/color]

Then at least you admit that they have *some* helpful attributes (I'd rather
have dulled sensations that live with anxiety).,

>[color=green]
> > Or that regular exercise and[color=darkred]
> > > reasonable diet work, too? Or that St. John's Wort performed as well[/color][/color]
or[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > better than the drugs, in clinical trials?
> >
> > That's a laugh. True, they have some influence, but they will never be[/color][/color]
able[color=green]
> > to do anything about the serious conditions. Look at the indications on[/color]
st.[color=green]
> > johns wart bottles; only supposed to be used for light depresision.
>
> That's according to labeling laws, isn't it? Some St. John's Wort
> packages don't say anything specifically about "depression" at all. So?
> The scientific tests conducted by the drug manufacturers themselves
> produced the proof that it works as well as their drugs for "clinical
> depression" as severe as they tested their own drugs on.[/color]

Actually, not long ago, there was a study that showed that SJW had no
provable effect AT ALL. Talk about placebo! And this really says something
about double-blind studies - if they directly contradict each other, how can
we trust them? Goodbye, sugar pill theory.

> You really just don't like these facts, do you?

What "facts"? Do you have any?
>[color=green]
> > Or that the entire notion[color=darkred]
> > > that "depression" is a "brain disorder" is flat mistaken and so the
> > > experience is better addressed in an entirely different way?
> >
> > Where would you locate it, then=[/color]
>
> "It"? "Locate"? What are you assuming?[/color]

The disorder. If it isn't a brain disorder, what kind of disorder is it?

>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > After all, many "substances" are reverted to and relied on by very[/color][/color]
many[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > people to simply feel better or "relieve suffering."
> >
> > If you're talking illegal drugs (or euphoric drugs), chances are that[/color][/color]
they[color=green]
> > are way too neurotoxic (which I don't hope you question. And SSRIs have
> > never been scientifically identified as neurotoxic).
>
> Have they been scientifically identified as nonneurotoxic?[/color]

Yes. For the nth. time.

However,
> since SSRI's themselves are restricted to prescription, it's illegal
> for them to be sold/distributed otherwise. They, too, are illegal drugs
> used for the purpose of altering moods/sensations.

Yeah, I know a lot of drug dealers selling SSRIs. "I need some .. right now
...." LOL

>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > > > But it should be easy to differentiate between the original
> > > > > > diagnosis and side effects. .......
> > > > >
> > > > > Why "should it be easy"? Isn't "the diagnosis" mainly or[/color][/color]
exclusively[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > > based simply on people reporting that they feel "depressed"
> >
> > No. Behavioural examination is an important factor. Again, there is a[/color][/color]
formal[color=green]
> > list of criteria for defining depression.
>
> For "construing" or presuming some "thing" as that. Which remains
> otherwise entirely unproven, medically or biophsyiologically.[/color]

You don't believe in depressions? Or pathology in general? What you call
them, then - "bad feelings"?

>
> "Psychiatric diagnosis is descriptive. We don't really understand
> psychiatric disorders at a biological level."
> - Dr. T. Laughren, head of the group of scientists at the FDA which
> allows SSRI's to be publicly commercially marketed.

We have agreed on this many times. You post the same extracts again and
again.
[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > Only if one merely "believes" that might be the case, yet lacking any
> > > actual conclusive scientific, medical substantiation. Even as you've
> > > progressively agreed, there isn't any. That leaves pure Belief in a
> > > particular idea, with no other compelling basis for it, other than
> > > inclination to Believe it.
> >
> > You mean, exactly the same thing you do? Without the expeirence?[/color]
>
> I rely on the extensive experience and research of a number of well
> known experts in the field. For instance:
>
> "We like to think that we give people treatments and they get better.
> We have this fallacy of success, but we don't know in any individual
> why they get better."
> - Dr. A. Leuchter, professor of psychiatry, Univ. of CA[/color]

That's only part of your postulation. And by the way, isn't funny that these
people of yours are a minority in the psychiatric field? (I consider
psychologists very lightweight) Most psychiatrists know that SSRIs work (but
now how), they are BY FAR the majority. In DK, anyway.

>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > Of course, since most
> > > > > depressions naturally quell after about the same time span, it's[/color][/color]
not[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > > necessarily surprising at all that a lot of people would feel[/color][/color]
better[color=green]
> > by[color=darkred]
> > > > > then.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, that is the stupidest thing you've said so far- have you never[/color][/color]
heard[color=green]
> > of> > > > long-term depression - it can last forever if untreated. Very[/color]
few real[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > depressions lasts a lot longer than 3 weeks. I mentioned this in a[/color][/color]
post[color=green]
> > too.[color=darkred]
> > >
> > > I suppose if the very definition of the term "real depressions" is
> > > reserved exclusively for some range of "depression" lasting a lot
> > > longer than 3 weeks, then it's only true by dint of pure jargon
> > > definition.
> > >
> > > However, most "depressions"[/color][/color]

So they DO exist?

(including those routinely classified as[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > "disorders," "mental illness," and "clinical") are known to naturally
> > > quell after about 6-8 weeks.
> >
> > That's a bold assumption. NOR is it true in any way. Depressions have no
> > natural ending; they can continue until you die, or stop a few weeks[/color][/color]
later.
>
> Except for the actual research that revealed that that, indeed, most
> folks seeking "treatment" for "depression" felt as much better than
> those receiving "treatment" in the same span of time.

I really distrust that research. How many people were involved? Who made it?
Where? How?
(the answers are not necessary; that specific research had to be faulty
somehow. Depression DO NOT usually dissappear after a few weeks.)

>
> I realize you're having a lot of trouble with your pure beliefs
> otherwise.

Explain. I think we agree that we both have more beliefs than actual
knowledge?

>[color=green]
> > Very often, it's only after someone's[color=darkred]
> > > been feeling this way for at least a little while that they seek the
> > > "professional help" and then there's that inexplicable coupla' weeks
> > > before the drugs "work" -- all which roughly describes about the same
> > > span of time, overall. Except now they're buying and using costly[/color][/color]
drugs[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > which they are instructed to keep using these supposedly "harmless"[/color][/color]
and[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > "targetted" drugs for months or years, which also require special
> > > medical help in ever getting off of, with frequent suffering and known
> > > medical and psychological risks incurred, when and if attempted.
> >
> > That's simply too cheap an argument, and it has no basis in reality.[/color]
>
> Seems you've reduced yourself to less than even cheap argument, all the
> way down to groundless, cheap dismissal.[/color]

There was no need to come with another reply. I had nothing to say about it
but "wrong".

>
> But not too unusual for pro-drug folks, especially after they've
> outright admitted that there's just no real scientific substantiation
> for their non-scientific beliefs about the stuff.

You really should give more credit to people actually working in the fray
and their experience Theory is fine, but experience is better. Just look at
how research is done; most of the time it is simply too vague.

[Virtualoso]

In article <duW8b.71487$Kb2.3322640@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > Yup. Why? They feel a need to medicate themselves somehow.
> >
> > They apparently feel like drugging themselves. The word "medicate" is
> > unnecessary and inappropriate.
>
> Self-medicating (due to depression or similar conditioins) with recreational
> drugs is quite common and well documented, just look at DK's stats of
> alcoholics; 300.000 out of 5 million. (insane, btw). Do you dismiss the
> "good feelings" or euphoria experienced when taking drugs like cocaine,
> amphetamine, GHB, Extacy, etc? There is no physiological, scientific study
> that show that these drugs "work" either.

Therefore, the term "medicate" is unnecessary and inappropriate.

> > But SSRIs most definitely have real chemical effects, euphemisticly
> > referred to as "side effects," rather than the probable main or only
> > effects that they are in fact.
>
> You say that SSRIs' method of supressing symptoms is through "side effects",
> right? And the patient is then somehow mysteriously straightened out. I
> still don't understand how you can explain that - there is no study to
> confirm it. Back to the beliefs again - that we both have.

The studies that confirm that are all the studies that show that
there's not confirmation otherwise, which confirms that they are
"working" like the placebos being tested at the same time and at
similar "rates of effectiveness".

You believe otherwise, but for no manifest reason. Well, okay, I've
certainly acknowledged that you do.

> > "If people do feel better when drinking alcohol or smoking marijuana,
> > it is because they feel better when their brain is impaired.
> > Psychiatric drugs are no different.
>
> Yes. They are not neurotoxic.

Well, for instance, according to

Goeringer KE, Raymon L, Christian GD, Logan BK
Washington State Toxicology Laboratory,
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Seattle

SSRI's "can result in toxicity and death". And this was reportedly
studied by "Toxicologic and cause and manner of death data were
examined in 60 deaths involving" SSRI's.

Is that "toxicity" simply not specifically "neurotoxic"?

> > > And it's the major reason that about half the people
> > > > subjected to them are known to attempt to quit them, at some point.
> > >
> > > No. Things like gaining weight are much more important to people (in the
> > > female part of the population, anway. This is known through interviews
> with
> > > people stopping SSRI treatment.)
> >
> > No, it's distinct discomfort, anxiety, "weird" physical sensations,
> > impotence, etc.
>
> I will admit that the SSRI that I know the most about is Celexa (I assume
> you know it?), and its side effects are NOT as common compared to the older,
> more "dirty" SSRIs.........

Yet, you've been so adamant about this regarding "SSRI's". For some
reason. Generally, while the SSRI's are credited as not having the
*same* bothersome or "detrimental" effects as the TRCs, they also have
*other* ones. And they are, indeed, "as common." Some of them are more
common and even usual.

At the same time, any one, specific drug is only "good" for just a
portion of those diagnosed as supposedly diagnosed "depressives". As
you've explained, it's very common for the various drugs to be "tried"
and switched, etc. A particular drug can be examined for its own
relative, comparative properties and effects, but just who it is "good"
for or not, remains unknown until it's merely "tried" on an individual
basis. And then, very typically, others will be too.

Thus, exposure to an array of these drugs and their effects, including
quite a few uncomfortable or worse "side effects," is all too common.

> > > We have the same rules here; you show yours, I'll show you mine. ;)
> > (and now read your reply to my request of a study...)
>
> > A panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology
> > Assessment reported that "Prominent hypotheses concerning depression
> > have focused on altered function of the group of neurotransmitters
> > called monoamines (i.e., norepinephrine, epinephrine, serotonin,
> > dopamine), particularly norepinephrine (NE) and serotonin. ...
> > studies of the NE [norepinephrine] autoreceptor in depression have
> > found no specific evidence of an abnormality to date. Currently, no
> > clear evidence links abnormal serotonin receptor activity in the brain
> > to depression. ... the data currently available do not provide
> > consistent evidence either for altered neurotransmitter levels or for
> > disruption of normal receptor activity" (The Biology of Mental
> > Disorders, U.S. Gov't Printing Office, pp. 82 & 84).
>
> Where does it say that patients are lured into taking more or other drugs
> and continue to be drugged in that paragraph? (maybe it belongs to another
> argument; this thread is a little messy, I give you that.)

"We have the same rules here"; I'll show mine, you show yours. Time for
you to produce a conclusive study showing the basis for taking any of
those drugs meant for any of the above non-evidenced reasons.

Folks are routinely being given those drugs, supposedly on that basis,
and often in a series of arbitrary and random "tries" of two or more.
You've said so yourself. Now supply your study confirming the basis for
doing that.

> > There's "no specific evidence" of such a "problem" nor any true
> > substantiation that SSRI's, which are expressly designed to "treat"
> > this nonexistent problem, can do so. However, it's also better known
> > and proven that SSRI's induce various "detrimental" (as you prefer to
> > put it) so-called "side effects".
>
> But they are not permanent. In contrast to the neurotoxicty of rec drugs,
> especially Extacy.

Permanence of detrimental effects is just one consideration.
Detrimental effects, while being induced by the drug, is concern
enough, especially since any medical basis of taking the drug at all is
so elusive. Yet, there is also cause for concerning permanency of some
of the effects, yes.
[color=darkred]
> > > Don't believe that for a second. Cognitive therapy can cure simple,
> > > behavioural issues, but it can't go further.
> >
> > Well, when it comes to a matter of pure Beliefs... just who do we
> > believe, then, and just why?
>
> Again, my father ... cognitive therapy cannot cure serious condititions,
> that usually are the result of epileptic damage in either the frontal lopes
> or some other part of the brain that I cant remember. Isn't it interesting
> that anti-epileptic medicine actually also works on most psychiatric
> disorders? (from that seminar I attended....and yes, there were studies
> made).[/color]

I can well understand how you'd tend to believe your father, even
wholesale. So far, though, the distinct insistance that all of the
so-called "psychiatric disorders" discussed so far are "really" simply
"epileptic damage" flies in the face of so many other psychiatrists,
neurologist, and other experts that lacking *any* of the "studies" you
refer to, there's no apparent reason at all to just "believe" that.

At the same time, I can easily accept that there are some amount of
incidences of "epilectic damage" variously, whatever that is.
[color=darkred]
> > > No, because we simply DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT TRULY WORKS. It's
> > > as simple as that.
> >
> > Sure "we" do.
>
> We, as in the human race.
>
> I was at a bookstore just last night and the shelves have
> > quite a number of new books by doctors, psychiatrists, etc. explaining
> > quite an array of proven, non-drug options that work.
>
> Can you tell me which options those were?[/color]

Quite a range and variety, really. But given that the drug companies
themselves have scientifically demonstrated that sugar pills, for
instance, work as well as or better than their drugs, take your pick of
whatever you might regard as comparable to sugar pills.

> And the drugs
> > don't "truly work" -- at least in any particular way anyone can be
> > objectively sure of aside from perhaps a boosted placebo effect or
> > disabling of normal brain functions, that is.
>
> We don't know how they work. True. But experience tells us they do.

The best we do know is that they work as placebos, at least in terms of
scientifically determining what "work" means. Unfortunately, they are
also seriously detrimental placebos.
[color=darkred]
> > > Gee,
> > > > that then amounts to "all we have"? Even despite the raw facts that
> > > > sugar pills work as well, or better?
>
> See below about your "sugar pill" theory.[/color]

That's no "theory" -- that's been scientifically proven by the drug
companies.

> > You're simply guessing, which is an empty promise. But I can easily
> > accept that giving people chemicals and drugs that disrupt and disable
> > normal, natural brain functions could dull their emotional sensations
> > and moods, even when in depressing situations.
>
> Then at least you admit that they have *some* helpful attributes (I'd rather
> have dulled sensations that live with anxiety).,

I've already readily acknowledged that plenty of people like to be
drugged. No doubt about it.

> > That's according to labeling laws, isn't it? Some St. John's Wort
> > packages don't say anything specifically about "depression" at all. So?
> > The scientific tests conducted by the drug manufacturers themselves
> > produced the proof that it works as well as their drugs for "clinical
> > depression" as severe as they tested their own drugs on.
>
> Actually, not long ago, there was a study that showed that SJW had no
> provable effect AT ALL. Talk about placebo! And this really says something
> about double-blind studies - if they directly contradict each other, how can
> we trust them? Goodbye, sugar pill theory.

Which "effect" was being tested? The same one that can't be
demonstrated is the pure unprovable basis for the drugs? St. Johns
Wort, according to the drug manufacturers' scientific tests, had the
same manifest, demonstrable effect that their drugs did.

> > You really just don't like these facts, do you?
>
> What "facts"? Do you have any?

You're really squirming now. For some reason.
[color=darkred]
> > > Or that the entire notion
> > > > that "depression" is a "brain disorder" is flat mistaken and so the
> > > > experience is better addressed in an entirely different way?
> > >
> > > Where would you locate it, then=
> >
> > "It"? "Locate"? What are you assuming?
>
> The disorder. If it isn't a brain disorder, what kind of disorder is it?[/color]

You seem to be devotedly assuming that there even is a distinct
"disorder"... which no one can find or "locate" in reality. Why? It's a
mere concept and verbal term, which continues to be essentially
unsubstantiated despite decades of concerted efforts by many to
establish it as being any more than that.

> However,
> > since SSRI's themselves are restricted to prescription, it's illegal
> > for them to be sold/distributed otherwise. They, too, are illegal drugs
> > used for the purpose of altering moods/sensations.
>
> Yeah, I know a lot of drug dealers selling SSRIs. "I need some .. right now
> ..." LOL

Consumers are sharing and even selling them to one another. Is that
illegal for people to do, if they don't have the proper business
license?
[color=darkred]
> > > > > > > But it should be easy to differentiate between the original
> > > > > > > diagnosis and side effects. .......
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why "should it be easy"? Isn't "the diagnosis" mainly or
> exclusively
> > > > > > based simply on people reporting that they feel "depressed"
> > >
> > > No. Behavioural examination is an important factor. Again, there is a
> formal
> > > list of criteria for defining depression.
> >
> > For "construing" or presuming some "thing" as that. Which remains
> > otherwise entirely unproven, medically or biophsyiologically.
>
> You don't believe in depressions? Or pathology in general? What you call
> them, then - "bad feelings"?[/color]

Bad (or even unliked) feelings sure fits the bill, in general. To
"believe in" something as nebulous as "depression" being some one,
certain, distinct "thing" -- or, more so, supposedly some unfindable
physical brain malfunction -- is a very distinct, specialized belief.
And apparently, one that remains elusive despite a great deal of
concerted effort to demonstrate otherwise.

Do we "believe" that "happiness" is just a certain, highly specific,
targetable mere brain switch? Or "pleasure"? I see no more compelling
reason to merely believe that "depression," aside from being a rather
general and global word referring to apparently a wide array of
feelings, is any more distinct or specific. Much less have I found any
convincing basis for the notion that it's "caused" by some "wrongness"
in the brain. If anything, it seems all the more obvious that the
feelings "cause" certain brain conditions -- which is what the brain
does and is for.

Perhaps you like the idea that we are essentially artifact phenomena of
various brain structures and their functioning, and that there is some
specific mode that is "healthy" or not, when it comes to what we "feel"
which ought to be chemically mediated and controlled by people with
complicated ideas and self-professed expertise about which "feelings"
we ought to be experiencing or not. And which chemicals ought to be in
what proportion in our brains, despite lacking any conclusive medical
basis for that other than a somewhat inexplicable devotion to the mere
idea.

I can understand how the notion might have its attractions, and even
some good intentions. But it's all gone way beyond only that,
especially after all this time and effort failing to confirm that, yet
a significantly spreading drugging of millions and millions of people
anyway. For some reason. Other reasons.

> > "Psychiatric diagnosis is descriptive. We don't really understand
> > psychiatric disorders at a biological level."
> > - Dr. T. Laughren, head of the group of scientists at the FDA which
> > allows SSRI's to be publicly commercially marketed.
>
> We have agreed on this many times. You post the same extracts again and
> again.

Then what's with your questions about "believing in" mere descriptions?
[color=darkred]
> > > You mean, exactly the same thing you do? Without the expeirence?
> >
> > I rely on the extensive experience and research of a number of well
> > known experts in the field. For instance:
> >
> > "We like to think that we give people treatments and they get better.
> > We have this fallacy of success, but we don't know in any individual
> > why they get better."
> > - Dr. A. Leuchter, professor of psychiatry, Univ. of CA
>
> That's only part of your postulation. And by the way, isn't funny that these
> people of yours are a minority in the psychiatric field? (I consider
> psychologists very lightweight) Most psychiatrists know that SSRIs work (but
> now how), they are BY FAR the majority. In DK, anyway.[/color]

"Work" meaning just what? I've already agreed that drugging people has
effects, and that any number of people like to be drugged. You seem
bothered that I don't just "believe" something in particular about that
even though it can't be medically proven and you here again that you
don't even really know that, anyway.
[color=darkred]
> > > > I suppose if the very definition of the term "real depressions" is
> > > > reserved exclusively for some range of "depression" lasting a lot
> > > > longer than 3 weeks, then it's only true by dint of pure jargon
> > > > definition.
> > > >
> > > > However, most "depressions"
>
> So they DO exist?[/color]

Descriptive terms? Yes.

> > Except for the actual research that revealed that that, indeed, most
> > folks seeking "treatment" for "depression" felt as much better than
> > those receiving "treatment" in the same span of time.
>
> I really distrust that research. How many people were involved? Who made it?
> Where? How?
> (the answers are not necessary; that specific research had to be faulty
> somehow. Depression DO NOT usually dissappear after a few weeks.)

LOL. Talk about mere, unsubstantiated belief, despite facts of the
matter. Well, if you're religious about your unscientific, nonmedical
beliefs, no wonder it's fruitless to pretend any such discussion or
examination of the matter in those terms.

You're perfectly welcome to your religious beliefs, as far as I'm
concerned.

> > But not too unusual for pro-drug folks, especially after they've
> > outright admitted that there's just no real scientific substantiation
> > for their non-scientific beliefs about the stuff.
>
> You really should give more credit to people actually working in the fray
> and their experience Theory is fine, but experience is better. Just look at
> how research is done; most of the time it is simply too vague.

I've arrived at my outlooks as a result of information from a great
deal of experience in the topics, including many others' as well, which
I readily credit. Your simple beliefs otherwise aren't experience,
however, other than being an experience of your beliefs. You're welcome
to them, too, of course.

[Virtualoso]

In article <ivc6mv8i4s8j31ncam75pub14ldtr8a93a@4ax.com>, GaryE
<garyexxx@swbell.net> wrote:

> .I would be interested in knowing both of you 'credentials'. ...
> It works if you work it, though. ...And I
> suppose the same 'principle' could apply to medicine, right? Who
> really gives a shit if people find relief from suffering ... with
> anti depressants ...
>
> But folks who, as far as I can tell, have no skin in this medication
> game... because most of them (and us) are
> irrelevant to larger questions of society, politics, medicine, the big
> lot. . The problem as always, has been people vulnerable and open to
> 'advice' from people who have no credentials, period. ...
> Why anyone, with no skin in the game, would want to
> interfere with others treatment of pain and misery is beyond me....

Franklin: ³If I were to show up at a doctor¹s office and say,
ŒDr. Franklin is here to speak to Dr. Smith,¹ Dr. Smith is much more
likely to respond, as opposed to his receptionist calling him in his
office, and saying, ŒThe Warner-Lambert sales rep is here to talk to
you.¹²

* * * *Franklin didn¹t say that he wasn¹t a medical doctor. Simply
having the title of doctor, the Ph.D. he was so proud of, was all that
mattered, Franklin says, and Dr. Franklin, it turns out, wore lots of
hats, depending on whom he was visiting.

* * * * Hockenberry: ³So, you could have had a Ph.D. in economics or
metallurgy, and it would have been just as fine?²

* * * * Franklin: ³As long as it granted me the title of Dr. Franklin.²

"... so we would suggest that you titrate the patient up
to 4,800 milligrams [of epilepsy drug] ‹ you will see marked
improvement in their [bipolar disorder] symptoms.²

* * * * Hockenberry: ³So your suggestion to me is triple the dose and I
might see some positive results.²

* * * * Franklin: ³Absolutely. It¹s not a matter of might. You will see
an improvement.²

* * * *He¹s a scientist who couldn¹t sound more certain. But is there
any scientific validity to what he is saying about, for instance,
bipolar disorder?

* * * * Franklin: ³None at all. And in fact, much of it is a
fabrication. It is simply untrue.²

* * * * Hockenberry: ³Was there any data that really supported the
claims you were making?²

* * * * Franklin: ³Not at all.²

* * * *At best the claims were based on promising anecdotal and
untested preliminary information that Franklin says was, promoted to
doctors vigorously, directly and illegally.

* * * * Franklin: ³Not only is it illegal, it¹s downright immoral. It
doesn¹t just hurt the medical community, it has the potential of
hurting patients.²

* * * *But as you¹ll see, there was nothing potential about the money
to be made through these tactics. The billions to come were real ... as
real as the patients whose stories are just beginning to emerge. Was
their health compromised in a scientifically invalid campaign to raise
sales ...?

http://shorterlink.com/?CDR10J

[blackout]

> > > > Yup. Why? They feel a need to medicate themselves somehow.
> > >
> > > They apparently feel like drugging themselves. The word "medicate" is
> > > unnecessary and inappropriate.

But their goal *is* to self-medicate. That it is not a very wise decision is
another thing. In actually, it is, as you poiint out indrectly, substance
abuse.

> >
> > Self-medicating (due to depression or similar conditioins) with
recreational
> > drugs is quite common and well documented, just look at DK's stats of
> > alcoholics; 300.000 out of 5 million. (insane, btw). Do you dismiss the
> > "good feelings" or euphoria experienced when taking drugs like cocaine,
> > amphetamine, GHB, Extacy, etc? There is no physiological, scientific
study
> > that show that these drugs "work" either.
>
> Therefore, the term "medicate" is unnecessary and inappropriate.

See above.

>
> > > But SSRIs most definitely have real chemical effects, euphemisticly
> > > referred to as "side effects," rather than the probable main or only
> > > effects that they are in fact.
> >
> > You say that SSRIs' method of supressing symptoms is through "side
effects",
> > right? And the patient is then somehow mysteriously straightened out. I
> > still don't understand how you can explain that - there is no study to
> > confirm it. Back to the beliefs again - that we both have.
>
> The studies that confirm that are all the studies that show that
> there's not confirmation otherwise, which confirms that they are
> "working" like the placebos

No they don't. They just show that in "staged", artificial studies, there is
no difference between sugar pills and SSRIs. Not necessarily because of a
placebo effect. There could be several other unknown possible reasons.
This means that you have no studies that directly confirms your theory that
SSRIs only work as placebos.

Now that I remember it; could you tell me which exact company studies you
are referring to, and why the States seem to have no state controlled
institute that double-checks? I mean, there have to be some state control
with these studies somehow, right? That's how it works in DK. I figure it's
the same in the States, it just hasn't been clear in your posts.

> You believe otherwise, but for no manifest reason. Well, okay, I've
> certainly acknowledged that you do.

Well, we seem to be cut out of the same stone, don't we?

>
> > > "If people do feel better when drinking alcohol or smoking marijuana,
> > > it is because they feel better when their brain is impaired.
> > > Psychiatric drugs are no different.
> >
> > Yes. They are not neurotoxic.
>
> Well, for instance, according to
>
> Goeringer KE, Raymon L, Christian GD, Logan BK
> Washington State Toxicology Laboratory,
> Department of Laboratory Medicine, Seattle
>
> SSRI's "can result in toxicity and death". And this was reportedly
> studied by "Toxicologic and cause and manner of death data were
> examined in 60 deaths involving" SSRI's.

Which means 60 deaths where someone was taking SSRIs, nothing else. There
has been no other proven fatal side effects from taking SSRIs.
Maybe there are some seldom cases of extreme allergy that ended fatally, but
I've never heard about any.

>
> Is that "toxicity" simply not specifically "neurotoxic"?

No, definetely not. The drug is present in the blood, and can have effect
anywhere in the body.

>
> > > > And it's the major reason that about half the people
> > > > > subjected to them are known to attempt to quit them, at some
point.
> > > >
> > > > No. Things like gaining weight are much more important to people (in
the
> > > > female part of the population, anway. This is known through
interviews
> > with
> > > > people stopping SSRI treatment.)
> > >
> > > No, it's distinct discomfort, anxiety, "weird" physical sensations,
> > > impotence, etc.
> >
> > I will admit that the SSRI that I know the most about is Celexa (I
assume
> > you know it?), and its side effects are NOT as common compared to the
older,
> > more "dirty" SSRIs.........
>
> Yet, you've been so adamant about this regarding "SSRI's". For some
> reason. Generally, while the SSRI's are credited as not having the
> *same* bothersome or "detrimental" effects as the TRCs, they also have
> *other* ones. And they are, indeed, "as common." Some of them are more
> common and even usual.

I am talking about comparing Prozac and Celexa. Big difference - Prozac
messes with a number of NTs, while Celexa only messes with 2.

>
> At the same time, any one, specific drug is only "good" for just a
> portion of those diagnosed as supposedly diagnosed "depressives". As
> you've explained, it's very common for the various drugs to be "tried"
> and switched, etc. A particular drug can be examined for its own
> relative, comparative properties and effects, but just who it is "good"
> for or not, remains unknown until it's merely "tried" on an individual
> basis. And then, very typically, others will be too.
'
True. But again, necessary because of the heterogeneity of the mental
disorders.

>
> Thus, exposure to an array of these drugs and their effects, including
> quite a few uncomfortable or worse "side effects," is all too common.
>
> > > > We have the same rules here; you show yours, I'll show you mine. ;)
> > > (and now read your reply to my request of a study...)
> >
> > > A panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Congress Office of
Technology
> > > Assessment reported that "Prominent hypotheses concerning depression
> > > have focused on altered function of the group of neurotransmitters
> > > called monoamines (i.e., norepinephrine, epinephrine, serotonin,
> > > dopamine), particularly norepinephrine (NE) and serotonin. ...
> > > studies of the NE [norepinephrine] autoreceptor in depression have
> > > found no specific evidence of an abnormality to date. Currently, no
> > > clear evidence links abnormal serotonin receptor activity in the
brain
> > > to depression. ... the data currently available do not provide
> > > consistent evidence either for altered neurotransmitter levels or for
> > > disruption of normal receptor activity" (The Biology of Mental
> > > Disorders, U.S. Gov't Printing Office, pp. 82 & 84).
> >
> > Where does it say that patients are lured into taking more or other
drugs
> > and continue to be drugged in that paragraph? (maybe it belongs to
another
> > argument; this thread is a little messy, I give you that.)
>
> "We have the same rules here"; I'll show mine, you show yours. Time for
> you to produce a conclusive study showing the basis for taking any of
> those drugs meant for any of the above non-evidenced reasons.

I didn't ask you for a study, I asked you "Where does it say that patients
are lured into taking more or other drugs and continue to be drugged in that
paragraph?" Pretty simple question,eh? Who's squirming now? ;)

And I thought we had agreed that such studies you requested didn't exist...

> Folks are routinely being given those drugs, supposedly on that basis,
> and often in a series of arbitrary and random "tries" of two or more.
> You've said so yourself. Now supply your study confirming the basis for
> doing that.

Well, see above statement - if they don't exist, neither does the one you
request.

>
> > > There's "no specific evidence" of such a "problem" nor any true
> > > substantiation that SSRI's, which are expressly designed to "treat"
> > > this nonexistent problem, can do so. However, it's also better known
> > > and proven that SSRI's induce various "detrimental" (as you prefer to
> > > put it) so-called "side effects".
> >
> > But they are not permanent. In contrast to the neurotoxicty of rec
drugs,
> > especially Extacy.
>
> Permanence of detrimental effects is just one consideration.
> Detrimental effects, while being induced by the drug, is concern
> enough, especially since any medical basis of taking the drug at all is
> so elusive. Yet, there is also cause for concerning permanency of some
> of the effects, yes.

I've never heard about side effects becoming permanent, and there certainly
are no studies proving it.

>
> > > > Don't believe that for a second. Cognitive therapy can cure simple,
> > > > behavioural issues, but it can't go further.
> > >
> > > Well, when it comes to a matter of pure Beliefs... just who do we
> > > believe, then, and just why?

*You* shouldn't believe it - there are very few studies showing that
cognitive therapy can "cure" (I forgot that was the wrong word; SUPPRESS)
anything serious. And the existing ones are highly dubious.

> > Again, my father ... cognitive therapy cannot cure serious condititions,
> > that usually are the result of epileptic damage in either the frontal
lopes
> > or some other part of the brain that I cant remember. Isn't it
interesting
> > that anti-epileptic medicine actually also works on most psychiatric
> > disorders? (from that seminar I attended....and yes, there were studies
> > made).
>
> I can well understand how you'd tend to believe your father, even
> wholesale. So far, though, the distinct insistance that all of the
> so-called "psychiatric disorders" discussed so far are "really" simply
> "epileptic damage" flies in the face of so many other psychiatrists,
> neurologist, and other experts that lacking *any* of the "studies" you
> refer to, there's no apparent reason at all to just "believe" that.

Well, the reason for holding the seminar was of course that it was new
research being presented - I'm sure if you ask around enough, someone is
bound to have heard of it. Maybe try googling it?

>
> At the same time, I can easily accept that there are some amount of
> incidences of "epilectic damage" variously, whatever that is.

Yeah, the explanation of what exactly epileptic damage is was very
technical, and I didn't get much of it. The gist of it is that we know we
have a condition called epilepsi - it shouldn't be hard to find info on that
(even though it will probably concentrate on the "falling-down"-type of
damage."

>
> > > > No, because we simply DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT TRULY WORKS.
It's> > > > as simple as that.
> > >
> > > Sure "we" do.
> >
> > We, as in the human race.
> >
> > I was at a bookstore just last night and the shelves have
> > > quite a number of new books by doctors, psychiatrists, etc. explaining
> > > quite an array of proven, non-drug options that work.
> >
> > Can you tell me which options those were?
>
> Quite a range and variety, really. But given that the drug companies
> themselves have scientifically demonstrated that sugar pills, for
> instance, work as well as or better than their drugs, take your pick of
> whatever you might regard as comparable to sugar pills.

Well, I was asking if you can remember any specific form of treatment that
was backed ... I don't have the possibility to pick, because there is
nothing to pick from (that I know).

>
> > And the drugs
> > > don't "truly work" -- at least in any particular way anyone can be
> > > objectively sure of aside from perhaps a boosted placebo effect or
> > > disabling of normal brain functions, that is.
> >
> > We don't know how they work. True. But experience tells us they do.
>
> The best we do know is that they work as placebos, at least in terms of
> scientifically determining what "work" means. Unfortunately, they are
> also seriously detrimental placebos.

Again, all studies concerning SSRIs detrimental effects show that they
dissappear after treatment is stopped.

>
> > > > Gee,
> > > > > that then amounts to "all we have"? Even despite the raw facts
that
> > > > > sugar pills work as well, or better?
> >
> > See below about your "sugar pill" theory.
>
> That's no "theory" -- that's been scientifically proven by the drug
> companies.

No, read the above statements about the nature of the studies. It is not
plausible using these studies to say that the effect is merely placebo;
there is no direct evidence, only that in clinical trials they do not work
better than sugar pills. A number of other unknown reasons could be present
(for example, the psychological effect of being aware of participating in a
study).

>
> > > You're simply guessing, which is an empty promise. But I can easily
> > > accept that giving people chemicals and drugs that disrupt and disable
> > > normal, natural brain functions could dull their emotional sensations
> > > and moods, even when in depressing situations.

Ok, so you admit they can work somehow. I could easily find words that were
less negative than "disrupts and disable normal, natural brain function";
pragmatics. And by the way, depression and related disorders are in no way a
"natural" thing; general consensus is that they are caused by elevated
levels of cortisol, the stress hormone, which is due to the fact that we are
no longer cavemen who can sit on their ass all day and only go hunting when
they need to.

> >
> > Then at least you admit that they have *some* helpful attributes (I'd
rather
> > have dulled sensations that live with anxiety).,
>
> I've already readily acknowledged that plenty of people like to be
> drugged. No doubt about it.
>
> > > That's according to labeling laws, isn't it? Some St. John's Wort
> > > packages don't say anything specifically about "depression" at all.
So?
> > > The scientific tests conducted by the drug manufacturers themselves
> > > produced the proof that it works as well as their drugs for "clinical
> > > depression" as severe as they tested their own drugs on.
> >
> > Actually, not long ago, there was a study that showed that SJW had no
> > provable effect AT ALL. Talk about placebo! And this really says
something
> > about double-blind studies - if they directly contradict each other, how
can
> > we trust them? Goodbye, sugar pill theory.
>
> Which "effect" was being tested?

The indicated one; here in Denmark it is indicated for "mild depression"
only (and maybe anxiety, not sure). The manufactors of the drug (there are
several) *clearly* state in their ads (it's classified in a way so they can
make ads) that it does NOTHING for anything else than mild depression. Which
means that their studies apparently showed effect better than placebo,
otherwise they would never be allowed to make ads. And now, that license is
probably being withdrawn due to the latest study that show no effect at all.
I really question the method of double blind studies when it comes to drugs
that are so elusive.
>
> > > You really just don't like these facts, do you?
> >
> > What "facts"? Do you have any?
>
> You're really squirming now. For some reason.

It was a legitimate question. And if I am squirming, you should see yourself
grasping in the dark.

>
> > > > Or that the entire notion
> > > > > that "depression" is a "brain disorder" is flat mistaken and so
the
> > > > > experience is better addressed in an entirely different way?
> > > >
> > > > Where would you locate it, then=
> > >
> > > "It"? "Locate"? What are you assuming?
> >
> > The disorder. If it isn't a brain disorder, what kind of disorder is it?
>
> You seem to be devotedly assuming that there even is a distinct
> "disorder"... which no one can find or "locate" in reality. Why? It's a
> mere concept and verbal term, which continues to be essentially
> unsubstantiated despite decades of concerted efforts by many to
> establish it as being any more than that.

Yes, apparently so. We do need a pathological categorisation in order to do
the best for the patients. It's no problem to me that we call "extremely bad
feelings persisting for a number of monts" depression. But btw, there are
distinct differences between "feeling bad" and true "depression" - back to
the formal list of criteria...crude, but apparently effective during
diagnosis.

> > However,
> > > since SSRI's themselves are restricted to prescription, it's illegal
> > > for them to be sold/distributed otherwise. They, too, are illegal
drugs
> > > used for the purpose of altering moods/sensations.
> >
> > Yeah, I know a lot of drug dealers selling SSRIs. "I need some .. right
now
> > ..." LOL
>
> Consumers are sharing and even selling them to one another. Is that
> illegal for people to do, if they don't have the proper business
> license?

I guess so, but why in the world would they do that? Anyone can go to their
doctor and get some...if they inclined to lie a little. And SSRIs have no
euphoric effects at all.

>
> > > > > > > > But it should be easy to differentiate between the original
> > > > > > > > diagnosis and side effects. .......
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why "should it be easy"? Isn't "the diagnosis" mainly or
> > exclusively
> > > > > > > based simply on people reporting that they feel "depressed"
> > > >
> > > > No. Behavioural examination is an important factor. Again, there is
a
> > formal > > > > list of criteria for defining depression.
> > >
> > > For "construing" or presuming some "thing" as that. Which remains
> > > otherwise entirely unproven, medically or biophsyiologically.

correct, but apparently, it can differentiate bt people who need medication
and those who don't.

> >
> > You don't believe in depressions? Or pathology in general? What you call
> > them, then - "bad feelings"?
>
> Bad (or even unliked) feelings sure fits the bill, in general. To
> "believe in" something as nebulous as "depression" being some one,
> certain, distinct "thing" -- or, more so, supposedly some unfindable
> physical brain malfunction -- is a very distinct, specialized belief.
> And apparently, one that remains elusive despite a great deal of
> concerted effort to demonstrate otherwise.

Well, as I said, you can't just dismiss them just because double blind
studies do not show any effect.

>
> Do we "believe" that "happiness" is just a certain, highly specific,
> targetable mere brain switch? Or "pleasure"? I see no more compelling
> reason to merely believe that "depression," aside from being a rather
> general and global word referring to apparently a wide array of
> feelings, is any more distinct or specific. Much less have I found any
> convincing basis for the notion that it's "caused" by some "wrongness"
> in the brain. If anything, it seems all the more obvious that the
> feelings "cause" certain brain conditions -- which is what the brain
> does and is for.

Feelings? I know no other "thing" that is more elusive, subjective and
impossible to define properly. "feelings" belong to the Carthesians in this
context. That's why we have strict guidelines concerning pathology. And if
the feelings cause brain conditions, how do they do it? Are they somehow
hiding behide your ears, just waiting to change your brain?

I see the problem now; you are a Carthesian. You believe in Plato's dualism;
then of course "feelings" float around, invisibly, and suddenly are called
into action when something happens.
Or what? ;)

> > > I rely on the extensive experience and research of a number of well
> > > known experts in the field. For instance:
> > >
> > > "We like to think that we give people treatments and they get better.
> > > We have this fallacy of success, but we don't know in any individual
> > > why they get better."
> > > - Dr. A. Leuchter, professor of psychiatry, Univ. of CA

Nice quote. At least he acknowledges the success.

> >
> > That's only part of your postulation. And by the way, isn't funny that
these
> > people of yours are a minority in the psychiatric field? (I consider
> > psychologists very lightweight) Most psychiatrists know that SSRIs work
(but
> > now how), they are BY FAR the majority. In DK, anyway.
>
> "Work" meaning just what? I've already agreed that drugging people has
> effects, and that any number of people like to be drugged. You seem
> bothered that I don't just "believe" something in particular about that
> even though it can't be medically proven and you here again that you
> don't even really know that, anyway.

(nothing you say "bother" me - I think this thread is very entertaining and
informative)
I agree that we have no final scientific evidence that they work.

>
> > > > > I suppose if the very definition of the term "real depressions" is
> > > > > reserved exclusively for some range of "depression" lasting a lot
> > > > > longer than 3 weeks, then it's only true by dint of pure jargon
> > > > > definition.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, most "depressions"
> >
> > So they DO exist?
>
> Descriptive terms? Yes.

What do they describe exactly?

>
> > > Except for the actual research that revealed that that, indeed, most
> > > folks seeking "treatment" for "depression" felt as much better than
> > > those receiving "treatment" in the same span of time.
> >
> > I really distrust that research. How many people were involved? Who made
it?
> > Where? How?
> > (the answers are not necessary; that specific research had to be faulty
> > somehow. Depression DO NOT usually dissappear after a few weeks.)
>
> LOL. Talk about mere, unsubstantiated belief, despite facts of the
> matter. Well, if you're religious about your unscientific, nonmedical
> beliefs, no wonder it's fruitless to pretend any such discussion or
> examination of the matter in those terms.

Again, for me, experience precedes and is superior to theory. And experience
leaves no doubt that depression does indeed not have set limits for how long
they last.

> You're perfectly welcome to your religious beliefs, as far as I'm
> concerned.

Religion relies on some kind of higher power, usually a deity of some kind.
Not SSRI's ;)

>I've arrived at my outlooks as a result of information from a great
>deal of experience in the topics, including many others' as well, which
>I readily credit.

Meaning, you have no experience in the fray yourself at all. Just making
sure. I, too, of course have no true experience, but I do have the benefit
of being supported by the majority of the psychiatric community, and the
experience of my father, whose work I have followed closely. (I know that
doesn't count in your book, but if you haven't seen medicating, its
methodology and the results in close range over a period of time, it's hard
to see the truth-value in your extremely theoretical musings. You seem
almost fanatical at times- even though I understand your points completely,
and we agree on almost everything, you only have theory, and the real world
just works differently. Why? I dont know!)

[Blue Moon]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 07:58:10 +0200, "blackout"
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

>This is true of the group of drugs called benzodiazepines (and some other
>types of drugs), but the dangers of these drugs have actually been
>acknowledged in the last couple of years. These drugs should be used
>short-term only, because they cause true dependence and horrible
>withdrawals.

..
..
..
>True, although I do not like this tendency to distrust doctors - are they
>really that bad over there?

Notice the connection? People are only just waking up to the
decades-old scams of legalised drug-pushing.

>> > Similarly, your doctor may mistakenly insist that your
>> > discomfort is proof that you need to take *more* of the drug or
>> > additional drugs to control your discomfort."

This is a very common trait amongst the legalised drug-pushing
fraternity.

>> > "The reader may assume that these negative reactions to psychiatric
>> > drugs are rare, but, in reality, they are quite common. Moreover, the
>> > harm they cause often goes unrecognized or is attributed to something
>> > other than the medications."
>
>SHOW ME THE STUDIES.

Studies for what? Showing that negative reactions of psychiatric
drugs are quite common, or that the harm they cause gets attributed
elsewhere by the money-grubbers?

The comments of GlaxoSmithKline's Dr Alastair Benbow at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2321545.stm

are disproven by independent findings from GlaxoSmithKline's own
archives, summarised at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2317751.stm

--
Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 19:21:06 +0200, "blackout"
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

>There are no " deleterious" (I had to find my dictionary for that one, for
>god¨s sake!) effects from SSRIs.

Bullshit. That's precisely why Prozac went out of fashion. Paxil
will go the same way, but not without its own share of victims.

>Of course, since most
>> depressions naturally quell after about the same time span, it's not
>> necessarily surprising at all that a lot of people would feel better by
>> then.
>
>Ok, that is the stupidest thing you've said so far- have you never heard of
>long-term depression - it can last forever if untreated. Very few real
>depressions lasts a lot longer than 3 weeks. I mentioned this in a post too.

Despite being allegedly the "stupidest thing he's said so far", you
just went on to confirm his statement.

>> > Again, tapering is extremely important (some SSRIs are worse than
>others),
>> > and if it's done wrong (which happens often), the result may look and
>feel
>> > like addiction.
>>
>> Or it may look and feel as though the symptoms of a "mental illness"
>> are re-emerging, and so lead to being put back on drugs.
>
>Doctors are not that stupid.

You think?

>> Psychiatric drugs, including "anti-depressants" have been involved in
>> quite a number of incidents of people harming themselves and others,
>> including suicide and homocide.
>
>Well, I have to say that there is NO WAY you can prove that ADs were the
>reason.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2317751.stm

"It was clear from this that Seroxat caused agitation in around 25% of
takers, that it made things worse when the dose of the drug was
increased and problems cleared up when the drug was stopped only to
re-emerge when it was restarted."

Now why would GlaxoSmithKline hide this information? Surely it
wouldn't be because they knew they could never get the drug onto
market if it was known that 25% of the HEALTHY test subjects were
displaying psychotic symptoms whilst on the drug?

--
Blue Moon

[blackout]

> >True, although I do not like this tendency to distrust doctors - are they
> >really that bad over there?
>
> Notice the connection? People are only just waking up to the
> decades-old scams of legalised drug-pushing.

That's bad. Maybe you should consider turning into a wellfare state like
ours ;) then you won't have these problems. (Like that's going to happen).
Go Democrats!

>
> >> > Similarly, your doctor may mistakenly insist that your
> >> > discomfort is proof that you need to take *more* of the drug or
> >> > additional drugs to control your discomfort."
>
> This is a very common trait amongst the legalised drug-pushing
> fraternity.

Yes, it does happen, even here, but always with sceptiscism and careful
consideration in DK.

> >> > "The reader may assume that these negative reactions to psychiatric
> >> > drugs are rare, but, in reality, they are quite common. Moreover, the
> >> > harm they cause often goes unrecognized or is attributed to something
> >> > other than the medications."
> >
> >SHOW ME THE STUDIES.
>
> Studies for what? Showing that negative reactions of psychiatric
> drugs are quite common, or that the harm they cause gets attributed
> elsewhere by the money-grubbers?

Well...it's a long thread, I know, but I would love to hear what you think
about the differnent arguments bt me and Virtualoso...we started out
disageeing (due to pragmatics, I think), then realized we agreed on some (or
most) of the points, and now we're just finetuning everything ... ;) But
it's fun! Join in, if you feel that it doesn't take away your focus!

>
> The comments of GlaxoSmithKline's Dr Alastair Benbow at:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2321545.stm
>
> are disproven by independent findings from GlaxoSmithKline's own
> archives, summarised at:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2317751.stm
>
> --
> Blue Moon

[blackout]

> >There are no " deleterious" (I had to find my dictionary for that one,
for
> >god¨s sake!) effects from SSRIs.
>
> Bullshit. That's precisely why Prozac went out of fashion. Paxil
> will go the same way, but not without its own share of victims.

Yes, but read on...I was talking about *permanent* effects. And yes, Paxil
is horrible, and its victims have already gathered and plan to sue the hell
out of them!

>
> >Of course, since most
> >> depressions naturally quell after about the same time span, it's not
> >> necessarily surprising at all that a lot of people would feel better by
> >> then.
> >
> >Ok, that is the stupidest thing you've said so far- have you never heard
of
> >long-term depression - it can last forever if untreated. Very few real
> >depressions lasts a lot longer than 3 weeks. I mentioned this in a post
too.
>
> Despite being allegedly the "stupidest thing he's said so far", you
> just went on to confirm his statement.

Yes, I saw the error just after I posted - of course it was suposed to read
"most real depressions lasts longer than..." Guess I'm stupid too...

>
> >> > Again, tapering is extremely important (some SSRIs are worse than
> >others),
> >> > and if it's done wrong (which happens often), the result may look and
> >feel
> >> > like addiction.
> >>
> >> Or it may look and feel as though the symptoms of a "mental illness"
> >> are re-emerging, and so lead to being put back on drugs.
> >
> >Doctors are not that stupid.
>
> You think?
>
> >> Psychiatric drugs, including "anti-depressants" have been involved in
> >> quite a number of incidents of people harming themselves and others,
> >> including suicide and homocide.
> >
> >Well, I have to say that there is NO WAY you can prove that ADs were the
> >reason.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2317751.stm
>
> "It was clear from this that Seroxat caused agitation in around 25% of
> takers, that it made things worse when the dose of the drug was
> increased and problems cleared up when the drug was stopped only to
> re-emerge when it was restarted."

Hmmm...have to think about how to put this...I have no particular knowledge
of Seroxat, so I can't say much. But....this article is not a scientific
study. But that does not mean I refute it immediatly (though I would like to
look at the data myself). I can't say anything else than maybe seroxat is
shit, or this is an isolated ´freak incident.

Another thing we have to take into consideration is that even though
"healthy" volunteers are included in studies, people who normally are put on
medication do already have (maybe serious) mental problems.
>
> Now why would GlaxoSmithKline hide this information? Surely it
> wouldn't be because they knew they could never get the drug onto
> market if it was known that 25% of the HEALTHY test subjects were
> displaying psychotic symptoms whilst on the drug?

True true, they should be sued if it's true, sued to their bones....

>
> --
> Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:57:06 +0200, "blackout"
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> >True, although I do not like this tendency to distrust doctors - are they
>> >really that bad over there?
>>
>> Notice the connection? People are only just waking up to the
>> decades-old scams of legalised drug-pushing.
>
>That's bad. Maybe you should consider turning into a wellfare state like
>ours ;) then you won't have these problems. (Like that's going to happen).
>Go Democrats!

I grew up in the welfare state of the UK, that didn't do my mother a
whole lot of good on the benzos. My take is that the medical
professions of different countries are different, not necessarily
better or worse. For example, much medical care is free in the UK,
however therapists etc. seem to have a higher turn-over as a result.
As such, many people have to go through the same old stuff again and
again with different therapists, and they seem quite incapable of
reading each others' notes.

The countries I'd suggest would be better off are those where the
masses aren't encouraged to place blind faith in some present-day
leech merchant. The fact that doctors still know very little about
the brain doesn't seem to prevent genuine caution against prescribing
brain-changing chemicals.

--
Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 21:19:20 +0200, "blackout"
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> >There are no " deleterious" (I had to find my dictionary for that one,
>for
>> >god¨s sake!) effects from SSRIs.
>>
>> Bullshit. That's precisely why Prozac went out of fashion. Paxil
>> will go the same way, but not without its own share of victims.
>
>Yes, but read on...I was talking about *permanent* effects.

Suicide sounds pretty permanent to me! I guess it depends on your
definition of the permanency of permanent.

>> >> Psychiatric drugs, including "anti-depressants" have been involved in
>> >> quite a number of incidents of people harming themselves and others,
>> >> including suicide and homocide.
>> >
>> >Well, I have to say that there is NO WAY you can prove that ADs were the
>> >reason.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2317751.stm
>>
>> "It was clear from this that Seroxat caused agitation in around 25% of
>> takers, that it made things worse when the dose of the drug was
>> increased and problems cleared up when the drug was stopped only to
>> re-emerge when it was restarted."
>
>Hmmm...have to think about how to put this...I have no particular knowledge
>of Seroxat, so I can't say much.

Seroxat is Paxil.

>But....this article is not a scientific study.

It's true that genuine independent scientific studies on this don't
exist, though the doctor quoted is an independent doctor assigned by a
Court. The only reason for this lack of evidence is that
GlaxoSmithKline deliberately held back information even when they were
Court-Ordered to provide it. If they were happy about their findings,
they'd be falling over themselves to reveal to the world just how safe
the substance really is.

On the contrary, they continue to publish blatant untruths about the
stuff in their literature, which goes to all those innocent uneducated
people such as patients, doctors, etc.

>Another thing we have to take into consideration is that even though
>"healthy" volunteers are included in studies, people who normally are put on
>medication do already have (maybe serious) mental problems.

Indeed. But I was referring to their own study which was comprised,
specifically, of healthy individuals. Within 25% of them, Seroxat
CAUSED some fairly serious side-effects. Even GlaxoSmithKline haven't
disputed this, they just pretend it's not even been mentioned. They
then resort to the old tactic of placing blame on the victim for the
errant behaviour.

--
Blue Moon

[blackout]

> >That's bad. Maybe you should consider turning into a wellfare state like
> >ours ;) then you won't have these problems. (Like that's going to
happen).
> >Go Democrats!
>
> I grew up in the welfare state of the UK, that didn't do my mother a
> whole lot of good on the benzos. My take is that the medical
> professions of different countries are different, not necessarily
> better or worse. For example, much medical care is free in the UK,
> however therapists etc. seem to have a higher turn-over as a result.
> As such, many people have to go through the same old stuff again and
> again with different therapists, and they seem quite incapable of
> reading each others' notes.

I wouldn't call the UK a true wellfare state compared to DK. We're almost
communists over here compared to you! ;) but seriously, the fact that
EVERYTHING related to life's problems, diseases, poverty, medicine, etc is
freely solved here really eradicates many of those problems. If you're
homeless, you'll have a home in a month. If you have no income, the state
pays you a monthly allowance of what equals what you would earn in a
low-level job (whichi is alot in DK) If you are sick, you can go to the
doctor EVERY DAY and not pay a krone.Of course, the state pays the doctors,
but under certain conditions that does not make it possible to exploit the
system. And things like ads for medicine, (even alcohol, though we had to
let that go through because of the EU recently), cigarettes and the like are
not legal. (nevertheless, we are the nr 1 drinkers in europe...talk about
paradoxes...)
(well that was OT!)


>
> The countries I'd suggest would be better off are those where the
> masses aren't encouraged to place blind faith in some present-day
> leech merchant. The fact that doctors still know very little about
> the brain doesn't seem to prevent genuine caution against prescribing
> brain-changing chemicals.
>
> --
> Blue Moon

[blackout]

>
> >> >There are no " deleterious" (I had to find my dictionary for that one,
> >for
> >> >god¨s sake!) effects from SSRIs.
> >>
> >> Bullshit. That's precisely why Prozac went out of fashion. Paxil
> >> will go the same way, but not without its own share of victims.
> >
> >Yes, but read on...I was talking about *permanent* effects.
>
> Suicide sounds pretty permanent to me! I guess it depends on your
> definition of the permanency of permanent.

LOL yeah, can't argue there. I think it was taken out of context...I think
we were discussing side effects, or permanent damage to neural pathways?

> >Hmmm...have to think about how to put this...I have no particular
knowledge
> >of Seroxat, so I can't say much.
>
> Seroxat is Paxil.

Ok, that clears it up quite well! If you read this thread, you will notice
that I have bashed Paxil several times as the worst SSRI, and that people
are ready to sue the hell out of them.

>
> >But....this article is not a scientific study.
>
> It's true that genuine independent scientific studies on this don't
> exist, though the doctor quoted is an independent doctor assigned by a
> Court. The only reason for this lack of evidence is that
> GlaxoSmithKline deliberately held back information even when they were
> Court-Ordered to provide it. If they were happy about their findings,
> they'd be falling over themselves to reveal to the world just how safe
> the substance really is.
>
> On the contrary, they continue to publish blatant untruths about the
> stuff in their literature, which goes to all those innocent uneducated
> people such as patients, doctors, etc.

I haven't heard about this case, so I'll take your word for it.

>
> >Another thing we have to take into consideration is that even though
> >"healthy" volunteers are included in studies, people who normally are put
on
> >medication do already have (maybe serious) mental problems.
>
> Indeed. But I was referring to their own study which was comprised,
> specifically, of healthy individuals. Within 25% of them, Seroxat
> CAUSED some fairly serious side-effects. Even GlaxoSmithKline haven't
> disputed this, they just pretend it's not even been mentioned. They
> then resort to the old tactic of placing blame on the victim for the
> errant behaviour.

Yes, Paxil seems to be a very problematic drug (to put it mildly), and it
might have to do with how the plasma concentration is very bad, and that its
half life is ridicously low. I don't know, just speculating.

>
> --
> Blue Moon

[rosie readandpost]

>
> Bullshit. That's precisely why Prozac went out of fashion. Paxil
> will go the same way, but not without its own share of victims.
>


prozac, out of fashion?
LOL!

[blackout]

> > Bullshit. That's precisely why Prozac went out of fashion. Paxil
> > will go the same way, but not without its own share of victims.
> >
> prozac, out of fashion?
> LOL!

I think he means it's not the SSRI currently in vogue (to use virtualoso's
proverb). That would be Celexa.
I don't know if Prozac is stil widely prescribed...? It was, after all, the
first SSRI, and the least selective...more like the old TRCs.

[rosie readandpost]

blackout,
you could have no sure idea what is currently IN VOGUE, unless you choose to believe what you are reading in
advertisements.
yes, celexa is VERY popular, but there is a huge resurgence in wellbutrin!
so should we all argue about that?

this whole thread is so "alcoholic"............like a bunch of drunks standing around comparing "opinions" and calling
them facts!

--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie

"A bore is someone who persists in holding his own views
after we have enlightened him with ours."
................................ Forbes




"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:drq9b.72150$Kb2.3403219@news010.worldonline.d k...
>
> > > Bullshit. That's precisely why Prozac went out of fashion. Paxil
> > > will go the same way, but not without its own share of victims.
> > >
> > prozac, out of fashion?
> > LOL!
>
> I think he means it's not the SSRI currently in vogue (to use virtualoso's
> proverb). That would be Celexa.
> I don't know if Prozac is stil widely prescribed...? It was, after all, the
> first SSRI, and the least selective...more like the old TRCs.
>
>
>

[Robert McGregor]

"rosie readandpost" <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yuq9b.15374$jT6.13304@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> blackout,
> you could have no sure idea what is currently IN VOGUE, unless you choose
to believe what you are reading in
> advertisements.
> yes, celexa is VERY popular, but there is a huge resurgence in wellbutrin!
> so should we all argue about that?
>
> this whole thread is so "alcoholic"............like a bunch of drunks
standing around comparing "opinions" and calling
> them facts!
>
"rosie readandpost" <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d_rZa.76641$7O4.1782289@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> chronic depression, DOES NOT lift.
> by definition: "it is always there".
>

[blackout]

> blackout,
> you could have no sure idea what is currently IN VOGUE, unless you choose
to believe what you are reading in
> advertisements.

Well, since advertisments for ADs and similar medicine in general is illegal
in Denmark, that would be impossible!

> yes, celexa is VERY popular, but there is a huge resurgence in wellbutrin!

Wellbutrin - isn't that the one that has some slight dopaminergic action,
usually prescribed if the patient seems a little lethargic? All SSRI's are
prescribed according to the persons specific condition - Celexa is the
"all-round" SSRI, and therefore (one of) the most prescribed

> so should we all argue about that?

Well, only if you feel like it and have nothing else to do...We find it
interesting, so at least we have something to talk about.

> this whole thread is so "alcoholic"............like a bunch of drunks
standing around comparing "opinions" and calling
> them facts!

Well, you shouldn't dismiss all of this as infactual - I know that
Virtuaosolo backs most of his claims with scientific studies, and that's
good enough for me! Even though I don't agree with him...

>
> --
> read and post daily, it works!
> rosie
>
> "A bore is someone who persists in holding his own views
> after we have enlightened him with ours."
> ............................... Forbes
>
>
>
>
> "blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:drq9b.72150$Kb2.3403219@news010.worldonline.d k...
> >
> > > > Bullshit. That's precisely why Prozac went out of fashion. Paxil
> > > > will go the same way, but not without its own share of victims.
> > > >
> > > prozac, out of fashion?
> > > LOL!
> >
> > I think he means it's not the SSRI currently in vogue (to use
virtualoso's
> > proverb). That would be Celexa.
> > I don't know if Prozac is stil widely prescribed...? It was, after all,
the
> > first SSRI, and the least selective...more like the old TRCs.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[blackout]

> > chronic depression, DOES NOT lift.
> > by definition: "it is always there".

Well, that IS a fact, otherwise the depression wouldn't be chronic ;)
Or were you trying to make another point, maybe about Rosie?

[Robert McGregor]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UUq9b.72174$Kb2.3404846@news010.worldonline.d k...
> > > chronic depression, DOES NOT lift.
> > > by definition: "it is always there".
>
> Well, that IS a fact, otherwise the depression wouldn't be chronic ;)
> Or were you trying to make another point, maybe about Rosie?
>
>
http://anonpress.org/bb/Page_27.htm
"The doctor said: "You have the mind of a chronic alcoholic. I have never
seen one single case recover, where that state of mind existed to the extent
that it does in you." Our friend felt as though the gates of hell had closed
on him with a clang.

He said to the doctor, "Is there no exception?"

"Yes," replied the doctor, "there is. "

[Virtualoso]

In article <Hnl9b.71804$Kb2.3380201@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Yup. Why? They feel a need to medicate themselves somehow.
> > > >
> > > > They apparently feel like drugging themselves. The word "medicate" is
> > > > unnecessary and inappropriate.
>
> But their goal *is* to self-medicate. That it is not a very wise decision is
> another thing. In actually, it is, as you poiint out indrectly, substance
> abuse.

Mere terminological insistance. Sort of like preferring "detrimental"
to "deleterious"?

Enjoying a meal is then "self medicating" since it can be described in
neurophsyiological terms, regarding certain involved effects.

> > The studies that confirm that are all the studies that show that
> > there's not confirmation otherwise, which confirms that they are
> > "working" like the placebos
>
> No they don't. They just show that in "staged", artificial studies, there is
> no difference between sugar pills and SSRIs. Not necessarily because of a
> placebo effect. There could be several other unknown possible reasons.
> This means that you have no studies that directly confirms your theory that
> SSRIs only work as placebos.

Who said "only"? I've several times acknowledged that they likely do
also have the disrupting and disabling effects of normal brain
functions, too, that doctors and psychiatrists explain. Otherwise
euphemisticly termed "side effects" although we may as well refer to
them as main or sole effects, medically, given that no others have been
scientifically demonstrated.

> Now that I remember it; could you tell me which exact company studies you
> are referring to......

I've cited and quoted a number of them earlier in these threads in the
past coupla' days.

> > Is that "toxicity" simply not specifically "neurotoxic"?
>
> No, definetely not. The drug is present in the blood, and can have effect
> anywhere in the body.

Even toxically in the neuro?

> > Yet, you've been so adamant about this regarding "SSRI's". For some
> > reason. Generally, while the SSRI's are credited as not having the
> > *same* bothersome or "detrimental" effects as the TRCs, they also have
> > *other* ones. And they are, indeed, "as common." Some of them are more
> > common and even usual.
>
> I am talking about comparing Prozac and Celexa. Big difference - Prozac
> messes with a number of NTs, while Celexa only messes with 2.

Which is still to only tally "NT"s rather than anything else - like
"effects".

> > At the same time, any one, specific drug is only "good" for just a
> > portion of those diagnosed as supposedly diagnosed "depressives". As
> > you've explained, it's very common for the various drugs to be "tried"
> > and switched, etc. A particular drug can be examined for its own
> > relative, comparative properties and effects, but just who it is "good"
> > for or not, remains unknown until it's merely "tried" on an individual
> > basis. And then, very typically, others will be too.
> '
> True. But again, necessary because of the heterogeneity of the mental
> disorders.
>
> >
> > Thus, exposure to an array of these drugs and their effects, including
> > quite a few uncomfortable or worse "side effects," is all too common.
> >
> > > > > We have the same rules here; you show yours, I'll show you mine. ;)
> > > > (and now read your reply to my request of a study...)
> > >
> > > > A panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Congress Office of
> Technology
> > > > Assessment reported that "Prominent hypotheses concerning depression
> > > > have focused on altered function of the group of neurotransmitters
> > > > called monoamines (i.e., norepinephrine, epinephrine, serotonin,
> > > > dopamine), particularly norepinephrine (NE) and serotonin. ...
> > > > studies of the NE [norepinephrine] autoreceptor in depression have
> > > > found no specific evidence of an abnormality to date. Currently, no
> > > > clear evidence links abnormal serotonin receptor activity in the
> brain
> > > > to depression. ... the data currently available do not provide
> > > > consistent evidence either for altered neurotransmitter levels or for
> > > > disruption of normal receptor activity" (The Biology of Mental
> > > > Disorders, U.S. Gov't Printing Office, pp. 82 & 84).
> > >
> > > Where does it say that patients are lured into taking more or other
> drugs
> > > and continue to be drugged in that paragraph? (maybe it belongs to
> another
> > > argument; this thread is a little messy, I give you that.)
> >
> > "We have the same rules here"; I'll show mine, you show yours. Time for
> > you to produce a conclusive study showing the basis for taking any of
> > those drugs meant for any of the above non-evidenced reasons.
>
> I didn't ask you for a study, I asked you

"read your reply to my request of a study"

> "Where does it say that patients
> are lured into taking more or other drugs and continue to be drugged in that
> paragraph?" Pretty simple question,eh? Who's squirming now? ;)

Where does what say, SquirMeister?

> And I thought we had agreed that such studies you requested didn't exist...

Which is apparently why you haven't produced any at all.

> > Folks are routinely being given those drugs, supposedly on that basis,
> > and often in a series of arbitrary and random "tries" of two or more.
> > You've said so yourself. Now supply your study confirming the basis for
> > doing that.
>
> Well, see above statement - if they don't exist, neither does the one you
> request.

We established that there are no studies showing conclusively that
SSRI's do anything specific, biophysiologically, that establishes a
manifest, demonstrable substantiation for the theories promoted for
that. Now we arrive at there are no studies confirming the basis for
folks commonly being giving series of different ones, either?

> > > > There's "no specific evidence" of such a "problem" nor any true
> > > > substantiation that SSRI's, which are expressly designed to "treat"
> > > > this nonexistent problem, can do so. However, it's also better known
> > > > and proven that SSRI's induce various "detrimental" (as you prefer to
> > > > put it) so-called "side effects".
> > >
> > > But they are not permanent. .......

Reportedly, scientists see enough evidence to be pondering that.

> > > > > Don't believe that for a second. Cognitive therapy can cure simple,
> > > > > behavioural issues, but it can't go further.
> > > >
> > > > Well, when it comes to a matter of pure Beliefs... just who do we
> > > > believe, then, and just why?
>
> *You* shouldn't believe it - there are very few studies showing that
> cognitive therapy can "cure" (I forgot that was the wrong word; SUPPRESS)
> anything serious. And the existing ones are highly dubious.

How many studies do you suppose it takes, in order to just believe
something? After all, you keep confirming you have none that
substantiate what you believe is the essential case for your beliefs
about the efficacy for the stuff.

> > I can well understand how you'd tend to believe your father, even
> > wholesale. So far, though, the distinct insistance that all of the
> > so-called "psychiatric disorders" discussed so far are "really" simply
> > "epileptic damage" flies in the face of so many other psychiatrists,
> > neurologist, and other experts that lacking *any* of the "studies" you
> > refer to, there's no apparent reason at all to just "believe" that.
>
> Well, the reason for holding the seminar was of course that it was new
> research being presented - I'm sure if you ask around enough, someone is
> bound to have heard of it. Maybe try googling it?

A seminar of especially few, dubious studies, then.

> > At the same time, I can easily accept that there are some amount of
> > incidences of "epilectic damage" variously, whatever that is.
>
> Yeah, the explanation of what exactly epileptic damage is was very
> technical, and I didn't get much of it. ........

Fair enough, you don't really understand it.

> > > We don't know how they work. True. But experience tells us they do.
> >
> > The best we do know is that they work as placebos, at least in terms of
> > scientifically determining what "work" means. Unfortunately, they are
> > also seriously detrimental placebos.
>
> Again, all studies concerning SSRIs detrimental effects show that they
> dissappear after treatment is stopped.

Not all, no.

> > > See below about your "sugar pill" theory.
> >
> > That's no "theory" -- that's been scientifically proven by the drug
> > companies.
>
> No, read the above statements about the nature of the studies. It is not
> plausible using these studies to say that the effect is merely placebo;
> there is no direct evidence, only that in clinical trials they do not work
> better than sugar pills. A number of other unknown reasons could be present
> (for example, the psychological effect of being aware of participating in a
> study).

Who said "merely"? Is that like your inserted "only" above? Reportedly,
the "side effects" causing disruption and disabling of normal brain
functions act as a "placebo boosting" effect, since it convinces folks
they're taking "powerful medicine." Sugar pills don't have that
specific advantage, but "work" just as well for "treating" depression
according to the scientific testing by the makers of the drugs. Perhaps
sugar pills actually work *better* than the drugs, with the drugs
compounding depressive effects and symptomology, but is offset by the
placebo effect.

> > > > You're simply guessing, which is an empty promise. But I can easily
> > > > accept that giving people chemicals and drugs that disrupt and disable
> > > > normal, natural brain functions could dull their emotional sensations
> > > > and moods, even when in depressing situations.
>
> Ok, so you admit they can work somehow. I could easily find words that were
> less negative than "disrupts and disable normal, natural brain function";
> pragmatics. And by the way, depression and related disorders are in no way a
> "natural" thing; general consensus is that they are caused by elevated
> levels of cortisol, the stress hormone......

Just when is it natural to feel blue, unhappy, very sad, seriously down
or not? When is it natural to ingest lab brain chemicals? Lacking any
actual scientific/medical manifest basis for presuming that there's
some "unnatural" brain thing purely envisioned as supposedly "causing"
some certain "type" of "feeling depressed" as somehow supposedly
different from some other "type" (which there are simply no tests or
objective calibrations for), then there's really no clear, compelling
premise there at all.

For instance, entirely different research has found that folks in the
more affluent societies are generally experiencing less "happiness"
than other people. Seems we can "measure" such things as "happiness"
and "depression" and the like about the same, eh? It all comes down to
what someone tells someone else, and believing just certain things
about what and how they do things and construing what that might
"mean," in terms of degree.

I appreciate the intent to find some calibration or manifest
biophysical causation, but that's quite different from ever yet having
done so. It's just kind of taken on a life of its own, to have
conceived of being able to do that, despite the consistently failing
attempts.

> > Which "effect" was being tested?
>
> The indicated one; here in Denmark it is indicated for "mild depression"
> only (and maybe anxiety, not sure). The manufactors of the drug (there are
> several) *clearly* state in their ads (it's classified in a way so they can
> make ads) that it does NOTHING for anything else than mild depression. Which
> means that their studies apparently showed effect better than placebo,
> otherwise they would never be allowed to make ads. And now, that license is
> probably being withdrawn due to the latest study that show no effect at all.
> I really question the method of double blind studies when it comes to drugs
> that are so elusive.

The tests done by the drug companies to get their products passed by
the FDA had to show just two that were "positive" against placebos.
Most weren't. Overall, the placebos did as well, or better. But they
eventually got their two. Does that "prove" anything in particular? Or
that the fact of their running ads "must mean" that they're true? LOL

> > > > > Where would you locate it, then=
> > > >
> > > > "It"? "Locate"? What are you assuming?
> > >
> > > The disorder. If it isn't a brain disorder, what kind of disorder is it?
> >
> > You seem to be devotedly assuming that there even is a distinct
> > "disorder"... which no one can find or "locate" in reality. Why? It's a
> > mere concept and verbal term, which continues to be essentially
> > unsubstantiated despite decades of concerted efforts by many to
> > establish it as being any more than that.
>
> Yes, apparently so. We do need a pathological categorisation in order to do
> the best for the patients.

If we want to just guess or assume there is any basis for doing so.

> It's no problem to me that we call "extremely bad
> feelings persisting for a number of monts" depression. But btw, there are
> distinct differences between "feeling bad" and true "depression" - back to
> the formal list of criteria...crude, but apparently effective during
> diagnosis.

Not necessarily so distinct at all. Which, if there is any "problem" in
all this, very well might be the problem. Along with all the more
distinct problems with the surprisingly unsubstantiated so-called
"solutions" to the can't-be-found problem otherwise.

> > Consumers are sharing and even selling them to one another. Is that
> > illegal for people to do, if they don't have the proper business
> > license?
>
> I guess so, but why in the world would they do that? Anyone can go to their
> doctor and get some...if they inclined to lie a little. And SSRIs have no
> euphoric effects at all.

1. You get officially identified as "mentally ill" and, often, are
required to get your insurance involved, if not others too.

2. It costs a lot more to pay shrinks and docs and pharmacists, than
just folks and other users.

> > > > For "construing" or presuming some "thing" as that. Which remains
> > > > otherwise entirely unproven, medically or biophsyiologically.
>
> correct, but apparently, it can differentiate bt people who need medication
> and those who don't.

That remains especially unclear.

> > > You don't believe in depressions? Or pathology in general? What you call
> > > them, then - "bad feelings"?
> >
> > Bad (or even unliked) feelings sure fits the bill, in general. To
> > "believe in" something as nebulous as "depression" being some one,
> > certain, distinct "thing" -- or, more so, supposedly some unfindable
> > physical brain malfunction -- is a very distinct, specialized belief.
> > And apparently, one that remains elusive despite a great deal of
> > concerted effort to demonstrate otherwise.
>
> Well, as I said, you can't just dismiss them just because double blind
> studies do not show any effect.

Sure I can. At least as much as doping people up on the other strong
psychiadrugs, because lots of folks don't know what else to do with
them (or care enough to). For instance, it's been shown to "work" to
"treat" schizophrenia without the strong, harmful drugs that are
routinely forced on them. But it takes time, attention and effort
actually involved with them.

It's a bit like alcoholics, maybe. There are plenty of them rotting on
the streets simply because all the caring, compassionate, concerned
people just don't really care enough to do much about that, in fact.

But there are plenty of pricey sobering up resorts, insurance-billable
therapies and even commercial drugs for it. Shrinks, therapists,
doctors and "addictionologists" are happy to sell you some mix of that.
Does "it work"? Who cares? Try it. Then try something else. Or do your
personally responsible, extensive rigorous research in order to find
just the Right Solution for Only Yourself, in order to then "get help".
Whatever that might be.

Or buy some brain drugs, since someone believes that alcoholism is
"really" caused by "self medicating depression" which someone else
believes is "really" a result of "epileptic damage" which someone else
probably believes is "really" something else.

Meanwhile, if not liking how you feel, there's all kinds of drugs to be
taken. Try 'em, you might like 'em, despite some pretty bothersome drug
effects, at the same time.

> > Do we "believe" that "happiness" is just a certain, highly specific,
> > targetable mere brain switch? Or "pleasure"? I see no more compelling
> > reason to merely believe that "depression," aside from being a rather
> > general and global word referring to apparently a wide array of
> > feelings, is any more distinct or specific. Much less have I found any
> > convincing basis for the notion that it's "caused" by some "wrongness"
> > in the brain. If anything, it seems all the more obvious that the
> > feelings "cause" certain brain conditions -- which is what the brain
> > does and is for.
>
> Feelings? I know no other "thing" that is more elusive, subjective and
> impossible to define properly.

Yet, there's the crux of "depression" -- "feeling depressed."

> "feelings" belong to the Carthesians in this
> context. That's why we have strict guidelines concerning pathology.

"Strict guidelines" sounds so scientificy and authoritative, doesn't
it? Almost as though something real specific is actually known for
sure. Even though it most certainly is not. That is, according to the
strict guidelines for science and medicine.

> And if
> the feelings cause brain conditions, how do they do it? Are they somehow
> hiding behide your ears, just waiting to change your brain?

You don't seem too concerned at all with "how" drugs "do" what you like
to believe they do. Why any resistance to what you might not know about
this? There's scientific, biophysiological evidence, after all. And,
yes, even theoretical constructs. What more do you want?

> I see the problem now; you are a Carthesian. You believe in Plato's dualism;
> then of course "feelings" float around, invisibly, and suddenly are called
> into action when something happens.
> Or what? ;)

My how you see so far beyond what I say to what you project I believe
in.

> > > > "We like to think that we give people treatments and they get better.
> > > > We have this fallacy of success, but we don't know in any individual
> > > > why they get better."
> > > > - Dr. A. Leuchter, professor of psychiatry, Univ. of CA
>
> Nice quote. At least he acknowledges the success.

That "fallacy of success"?

> (nothing you say "bother" me - I think this thread is very entertaining and
> informative)

You really need a good talking to by GaryE.

> I agree that we have no final scientific evidence that they work.

Well, we've got that much mutually going.

> > > > > > However, most "depressions"
> > >
> > > So they DO exist?
> >
> > Descriptive terms? Yes.
>
> What do they describe exactly?

Evaluative concepts. From especially ambiguous, to highly detailed.

> > > I really distrust that research. How many people were involved? Who made
> it?
> > > Where? How?
> > > (the answers are not necessary; that specific research had to be faulty
> > > somehow. Depression DO NOT usually dissappear after a few weeks.)
> >
> > LOL. Talk about mere, unsubstantiated belief, despite facts of the
> > matter. Well, if you're religious about your unscientific, nonmedical
> > beliefs, no wonder it's fruitless to pretend any such discussion or
> > examination of the matter in those terms.
>
> Again, for me, experience precedes and is superior to theory. And experience
> leaves no doubt that depression does indeed not have set limits for how long
> they last.

That's why numbers of people's experience are measured. That's a
science thing.

> > You're perfectly welcome to your religious beliefs, as far as I'm
> > concerned.
>
> Religion relies on some kind of higher power, usually a deity of some kind.
> Not SSRI's ;)

Religious belief does not necessarily rely on a deity of some kind.
However, regarding drugs as a "higher power" can certainly qualify as a
religious devotion to the notion. Since there's no scientific nor
medical substantiation to base the belief upon.

> >I've arrived at my outlooks as a result of information from a great
> >deal of experience in the topics, including many others' as well, which
> >I readily credit.
>
> Meaning, you have no experience in the fray yourself at all.

Not necessarily. You presume.

> Just making sure.

Trying to, just so, apparently.

> I, too, of course have no true experience, but I do have the benefit
> of being supported by the majority of the psychiatric community...

If you'd like to regard that as "a benefit."

> , and the
> experience of my father, whose work I have followed closely. (I know that
> doesn't count in your book, but if you haven't seen medicating, its
> methodology and the results in close range over a period of time, it's hard
> to see the truth-value in your extremely theoretical musings. You seem
> almost fanatical at times- even though I understand your points completely,
> and we agree on almost everything, you only have theory, and the real world
> just works differently. Why? I dont know!)

Folks take various drugs for various reasons and certain subjective
feelings change, along with some physical effects, even if not the
intended ones. With effects they both like, and effects they don't
like, as far as anyone can yet tell. There's reality. No one really
knows or demonstrably understands, scientifically/medically, just why
about a lot of that and, so far, folks' favored pet theories beyond
that just haven't panned out too much, despite a great deal of effort
for years and years to do just that.

Other people, with apparently the same interests and "problem," take
sugar pills and turn to other non-drug, non-medical options and do as
well, or better. For some reason.

I leave it at that. You believe quite more about it anyway.

[Virtualoso]

In article <75712ef08043373a62c5f44ace8f93d6@news.teranews.com >, Blue
Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:57:06 +0200, "blackout"
> <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >True, although I do not like this tendency to distrust doctors - are they
> >> >really that bad over there?
> >>
> >> Notice the connection? People are only just waking up to the
> >> decades-old scams of legalised drug-pushing.
> >
> >That's bad. Maybe you should consider turning into a wellfare state like
> >ours ;) then you won't have these problems. (Like that's going to happen).
> >Go Democrats!
>
> I grew up in the welfare state of the UK, that didn't do my mother a
> whole lot of good on the benzos. My take is that the medical
> professions of different countries are different, not necessarily
> better or worse. For example, much medical care is free in the UK,
> however therapists etc. seem to have a higher turn-over as a result.
> As such, many people have to go through the same old stuff again and
> again with different therapists, and they seem quite incapable of
> reading each others' notes.
>
> The countries I'd suggest would be better off are those where the
> masses aren't encouraged to place blind faith in some present-day
> leech merchant. The fact that doctors still know very little about
> the brain doesn't seem to prevent genuine caution against prescribing
> brain-changing chemicals.

The pharmaceuticals are among the biggest, most profitable, and
ever-influential companies. And they are multinationals. Global. Don't
think for a minute that they are not concertedly strategizing,
manuevering, politicking, etc. That's what multinational corporations
do.

Think "market dynamics."

[Virtualoso]

In article <NUo9b.72031$Kb2.3393770@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > >That's bad. Maybe you should consider turning into a wellfare state like
> > >ours ;) then you won't have these problems. (Like that's going to
> happen).
> > >Go Democrats!
> >
> > I grew up in the welfare state of the UK, that didn't do my mother a
> > whole lot of good on the benzos. My take is that the medical
> > professions of different countries are different, not necessarily
> > better or worse. For example, much medical care is free in the UK,
> > however therapists etc. seem to have a higher turn-over as a result.
> > As such, many people have to go through the same old stuff again and
> > again with different therapists, and they seem quite incapable of
> > reading each others' notes.
>
> I wouldn't call the UK a true wellfare state compared to DK. We're almost
> communists over here compared to you! ;) but seriously, the fact that
> EVERYTHING related to life's problems, diseases, poverty, medicine, etc is
> freely solved here really eradicates many of those problems. If you're
> homeless, you'll have a home in a month. If you have no income, the state
> pays you a monthly allowance of what equals what you would earn in a
> low-level job (whichi is alot in DK) If you are sick, you can go to the
> doctor EVERY DAY and not pay a krone.Of course, the state pays the doctors,
> but under certain conditions that does not make it possible to exploit the
> system. And things like ads for medicine, (even alcohol, though we had to
> let that go through because of the EU recently), cigarettes and the like are
> not legal. (nevertheless, we are the nr 1 drinkers in europe...talk about
> paradoxes...)
> (well that was OT!)

Do the doctors and shrinks and the like there make a substantially
better living than most other people?

[Virtualoso]

In article <Vgo9b.71991$Kb2.3390945@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > >Of course, since most
> > >> depressions naturally quell after about the same time span, it's not
> > >> necessarily surprising at all that a lot of people would feel better by
> > >> then.
> > >
> > >Ok, that is the stupidest thing you've said so far- have you never heard
> of
> > >long-term depression - it can last forever if untreated. Very few real
> > >depressions lasts a lot longer than 3 weeks. I mentioned this in a post
> too.
> >
> > Despite being allegedly the "stupidest thing he's said so far", you
> > just went on to confirm his statement.
>
> Yes, I saw the error just after I posted - of course it was suposed to read
> "most real depressions lasts longer than..." Guess I'm stupid too...

"Most" and "real depressions" are probably technical terms. And
reserved for just those "depressions" that seem to last longer than 3
weeks. Well...

Here's an interesting tidbit: "Most" people "suffering" from what's
"believed" to be a biophysiological brain dysfunction also aren't
"depressed" continuously even "during" the "depressions."

Anyone interested in how a supposedly faulty brain can have numerous
"not depressed" moments frequently?

[Virtualoso]

In article <drq9b.72150$Kb2.3403219@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > Bullshit. That's precisely why Prozac went out of fashion. Paxil
> > > will go the same way, but not without its own share of victims.
> > >
> > prozac, out of fashion?
> > LOL!
>
> I think he means it's not the SSRI currently in vogue (to use virtualoso's
> proverb). That would be Celexa.
> I don't know if Prozac is stil widely prescribed...? It was, after all, the
> first SSRI, and the least selective...more like the old TRCs.

"Celexa® (citalopram) is used to treat depression by helping to restore
the balance of certain natural chemicals in the brain. "

Although that very notion remains unsubstantiated.

"Uses
Citalopram is used to treat depression. This medication works by
helping to restore the balance of certain natural chemicals in the
brain. "

Keep just repeating it and people will believe it. Sounds plausible.
Besides, who really knows much about this stuff anyway?

"How to Use
Take this medication by mouth usually once daily, with or without food;
or as directed by your doctor. The dosage is based on your medical
condition and response to therapy. ..."

"Based on your medical condition"? Uh, what's that, more exactly?

"It is important to continue taking this medication as prescribed even
if you feel well. ..."

There's a curious notion.

"Side Effects
Nausea, drowsiness, diarrhea, trouble sleeping, upset stomach, or dry
mouth ... vomiting, loss of appetite, unusual or severe mental/mood
changes, increased sweating/flushing, unusual fatigue, uncontrolled
movements (tremor). ... blurred vision, stomach pain, fever, joint
pain, muscle pain, unusually fast heartbeat, decreased interest in sex,
changes in sexual ability, change in amount of urine. ... weight
changes, taste changes, changes in menstrual period, unusual swelling
of the hands/feet/face, seizures, painful and/or prolonged erection."

So very safe and harmless. Highly selectively targeted to just those
pesky unbalanced brain chemicals that are being "treated" to make you
well.

"This drug may make you dizzy or drowsy; use caution engaging in
activities requiring alertness such as driving or using machinery."

It's nice to be mentally healthy and live normally again, once the
brain chemicals are so nicely re-balanced. And keep taking it, even if
you feel well.

"Overdose
If overdose is suspected, contact your local poison control center or
emergency room immediately. "

If overdose is suspected? How 'bout when taking any at all? See above.

Well, maybe except for "prolonged erection". Feel well, indeed. '-)

[Virtualoso]

In article <yuq9b.15374$jT6.13304@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, rosie
readandpost <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:

> you could have no sure idea what is currently IN VOGUE, unless you choose to
> believe what you are reading in
> advertisements.
> yes, celexa is VERY popular, but there is a huge resurgence in wellbutrin!
> so should we all argue about that?
>
> this whole thread is so "alcoholic"............like a bunch of drunks
> standing around comparing "opinions" and calling
> them facts!

That would be as opposed to any other threads? LOL
Or is just this certain topic somehow "special"?

[Virtualoso]

In article <UUq9b.72174$Kb2.3404846@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > chronic depression, DOES NOT lift.
> > > by definition: "it is always there".
>
> Well, that IS a fact, otherwise the depression wouldn't be chronic ;)

Can long-term treatment with antidepressant
drugs worsen the course of depression?
by
Fava GA.
Department of Psychiatry,
State University of New York at Buffalo,
Buffalo; and the Affective Disorders Program,
Department of Psychology,
University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
J Clin Psychiatry 2003 Feb;64(2):123-33

ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The possibility that antidepressant drugs, while
effectively treating depression, may worsen its course has received
inadequate attention.

METHOD: A review of the literature suggesting potential depressogenic
effects of long-term treatment with antidepressant drugs was performed.

RESULTS: A number of reported clinical findings point to the following
possibilities: very unfavorable long-term outcome of major depression
treated by pharmacologic means, paradoxical (depression-inducing)
effects of antidepressant drugs in some patients with mood and anxiety
disturbances, antidepressant-induced switching and cycle acceleration
in bipolar disorder, occurrence of tolerance to the effects of
antidepressants during long-term treatment, onset of resistance upon
rechallenge with the same antidepressant drug ... and withdrawal
syndromes following discontinuation of mood-elevating drugs.

These phenomena ... may be explained on the basis of the oppositional
model of tolerance. Continued drug treatment may recruit processes that
oppose the initial acute effects of a drug and may result in loss of
clinical effect. When drug treatment ends, these processes may operate
unopposed, at least for some time, and increase vulnerability to
relapse.

[Virtualoso]

In article <8Tq9b.72172$Kb2.3404852@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > so should we all argue about that?
>
> Well, only if you feel like it and have nothing else to do...We find it
> interesting, so at least we have something to talk about.
>
> > this whole thread is so "alcoholic"............like a bunch of drunks
> standing around comparing "opinions" and calling
> > them facts!
>
> Well, you shouldn't dismiss all of this as infactual - I know that
> Virtuaosolo backs most of his claims with scientific studies, and that's
> good enough for me! Even though I don't agree with him...

You're a fun correspondant. Impressive. Thanks.

[Ian W]

> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2317751.stm
> >>
>
> It's true that genuine independent scientific studies on this don't
> exist, though the doctor quoted is an independent doctor assigned by
a
> Court. The only reason for this lack of evidence is that
> GlaxoSmithKline deliberately held back information even when they
were
> Court-Ordered to provide it. If they were happy about their
findings,
> they'd be falling over themselves to reveal to the world just how
safe
> the substance really is.
>
> On the contrary, they continue to publish blatant untruths about the
> stuff in their literature, which goes to all those innocent
uneducated
> people such as patients, doctors, etc.
>
> >Another thing we have to take into consideration is that even
though
> >"healthy" volunteers are included in studies, people who normally
are put on
> >medication do already have (maybe serious) mental problems.
>
Did any of you actually see the Panorama programmes? They were a
somewhat
one sided view of things, smacking of the worst sort of tabloid
journalism, and presented
in the style of a 'thriller' rather than as an objective documentary.
(Panorama has become notorious
for this in recent years and has had to issue a number of
retractions).

By the way, Dr Healy could hardly be described as independent. His
extreme views on the
use of SSRIs are well known.

e.g. from the BMJ july 2001:
Healy's "research" was published in Primary Care Psychiatry, which is
difficult to find because it not indexed in Medline. The "study"
involved his giving antidepressants to twenty persons who were not
depressed and who worked at a hospital where he has an administrative
role. For reasons of both ethics and potential bias, one typically
does not conduct research on colleagues and particularly not
subordinates Furthermore, If one is truly interested in distinguishing
the effects of different medications on qualty of life, as he claims
he was, it is imperative to have many more than twenty research
participants .

Dr. Healy claims he found that 2/20 of the persons taking an
antidepressant became suicidal. The most recent statistics indicate
that 11% of Ontario's elderly received an antidepressant in a one year
period. This is higher than the rate of depression and undoubtedly,
many of these elderly are not depressed. If Dr. Healy is to be
believed, they should be jumping out nursing home windows in droves.

It is of course standard practice to provide a proportion of research
participants a placebo without either the participants or the
researchers to knowing who is getting a medication and who is getting
the placebo. Dr. Healy did not include this safeguard. Healy had
already made quite a reputation with his claims about the alleged
dangers of antidepressants and quite a lot of money for appearances to
make this point as an expert witness in lawsuits. Dr, Healy's
associates taking part in the study were undoubtedly aware of his
expectations and it may have influenced their reports when they were
debriefed by him.

As a paid expert witness, Dr. Healy. had a financial interest in the
outcome of this "study" and he had a responsibility to inform readers
of his article of this.

[blackout]

>
> > > > chronic depression, DOES NOT lift.
> > > > by definition: "it is always there".
> >
> > Well, that IS a fact, otherwise the depression wouldn't be chronic ;)

Interesting study - I just don't see the relevance to this particular post.
As I see it, the point is that semantically, a *chronic* depression does not
go away - if it did, it would not be chronic! Or am I missing some obscure
poiint?

>
> Can long-term treatment with antidepressant
> drugs worsen the course of depression?
> by
> Fava GA.
> Department of Psychiatry,
> State University of New York at Buffalo,
> Buffalo; and the Affective Disorders Program,
> Department of Psychology,
> University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
> J Clin Psychiatry 2003 Feb;64(2):123-33
>
> ABSTRACT
> BACKGROUND: The possibility that antidepressant drugs, while
> effectively treating depression, may worsen its course has received
> inadequate attention.
>
> METHOD: A review of the literature suggesting potential depressogenic
> effects of long-term treatment with antidepressant drugs was performed.
>
> RESULTS: A number of reported clinical findings point to the following
> possibilities: very unfavorable long-term outcome of major depression
> treated by pharmacologic means, paradoxical (depression-inducing)
> effects of antidepressant drugs in some patients with mood and anxiety
> disturbances, antidepressant-induced switching and cycle acceleration
> in bipolar disorder, occurrence of tolerance to the effects of
> antidepressants during long-term treatment, onset of resistance upon
> rechallenge with the same antidepressant drug ... and withdrawal
> syndromes following discontinuation of mood-elevating drugs.
>
> These phenomena ... may be explained on the basis of the oppositional
> model of tolerance. Continued drug treatment may recruit processes that
> oppose the initial acute effects of a drug and may result in loss of
> clinical effect. When drug treatment ends, these processes may operate
> unopposed, at least for some time, and increase vulnerability to
> relapse.

[blackout]

> "Side Effects
> Nausea, drowsiness, diarrhea, trouble sleeping, upset stomach, or dry
> mouth ... vomiting, loss of appetite, unusual or severe mental/mood
> changes, increased sweating/flushing, unusual fatigue, uncontrolled
> movements (tremor). ... blurred vision, stomach pain, fever, joint
> pain, muscle pain, unusually fast heartbeat, decreased interest in sex,
> changes in sexual ability, change in amount of urine. ... weight
> changes, taste changes, changes in menstrual period, unusual swelling
> of the hands/feet/face, seizures, painful and/or prolonged erection."
>
> So very safe and harmless. Highly selectively targeted to just those
> pesky unbalanced brain chemicals that are being "treated" to make you
> well.
>

They forgot some *possible* side effects:
Tendency to sweat a little more than usual, prolonged hair growth, finger
nails growing, tendency to eat, possible sexual arousement if exposed to
pornographic material, tendency to have 5 fingers on each hand, possibility
of getting burnt by hot coffee at McDonalds, Desire to shower every day,
tendency to have two legs, headache if hit hard over the head with a big
study of how SSRI's only work through "disruption of normal brain
functions".

How could they forget these? My god, they are ASKING to be sued!

[blackout]

> >
> > Well, that IS a fact, otherwise the depression wouldn't be chronic ;)
> > Or were you trying to make another point, maybe about Rosie?
> >
> >
> http://anonpress.org/bb/Page_27.htm
> "The doctor said: "You have the mind of a chronic alcoholic. I have never
> seen one single case recover, where that state of mind existed to the
extent
> that it does in you." Our friend felt as though the gates of hell had
closed
> on him with a clang.
>
> He said to the doctor, "Is there no exception?"
>
> "Yes," replied the doctor, "there is. "
>
Obviously intentionally self-contradictúve.....Is the point to give hope, or
to just confuse?
(chronic does mean permanent, right?)
>

[Robert McGregor]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XCB9b.72627$Kb2.3414493@news010.worldonline.d k...
> (chronic does mean permanent, right?)

Obviously wrong.

Bob

[blackout]

>
> > > > > > Yup. Why? They feel a need to medicate themselves somehow.
> > > > >
> > > > > They apparently feel like drugging themselves. The word "medicate"
is
> > > > > unnecessary and inappropriate.
> >
> > But their goal *is* to self-medicate. That it is not a very wise
decision is
> > another thing. In actually, it is, as you poiint out indrectly,
substance
> > abuse.
>
> Mere terminological insistance. Sort of like preferring "detrimental"
> to "deleterious"?

Who disliked the word to start with? Terminological insistance, like you
just demonstrated?

>
> Enjoying a meal is then "self medicating" since it can be described in
> neurophsyiological terms, regarding certain involved effects.

Well, it is a wellknown fact that some overweight people self-medicate with
food....right? ;)

>
> > > The studies that confirm that are all the studies that show that
> > > there's not confirmation otherwise, which confirms that they are
> > > "working" like the placebos
> >
> > No they don't. They just show that in "staged", artificial studies,
there is
> > no difference between sugar pills and SSRIs. Not necessarily because of
a
> > placebo effect. There could be several other unknown possible reasons.
> > This means that you have no studies that directly confirms your theory
that
> > SSRIs only work as placebos.
>
> Who said "only"? I've several times acknowledged that they likely do
> also have the disrupting and disabling effects of normal brain
> functions, too, that doctors and psychiatrists explain. Otherwise
> euphemisticly termed "side effects" although we may as well refer to
> them as main or sole effects, medically, given that no others have been
> scientifically demonstrated.

But do you agree that you have no studies that show directly that SSRI's
work through placebo?
>
> > Now that I remember it; could you tell me which exact company studies
you
> > are referring to......
>
> I've cited and quoted a number of them earlier in these threads in the
> past coupla' days.
>
Yes, but some more specific data regarding statements like "the company's
own studies show that sugar pills are just as good as their drug" would be
appreciated.

> > > Is that "toxicity" simply not specifically "neurotoxic"?
> >
> > No, definetely not. The drug is present in the blood, and can have
effect
> > anywhere in the body.
>
> Even toxically in the neuro?

Are you trying to be funny? Lemme tell ya, you're no Jerry Seinfeld....

>
> > > Yet, you've been so adamant about this regarding "SSRI's". For some
> > > reason. Generally, while the SSRI's are credited as not having the
> > > *same* bothersome or "detrimental" effects as the TRCs, they also have
> > > *other* ones. And they are, indeed, "as common." Some of them are more
> > > common and even usual.
> >
> > I am talking about comparing Prozac and Celexa. Big difference - Prozac
> > messes with a number of NTs, while Celexa only messes with 2.
>
> Which is still to only tally "NT"s rather than anything else - like
> "effects".

Well, would you disageee that Prozac as a drug is less advanced molecularly
than Celexa?

>
> > > At the same time, any one, specific drug is only "good" for just a
> > > portion of those diagnosed as supposedly diagnosed "depressives". As
> > > you've explained, it's very common for the various drugs to be "tried"
> > > and switched, etc. A particular drug can be examined for its own
> > > relative, comparative properties and effects, but just who it is
"good"
> > > for or not, remains unknown until it's merely "tried" on an individual
> > > basis. And then, very typically, others will be too.
> > '
> > True. But again, necessary because of the heterogeneity of the mental
> > disorders.
> >

> > > > > > We have the same rules here; you show yours, I'll show you mine.
;)
> > > > > (and now read your reply to my request of a study...)
> > > >
> > > > > A panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Congress Office of
> > Technology
> > > > > Assessment reported that "Prominent hypotheses concerning
depression
> > > > > have focused on altered function of the group of
neurotransmitters
> > > > > called monoamines (i.e., norepinephrine, epinephrine, serotonin,
> > > > > dopamine), particularly norepinephrine (NE) and serotonin. ...
> > > > > studies of the NE [norepinephrine] autoreceptor in depression
have
> > > > > found no specific evidence of an abnormality to date.
Currently, no
> > > > > clear evidence links abnormal serotonin receptor activity in the
> > brain
> > > > > to depression. ... the data currently available do not provide
> > > > > consistent evidence either for altered neurotransmitter levels or
for
> > > > > disruption of normal receptor activity" (The Biology of Mental
> > > > > Disorders, U.S. Gov't Printing Office, pp. 82 & 84).
> > > >
> > > > Where does it say that patients are lured into taking more or other
> > drugs
> > > > and continue to be drugged in that paragraph? (maybe it belongs to
> > another
> > > > argument; this thread is a little messy, I give you that.)
> > >
> > > "We have the same rules here"; I'll show mine, you show yours. Time
for
> > > you to produce a conclusive study showing the basis for taking any of
> > > those drugs meant for any of the above non-evidenced reasons.
> >
> > I didn't ask you for a study, I asked you
>
> "read your reply to my request of a study"
>
> > "Where does it say that patients
> > are lured into taking more or other drugs and continue to be drugged in
that
> > paragraph?" Pretty simple question,eh? Who's squirming now? ;)
>
> Where does what say, SquirMeister?

I'll let that admission of fallacy stand on its own, just so everybody can
see your wonderful arguments.

>
> > And I thought we had agreed that such studies you requested didn't
exist...
>
> Which is apparently why you haven't produced any at all.
>

Well, watch out for requesting studies, because you're only having an easy
time at this because side effects are easily identified and recorded for use
against the poor drug companies.

> > > Folks are routinely being given those drugs, supposedly on that basis,
> > > and often in a series of arbitrary and random "tries" of two or more.
> > > You've said so yourself. Now supply your study confirming the basis
for
> > > doing that.
> >
> > Well, see above statement - if they don't exist, neither does the one
you
> > request.
>
> We established that there are no studies showing conclusively that
> SSRI's do anything specific, biophysiologically, that establishes a
> manifest, demonstrable substantiation for the theories promoted for
> that. Now we arrive at there are no studies confirming the basis for
> folks commonly being giving series of different ones, either?
>
Well, if we had the final study showing physiological evidence of the
benevolent effects of SSRI's, there would be no problem in producing a study
showing that different SSRI's have different benevolent effect.

But, alas, we both know that you are taking the easy way out by requesting
the impossible.

> > > > > There's "no specific evidence" of such a "problem" nor any true
> > > > > substantiation that SSRI's, which are expressly designed to
"treat"
> > > > > this nonexistent problem, can do so. However, it's also better
known
> > > > > and proven that SSRI's induce various "detrimental" (as you prefer
to
> > > > > put it) so-called "side effects".
> > > >
> > > > But they are not permanent. .......and you know that showing
physical side effects is a lot easier than showing the physiological
evidence that serotonin inhibitors have a supressive effect on certain
diseases.
>
> Reportedly, scientists see enough evidence to be pondering that.

You mean, just like scientists see enough evidence that SSRI's actually
work?

>
> > > > > > Don't believe that for a second. Cognitive therapy can cure
simple,
> > > > > > behavioural issues, but it can't go further.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, when it comes to a matter of pure Beliefs... just who do we
> > > > > believe, then, and just why?
> >
> > *You* shouldn't believe it - there are very few studies showing that
> > cognitive therapy can "cure" (I forgot that was the wrong word;
SUPPRESS)
> > anything serious. And the existing ones are highly dubious.
>
> How many studies do you suppose it takes, in order to just believe
> something?

Maybe the same amount that SSRI's have to be succesful to pass the tests and
come on the market?

After all, you keep confirming you have none that
> substantiate what you believe is the essential case for your beliefs
> about the efficacy for the stuff.

And how do you propose that such studies can withstand the scrutinizing eye
that you use to hammer down the efficacy of SSRI's?

>
> > > I can well understand how you'd tend to believe your father, even
> > > wholesale. So far, though, the distinct insistance that all of the
> > > so-called "psychiatric disorders" discussed so far are "really" simply
> > > "epileptic damage" flies in the face of so many other psychiatrists,
> > > neurologist, and other experts that lacking *any* of the "studies" you
> > > refer to, there's no apparent reason at all to just "believe" that.
> >
> > Well, the reason for holding the seminar was of course that it was new
> > research being presented - I'm sure if you ask around enough, someone is
> > bound to have heard of it. Maybe try googling it?
>
> A seminar of especially few, dubious studies, then.

Were you there? That's funny, we should have been introduced!

>
> > > At the same time, I can easily accept that there are some amount of
> > > incidences of "epilectic damage" variously, whatever that is.
> >
> > Yeah, the explanation of what exactly epileptic damage is was very
> > technical, and I didn't get much of it. ........
>
> Fair enough, you don't really understand it.

Just like you do not *understand* what epileptic damage is. Nevertheless,
can we agree that such a thing exists?

>
> > > > We don't know how they work. True. But experience tells us they do.
> > >
> > > The best we do know is that they work as placebos, at least in terms
of
> > > scientifically determining what "work" means. Unfortunately, they are
> > > also seriously detrimental placebos.

I think your placebo-theory has reached its end as a useful way of
explaining why SSRI's work...

And how are they "seriously detrimental"?

> >
> > Again, all studies concerning SSRIs detrimental effects show that they
> > dissappear after treatment is stopped.
>
> Not all, no.

Really? Well, I know it's a little unfair of me, but I HAVE to ask for some
references to that one. NO study has shown that SSRI's produce permanent
damage in any way.

>
> > > > See below about your "sugar pill" theory.
> > >
> > > That's no "theory" -- that's been scientifically proven by the drug
> > > companies.
> >
> > No, read the above statements about the nature of the studies. It is not
> > plausible using these studies to say that the effect is merely placebo;
> > there is no direct evidence, only that in clinical trials they do not
work
> > better than sugar pills. A number of other unknown reasons could be
present
> > (for example, the psychological effect of being aware of participating
in a
> > study).
>
> Who said "merely"? Is that like your inserted "only" above? Reportedly,

"Reportedly"? That sounds like a real convincing way of starting an argument
that proposes to be at leasat a little scientific.

> the "side effects" causing disruption and disabling of normal brain
> functions act as a "placebo boosting" effect, since it convinces folks
> they're taking "powerful medicine."

Speculation.

Sugar pills don't have that
> specific advantage, but "work" just as well for "treating" depression
> according to the scientific testing by the makers of the drugs. Perhaps
> sugar pills actually work *better* than the drugs, with the drugs
> compounding depressive effects and symptomology, but is offset by the
> placebo effect.
>
> > > > > You're simply guessing, which is an empty promise. But I can
easily
> > > > > accept that giving people chemicals and drugs that disrupt and
disable

Which normal, natural brain functions are disrupted or even disabled by
SSRI's?

> > > > > normal, natural brain functions could dull their emotional
sensations
> > > > > and moods, even when in depressing situations.
> >
> > Ok, so you admit they can work somehow. I could easily find words that
were
> > less negative than "disrupts and disable normal, natural brain
function";
> > pragmatics. And by the way, depression and related disorders are in no
way a
> > "natural" thing; general consensus is that they are caused by elevated
> > levels of cortisol, the stress hormone......
>
> Just when is it natural to feel blue, unhappy, very sad, seriously down
> or not? ´

As long as it doesn't reach the stage of pathological definitions of
depresssion or similar disorders.


When is it natural to ingest lab brain chemicals? Lacking any
> actual scientific/medical manifest basis for presuming that there's
> some "unnatural" brain thing purely envisioned as supposedly "causing"
> some certain "type" of "feeling depressed" as somehow supposedly
> different from some other "type" (which there are simply no tests or
> objective calibrations for), then there's really no clear, compelling
> premise there at all.
>
> For instance, entirely different research has found that folks in the
> more affluent societies are generally experiencing less "happiness"
> than other people. Seems we can "measure" such things as "happiness"
> and "depression" and the like about the same, eh? It all comes down to
> what someone tells someone else, and believing just certain things
> about what and how they do things and construing what that might
> "mean," in terms of degree.

That you do not accept pathological definitions seperates your speculation
from any serious consideration.

>
> I appreciate the intent to find some calibration or manifest
> biophysical causation, but that's quite different from ever yet having
> done so. It's just kind of taken on a life of its own, to have
> conceived of being able to do that, despite the consistently failing
> attempts.
>
> > > Which "effect" was being tested?
> >
> > The indicated one; here in Denmark it is indicated for "mild depression"
> > only (and maybe anxiety, not sure). The manufactors of the drug (there
are
> > several) *clearly* state in their ads (it's classified in a way so they
can
> > make ads) that it does NOTHING for anything else than mild depression.
Which
> > means that their studies apparently showed effect better than placebo,
> > otherwise they would never be allowed to make ads. And now, that
license is
> > probably being withdrawn due to the latest study that show no effect at
all.
> > I really question the method of double blind studies when it comes to
drugs
> > that are so elusive.
>
> The tests done by the drug companies to get their products passed by
> the FDA had to show just two that were "positive" against placebos.
> Most weren't. Overall, the placebos did as well, or better. But they
> eventually got their two. Does that "prove" anything in particular?

So we agree that SJW is no different than SSRI's concerning satisfying
evidence?

Or
> that the fact of their running ads "must mean" that they're true? LOL

Remember, here in DK there are strict rules concerning when you can
advertise for a product that proposes to have medicinal effects.

>
> > > > > > Where would you locate it, then=
> > > > >
> > > > > "It"? "Locate"? What are you assuming?
> > > >
> > > > The disorder. If it isn't a brain disorder, what kind of disorder is
it?
> > >
> > > You seem to be devotedly assuming that there even is a distinct
> > > "disorder"... which no one can find or "locate" in reality. Why? It's
a
> > > mere concept and verbal term, which continues to be essentially
> > > unsubstantiated despite decades of concerted efforts by many to
> > > establish it as being any more than that.

It is simply pathological descriptions. You dont have to believe in them -
they are merely a tool for suggesting forms of treatment.

And you never answereed the question about the location of a psychological
disorder if it wasn't a "brain" disorder.

> >
> > Yes, apparently so. We do need a pathological categorisation in order to
do
> > the best for the patients.
>
> If we want to just guess or assume there is any basis for doing so.
>
> > It's no problem to me that we call "extremely bad
> > feelings persisting for a number of monts" depression. But btw, there
are
> > distinct differences between "feeling bad" and true "depression" - back
to
> > the formal list of criteria...crude, but apparently effective during
> > diagnosis.
>
> Not necessarily so distinct at all. Which, if there is any "problem" in
> all this, very well might be the problem. Along with all the more
> distinct problems with the surprisingly unsubstantiated so-called
> "solutions" to the can't-be-found problem otherwise.

Again, your lack of belief in pathological definitions results in your
arguments being purely speculative.

>
> > > Consumers are sharing and even selling them to one another. Is that
> > > illegal for people to do, if they don't have the proper business
> > > license?
> >
> > I guess so, but why in the world would they do that? Anyone can go to
their
> > doctor and get some...if they inclined to lie a little. And SSRIs have
no
> > euphoric effects at all.
>
> 1. You get officially identified as "mentally ill" and, often, are
> required to get your insurance involved, if not others too.

Not in Denmark. Only in America....

>
> 2. It costs a lot more to pay shrinks and docs and pharmacists, than
> just folks and other users.

Not in Denmark. Only in America.

>
> > > > > For "construing" or presuming some "thing" as that. Which remains
> > > > > otherwise entirely unproven, medically or biophsyiologically.
> >
> > correct, but apparently, it can differentiate bt people who need
medication
> > and those who don't.
>
> That remains especially unclear.

Well, in the real world, that is how it is used.

>
> > > > You don't believe in depressions? Or pathology in general? What you
call
> > > > them, then - "bad feelings"?
> > >
> > > Bad (or even unliked) feelings sure fits the bill, in general. To
> > > "believe in" something as nebulous as "depression" being some one,
> > > certain, distinct "thing" -- or, more so, supposedly some unfindable
> > > physical brain malfunction -- is a very distinct, specialized belief.
> > > And apparently, one that remains elusive despite a great deal of
> > > concerted effort to demonstrate otherwise.
> >
> > Well, as I said, you can't just dismiss them just because double blind
> > studies do not show any effect.
>
> Sure I can. At least as much as doping people up on the other strong
> psychiadrugs, because lots of folks don't know what else to do with
> them (or care enough to). For instance, it's been shown to "work" to
> "treat" schizophrenia without the strong, harmful drugs that are
> routinely forced on them. But it takes time, attention and effort
> actually involved with them.

And even with this time and effort, the results are completely
unpredictable. Try talking a psychotic patient from sharing his beliefs
through violence that he is the master of the universe. Good luck.

>
> It's a bit like alcoholics, maybe. There are plenty of them rotting on
> the streets simply because all the caring, compassionate, concerned
> people just don't really care enough to do much about that, in fact.

These are statements more appropriately aimed at US conditions than my
country's.
>
> But there are plenty of pricey sobering up resorts, insurance-billable
> therapies and even commercial drugs for it. Shrinks, therapists,
> doctors and "addictionologists" are happy to sell you some mix of that.
> Does "it work"? Who cares? Try it. Then try something else. Or do your
> personally responsible, extensive rigorous research in order to find
> just the Right Solution for Only Yourself, in order to then "get help".
> Whatever that might be.
>
> Or buy some brain drugs, since someone believes that alcoholism

alcoholism has a variety of reasons to appear.

>is "really" caused by "self medicating depression"

"self medicating depression"????

which someone else
> believes is "really" a result of "epileptic damage" which someone else
> probably believes is "really" something else.

You're speculatomg, and constructing false trains of consequences out of
important issues.

>
> Meanwhile, if not liking how you feel, there's all kinds of drugs to be
> taken. Try 'em, you might like 'em, despite some pretty bothersome drug
> effects, at the same time.
>
> > > Do we "believe" that "happiness" is just a certain, highly specific,
> > > targetable mere brain switch? Or "pleasure"? I see no more compelling
> > > reason to merely believe that "depression," aside from being a rather
> > > general and global word referring to apparently a wide array of
> > > feelings, is any more distinct or specific. Much less have I found any
> > > convincing basis for the notion that it's "caused" by some "wrongness"
> > > in the brain. If anything, it seems all the more obvious that the
> > > feelings "cause" certain brain conditions -- which is what the brain
> > > does and is for.
> >
> > Feelings? I know no other "thing" that is more elusive, subjective and
> > impossible to define properly.
>
> Yet, there's the crux of "depression" -- "feeling depressed."

"Feeling depressed" is not a pathological definition.

>
> > "feelings" belong to the Carthesians in this
> > context. That's why we have strict guidelines concerning pathology.
>
> "Strict guidelines" sounds so scientificy and authoritative, doesn't
> it? Almost as though something real specific is actually known for
> sure. Even though it most certainly is not. That is, according to the
> strict guidelines for science and medicine.

Pathological definitions are useful in diagnosing a patient, no matter if
you feel they "sound" like this or that.

>
> > And if
> > the feelings cause brain conditions, how do they do it? Are they somehow
> > hiding behide your ears, just waiting to change your brain?
>
> You don't seem too concerned at all with "how" drugs "do" what you like
> to believe they do. Why any resistance to what you might not know about
> this? There's scientific, biophysiological evidence, after all. And,
> yes, even theoretical constructs. What more do you want?

Again, does feelings cause diseases, and if so, how?

>
> > I see the problem now; you are a Carthesian. You believe in Plato's
dualism;
> > then of course "feelings" float around, invisibly, and suddenly are
called
> > into action when something happens.
> > Or what? ;)
>
> My how you see so far beyond what I say to what you project I believe
> in.

Well, if you talk about "feelings", which are platonic ideas, causing brain
disorders, you have put yourself in this exact category. It has nothing to
do with projecting or seeing "far beyond" what you say (again, a Cartesian
construct)


> > (nothing you say "bother" me - I think this thread is very entertaining
and
> > informative)
>
> You really need a good talking to by GaryE.

Who's he?

>
> > I agree that we have no final scientific evidence that they work.
>
> Well, we've got that much mutually going.

Again, only because you insist on hardcore criteria that are easy to denand.

>
> > > > > > > However, most "depressions"
> > > >
> > > > So they DO exist?
> > >
> > > Descriptive terms? Yes.

How 'bout pathological descriptive terms? Same thing?
> >
> > What do they describe exactly?
>
> Evaluative concepts. From especially ambiguous, to highly detailed.

Used fòr?

>
> > > > I really distrust that research. How many people were involved? Who
made
> > it?
> > > > Where? How?
> > > > (the answers are not necessary; that specific research had to be
faulty
> > > > somehow. Depression DO NOT usually dissappear after a few weeks.)
> > >
> > > LOL. Talk about mere, unsubstantiated belief, despite facts of the
> > > matter. Well, if you're religious about your unscientific, nonmedical
> > > beliefs, no wonder it's fruitless to pretend any such discussion or
> > > examination of the matter in those terms.
> >
> > Again, for me, experience precedes and is superior to theory. And
experience
> > leaves no doubt that depression does indeed not have set limits for how
long
> > they last.
>
> That's why numbers of people's experience are measured. That's a
> science thing.

Entertaining. However, real life people, those who walk the walks in
psychiatric hospitals or anywhere else, have no set limits as to how long a
depression can last.


>
> > > You're perfectly welcome to your religious beliefs, as far as I'm
> > > concerned.
> >
> > Religion relies on some kind of higher power, usually a deity of some
kind.
> > Not SSRI's ;)
>
> Religious belief does not necessarily rely on a deity of some kind.

Well, yes it does. Otherwise you're simply talking about the supernatural.

> However, regarding drugs as a "higher power" can certainly qualify as a
> religious devotion to the notion.

Not according to the definition of the word "religion".

Since there's no scientific nor
> medical substantiation to base the belief upon.
>
> > >I've arrived at my outlooks as a result of information from a great
> > >deal of experience in the topics, including many others' as well, which
> > >I readily credit.
> >
> > Meaning, you have no experience in the fray yourself at all.
>
> Not necessarily. You presume.

At least I have the guts to admit that I have no true experience.
You just fire off your usual ambigous see-right-through-it crap. ;)

>
> > Just making sure.
>
> Trying to, just so, apparently.
>
> > I, too, of course have no true experience, but I do have the benefit
> > of being supported by the majority of the psychiatric community...
>
> If you'd like to regard that as "a benefit."
>
> > , and the
> > experience of my father, whose work I have followed closely. (I know
that
> > doesn't count in your book, but if you haven't seen medicating, its
> > methodology and the results in close range over a period of time, it's
hard
> > to see the truth-value in your extremely theoretical musings. You seem
> > almost fanatical at times- even though I understand your points
completely,
> > and we agree on almost everything, you only have theory, and the real
world
> > just works differently. Why? I dont know!)
>
> Folks take various drugs for various reasons and certain subjective
> feelings change, along with some physical effects, even if not the
> intended ones. With effects they both like, and effects they don't
> like, as far as anyone can yet tell. There's reality. No one really
> knows or demonstrably understands, scientifically/medically, just why
> about a lot of that and, so far, folks' favored pet theories beyond
> that just haven't panned out too much, despite a great deal of effort
> for years and years to do just that.

So again, you key word is "theory".

>
> Other people, with apparently the same interests and "problem," take
> sugar pills and turn to other non-drug, non-medical options and do as
> well, or better. For some reason.

Good for them. I hope they don't experience relapse too soon - it could mean
a big blow to their ego.

>
> I leave it at that. You believe quite more about it anyway.

I think we rank just about the same in how much we believe in and what we
"know".

[blackout]

> > (chronic does mean permanent, right?)
>
> Obviously wrong.

My bad. Thought chronic meant permanent.

[Robert McGregor]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GmD9b.72733$Kb2.3416202@news010.worldonline.d k...
>
>
> > > (chronic does mean permanent, right?)
> >
> > Obviously wrong.
>
> My bad. Thought chronic meant permanent.
>
>

These links may help you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=chronic

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

[blackout]

"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:bk7086$pkdkl$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:GmD9b.72733$Kb2.3416202@news010.worldonline.d k...
> >
> >
> > > > (chronic does mean permanent, right?)
> > >
> > > Obviously wrong.
> >
> > My bad. Thought chronic meant permanent.
> >
> >
>
> These links may help you.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=chronic
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
>
Awww, come on, my English ain't thaaaat bad, eh? And btw, I do have a
dictionary - sometimes you're just sure what a word means, and sometimes
you're wrong. Are you never wrong, Robert?

[Robert McGregor]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VHD9b.72748$Kb2.3415886@news010.worldonline.d k...
>
> "Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:bk7086$pkdkl$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:GmD9b.72733$Kb2.3416202@news010.worldonline.d k...
> > >
> > >
> > > > > (chronic does mean permanent, right?)
> > > >
> > > > Obviously wrong.
> > >
> > > My bad. Thought chronic meant permanent.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > These links may help you.
> >
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=chronic
> >
> > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
> >
> Awww, come on, my English ain't thaaaat bad, eh? And btw, I do have a
> dictionary - sometimes you're just sure what a word means, and sometimes
> you're wrong. Are you never wrong, Robert?
>
>
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame29.html

[Virtualoso]

In article <1063695367.27215.0@lotis.uk.clara.net>, Ian W wrote:

> > It's true that genuine independent scientific studies on this don't
> > exist......

> Did any of you actually see the Panorama programmes? They were a
> somewhat one sided view of things......
> By the way, Dr Healy ......

The smear diversion response.

Quite aside from reviews of journalistic styling and whatnot, then
there's just the matter of suicides when people are taking the drugs
sold and promoted ostensibly to prevent that.

Somehow folks can easily accept that suicidal people have some kind of
speculated "chemical imbalance" that causes this. Yet, there's this odd
balk when it comes to essentially the same thing regarding folks that
have been far more certainly chemically drugged -- with chemical drugs
that even the manufacturer's publish lists of various physical and
experiential discomforts, including rather intense or serious ones
resulting from ingesting the chemicals.

[Virtualoso]

In article <0Iz9b.72524$Kb2.3412259@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > > > > chronic depression, DOES NOT lift.
> > > > > by definition: "it is always there".
> > >
> > > Well, that IS a fact, otherwise the depression wouldn't be chronic ;)
>
> Interesting study - I just don't see the relevance to this particular post.
> As I see it, the point is that semantically, a *chronic* depression does not
> go away - if it did, it would not be chronic! Or am I missing some obscure
> poiint?

Well, an awful lot of all this stuff mainly comes down to mere
semantics and verbal definitions, doesn't it? I mean, psychiatric
diagnosis itself is mainly "descriptive." And so it's hardly surprising
that the various terms used are reserved for just describing things --
including pure concepts, speculations and guesses. As though they are
referrinng to something distinct and real, even when it's acknowledged
that a concept is purely theoretical and unsubstantiated aside from
that.

As I mentioned in another post, it's probably very difficult to find
anyone that's "always depressed." One might expect that a brain that's
functioning wrong in a way that "is" a depressed state might have them
then in that state and biophysically unable to do otherwise. Except for
any number of these moments when they're not experiencing "depression"
-- often when they've become distracted from it. Seems that their brain
can, indeed, chemically balance itself - and on the fly - after all,
and so apparently not completely broken in that way.

So perhaps the term "chronic depression" defines the inclination of
persons to, instead, create depression by habitually returning to
distracting themselves with doing that. Would some other part of the
brain be responsible for that, given that the feeling mechanism of the
brain is demonstrably able to feel nondepressed?

I saw another interesting tidbit too - it's "unethical" for anyone to
study a longterm depressed person without "treating" them for that. So
I guess it's nigh impossible to include any persons in formal studies
that are "chronicly depressed" in the sense of being that way
untreated. That leaves only studying treated persons longterm,
including those that chronicly depress.

Then there's the item below, finding evidences that it's the treatment
that fortifies and/or produces the chronicness of depression found
while studying it.

There's a special semantic term describing that, too: iatogenic.


> > Can long-term treatment with antidepressant
> > drugs worsen the course of depression?
> > by
> > Fava GA.
> > Department of Psychiatry,
> > State University of New York at Buffalo,
> > Buffalo; and the Affective Disorders Program,
> > Department of Psychology,
> > University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
> > J Clin Psychiatry 2003 Feb;64(2):123-33
> >
> > ABSTRACT
> > BACKGROUND: The possibility that antidepressant drugs, while
> > effectively treating depression, may worsen its course has received
> > inadequate attention.
> >
> > METHOD: A review of the literature suggesting potential depressogenic
> > effects of long-term treatment with antidepressant drugs was performed.
> >
> > RESULTS: A number of reported clinical findings point to the following
> > possibilities: very unfavorable long-term outcome of major depression
> > treated by pharmacologic means, paradoxical (depression-inducing)
> > effects of antidepressant drugs in some patients with mood and anxiety
> > disturbances, antidepressant-induced switching and cycle acceleration
> > in bipolar disorder, occurrence of tolerance to the effects of
> > antidepressants during long-term treatment, onset of resistance upon
> > rechallenge with the same antidepressant drug ... and withdrawal
> > syndromes following discontinuation of mood-elevating drugs.
> >
> > These phenomena ... may be explained on the basis of the oppositional
> > model of tolerance. Continued drug treatment may recruit processes that
> > oppose the initial acute effects of a drug and may result in loss of
> > clinical effect. When drug treatment ends, these processes may operate
> > unopposed, at least for some time, and increase vulnerability to
> > relapse.
>
>

[Virtualoso]

In article <oBB9b.72620$Kb2.3414466@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > "Side Effects
> > Nausea, drowsiness, diarrhea, trouble sleeping, upset stomach, or dry
> > mouth ... vomiting, loss of appetite, unusual or severe mental/mood
> > changes, increased sweating/flushing, unusual fatigue, uncontrolled
> > movements (tremor). ... blurred vision, stomach pain, fever, joint
> > pain, muscle pain, unusually fast heartbeat, decreased interest in sex,
> > changes in sexual ability, change in amount of urine. ... weight
> > changes, taste changes, changes in menstrual period, unusual swelling
> > of the hands/feet/face, seizures, painful and/or prolonged erection."
> >
> > So very safe and harmless. Highly selectively targeted to just those
> > pesky unbalanced brain chemicals that are being "treated" to make you
> > well.
> >
>
> They forgot some *possible* side effects:
> Tendency to sweat a little more than usual, prolonged hair growth, finger
> nails growing, tendency to eat, possible sexual arousement if exposed to
> pornographic material, tendency to have 5 fingers on each hand, possibility
> of getting burnt by hot coffee at McDonalds, Desire to shower every day,
> tendency to have two legs, headache if hit hard over the head with a big
> study of how SSRI's only work through "disruption of normal brain
> functions".
>
> How could they forget these? My god, they are ASKING to be sued!

I suppose you'd have to check their scientific studies establishing
that these are clinical "side effects" of their drugs that ought to be
included in the ones they already claim are.

[Virtualoso]

In article <8%C9b.72712$Kb2.3415203@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > > > > > > Yup. Why? They feel a need to medicate themselves somehow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They apparently feel like drugging themselves. The word "medicate"
> is
> > > > > > unnecessary and inappropriate.
> > >
> > > But their goal *is* to self-medicate. That it is not a very wise
> decision is
> > > another thing. In actually, it is, as you poiint out indrectly,
> substance
> > > abuse.
> >
> > Mere terminological insistance. Sort of like preferring "detrimental"
> > to "deleterious"?
>
> Who disliked the word to start with? Terminological insistance, like you
> just demonstrated?

Is your insertion of the word "disliked" here a terminological
insistance, or would that be better termed a terminological assignment?

> > Enjoying a meal is then "self medicating" since it can be described in
> > neurophsyiological terms, regarding certain involved effects.
>
> Well, it is a wellknown fact that some overweight people self-medicate with
> food....right? ;)

Apparently, everyone self-medicates with all kinds of things.

> > Who said "only"? I've several times acknowledged that they likely do
> > also have the disrupting and disabling effects of normal brain
> > functions, too, that doctors and psychiatrists explain. Otherwise
> > euphemisticly termed "side effects" although we may as well refer to
> > them as main or sole effects, medically, given that no others have been
> > scientifically demonstrated.
>
> But do you agree that you have no studies that show directly that SSRI's
> work through placebo?

Define "work".

> > > Now that I remember it; could you tell me which exact company studies
> you
> > > are referring to......
> >
> > I've cited and quoted a number of them earlier in these threads in the
> > past coupla' days.
> >
> Yes, but some more specific data regarding statements like "the company's
> own studies show that sugar pills are just as good as their drug" would be
> appreciated.

All of their own clinical trials attempting to obtain FDA permission to
sell the stuff.


> > > > Is that "toxicity" simply not specifically "neurotoxic"?
> > >
> > > No, definetely not. The drug is present in the blood, and can have
> effect
> > > anywhere in the body.
> >
> > Even toxically in the neuro?
>
> Are you trying to be funny? Lemme tell ya, you're no Jerry Seinfeld....

Perhaps you're sufffering from the same humor disorder I am.

> > > > Yet, you've been so adamant about this regarding "SSRI's". For some
> > > > reason. Generally, while the SSRI's are credited as not having the
> > > > *same* bothersome or "detrimental" effects as the TRCs, they also have
> > > > *other* ones. And they are, indeed, "as common." Some of them are more
> > > > common and even usual.
> > >
> > > I am talking about comparing Prozac and Celexa. Big difference - Prozac
> > > messes with a number of NTs, while Celexa only messes with 2.
> >
> > Which is still to only tally "NT"s rather than anything else - like
> > "effects".
>
> Well, would you disageee that Prozac as a drug is less advanced molecularly
> than Celexa?

Not until I know what you might mean by "molecularly advanced".


> > > I didn't ask you for a study, I asked you
> >
> > "read your reply to my request of a study"
> >
> > > "Where does it say that patients
> > > are lured into taking more or other drugs and continue to be drugged in
> that
> > > paragraph?" Pretty simple question,eh? Who's squirming now? ;)
> >
> > Where does what say, SquirMeister?
>
> I'll let that admission of fallacy stand on its own, just so everybody can
> see your wonderful arguments.

The wonderfulness of arguments is what really matters, naturally.

> > > And I thought we had agreed that such studies you requested didn't
> exist...
> >
> > Which is apparently why you haven't produced any at all.
>
> Well, watch out for requesting studies, because you're only having an easy
> time at this because side effects are easily identified and recorded for use
> against the poor drug companies.

For some inexplicable reason they are apparently much easier to
identify than the promoted basis for the drugs being sold. But part of
what makes quite some number of side effects so easily identified is
that the drug makers also identify and record them.

> > We established that there are no studies showing conclusively that
> > SSRI's do anything specific, biophysiologically, that establishes a
> > manifest, demonstrable substantiation for the theories promoted for
> > that. Now we arrive at there are no studies confirming the basis for
> > folks commonly being giving series of different ones, either?
> >
> Well, if we had the final study showing physiological evidence of the
> benevolent effects of SSRI's, there would be no problem in producing a study
> showing that different SSRI's have different benevolent effect.

More "what if" and "let's suppose" conjecture. The very premise for the
drugs.

> But, alas, we both know that you are taking the easy way out by requesting
> the impossible.

Easy way out of what?


> > > > > But they are not permanent. .......and you know that showing
> physical side effects is a lot easier than showing the physiological
> evidence that serotonin inhibitors have a supressive effect on certain
> diseases.
> >
> > Reportedly, scientists see enough evidence to be pondering that.
>
> You mean, just like scientists see enough evidence that SSRI's actually
> work?

"Work" being just what, scientifically, aside from placebo effect?

> > > *You* shouldn't believe it - there are very few studies showing that
> > > cognitive therapy can "cure" (I forgot that was the wrong word;
> SUPPRESS)
> > > anything serious. And the existing ones are highly dubious.
> >
> > How many studies do you suppose it takes, in order to just believe
> > something?
>
> Maybe the same amount that SSRI's have to be succesful to pass the tests and
> come on the market?

SSRI's have to almost do as well as placebos to succeed at being
allowed to be sold.

> > Fair enough, you don't really understand it.
>
> Just like you do not *understand* what epileptic damage is. Nevertheless,
> can we agree that such a thing exists?

Different topic. I said I can accept that it might. So far, neither you
nor I quite know what we're referring to as "epileptic damage" yet.

> > > > > We don't know how they work. True. But experience tells us they do.
> > > >
> > > > The best we do know is that they work as placebos, at least in terms
> of
> > > > scientifically determining what "work" means. Unfortunately, they are
> > > > also seriously detrimental placebos.
>
> I think your placebo-theory has reached its end as a useful way of
> explaining why SSRI's work...

That's not my theory, but I can understand why you keep trying to
terminologically insist so.

> > >... I understand your points completely,
> > > and we agree on almost everything, you only have theory, and the real
> > > world just works differently. Why? I dont know!)
> >
> > Folks take various drugs for various reasons and certain subjective
> > feelings change, along with some physical effects, even if not the
> > intended ones. With effects they both like, and effects they don't
> > like, as far as anyone can yet tell. There's reality. No one really
> > knows or demonstrably understands, scientifically/medically, just why
> > about a lot of that and, so far, folks' favored pet theories beyond
> > that just haven't panned out too much, despite a great deal of effort
> > for years and years to do just that.
>
> So again, you key word is "theory".
>
> > Other people, with apparently the same interests and "problem," take
> > sugar pills and turn to other non-drug, non-medical options and do as
> > well, or better. For some reason.
>
> Good for them. I hope they don't experience relapse too soon - it could mean
> a big blow to their ego.

What's ego got to do with it? Besides, there's evidence that the drugs
cause vulnerability to relapse, as well as causing depression.

> > I leave it at that. You believe quite more about it anyway.
>
> I think we rank just about the same in how much we believe in and what we
> "know".

I'm sure you believe so.

[Ian W]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:160920030644130158%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <1063695367.27215.0@lotis.uk.clara.net>, Ian W wrote:
>

>
> Quite aside from reviews of journalistic styling and whatnot, then
> there's just the matter of suicides when people are taking the drugs
> sold and promoted ostensibly to prevent that.
>
> Somehow folks can easily accept that suicidal people have some kind
of
> speculated "chemical imbalance" that causes this. Yet, there's this
odd
> balk when it comes to essentially the same thing regarding folks
that
> have been far more certainly chemically drugged -- with chemical
drugs
> that even the manufacturer's publish lists of various physical and
> experiential discomforts, including rather intense or serious ones
> resulting from ingesting the chemicals.

Well, Dr Arif Khan, who you seem to quote at every opportunity when it
suits your purposes,
would appear not to agree with you on this:

(Amer. J. Psychology, April 2003)

"METHOD: Food and Drug Administration (FDA) summary reports of the
controlled clinical trials for nine modern FDA-approved
antidepressants provided data for comparing rates of suicide. RESULTS:
Of 48,277 depressed patients participating in the trials, 77 committed
suicide. Based on patient exposure years, similar suicide rates were
seen among those randomly assigned to an SSRI (0.59%, 95% confidence
interval [CI]=0.31%-0.87%), a standard comparison antidepressant
(0.76%, 95% CI=0.49%-1.03%), or placebo (0.45%, 95% CI=0.01%-0.89%).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings fail to support either an overall
difference in suicide risk between antidepressant- and placebo-treated
depressed subjects in controlled trials or a difference between SSRIs
and either other types of antidepressants or placebo.

[Blue Moon]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:33:52 -0500, "rosie readandpost"
<readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:

>prozac, out of fashion?

Certainly. It still gets prescribed, nobody's claiming otherwise.
But it's certainly gone out of fashion.... it is no longer the medical
profession's "drug of choice".

--
Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:30:18 +0200, "blackout"
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

>(chronic does mean permanent, right?)

No.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=chronic

--
Blue Moon

[blackout]

Hey Virtualoso!

Did you send me an email? It came, but it was nothing but a message about
how I couldn't receive it....very weird, possibly a virus? You'd better
check it. Otherwise, send me the mail again! ;)

Here is the thing I received:

The original message was received at Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:46:23 +0200 (CEST)
from [62.79.107.117]

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<virtualoso@dot.com>
(reason: 550 <virtualoso@dot.com>... Relaying denied. Please check your
mail first.)

----- Transcript of session follows -----
.... while talking to dot.com.:
>>> RCPT To:<virtualoso@dot.com>
<<< 550 <virtualoso@dot.com>... Relaying denied. Please check your mail
first.
550 5.1.1 <virtualoso@dot.com>... User unknown





"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:120920031856047482%virtualoso@dot.com...
>
> [excerpted from a newspaper columnist]
>
> "Two things led to today's column. First, I was watching the news on TV
> the other night and couldn't help but notice that every other
> commercial was for some drug that, aside from a host of nasty side
> effects, was something I just had to ask my doctor about right away."
>
> "Second, I received here at the paper a big, fancy package from
> pharmaceutical giant Pfizer ... explaining why direct-to-consumer, or
> DTC, advertising is a vital component of modern health care."
>
> "The timing of Pfizer's outreach isn't arbitrary. The Food and Drug
> Administration plans to hold hearings this month on DTC ads and their
> impact on consumers. The agency has warned that existing rules may be
> rewritten."
>
> "At issue is whether such ads mislead consumers into seeking
> unnecessary and often expensive treatments, and whether pushing
> prescription drugs on TV and in print drives up health-care costs."
>
> "...we need to make sure that consumers aren't being misled or deceived
> by promotional activity that violates the law," FDA Commissioner Mark
> McClellan said in a speech last month."
>
> "DTC ades have been especially effective, I think, in conveying the
> message that conditions like depression and anxiety are more common
> than people think and are treatable disorders."
>
> "What concerns me - and, not incidentally, the FDA - is the fact that
> these ads aren't just public service spots. They're selling a product."
>
> "The New England Journal of Medicine published a study on DTC drug
> advertising last year in which it noted that 'demand by patients is the
> most common reason offered by physicians for inappropriate
> prescribing.'"
>
> "In other words, a patient will insist on that purple pill he saw on
> TV, and no amount of explaining about alternative treatments will
> change that person's mind."
>
> "The Journal also observed that DTC ads increase doctor's workloads 'by
> requiring them to help patients interpret the information presented by
> advertisers.'"
>
> "Meanwhile, the Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park released a study
> this summer showing that DTC drug ads are having a substantial impact
> on consumers' wallets."
>
> "Spending on prescription drugs climbed by a $2.6 billion as a result
> of DTC advertising, the study found. That may be a drop in the bucket
> compared with almost $141 billion spent overall on prescription drugs,
> but that's $2.6 billion that could have gone to other uses."
>
> "Moreover, the Kaiser study determined that DTC ads have a clear impact
> on drug companies' bottom lines. For every dollar spent by the industry
> on DTC ads, it found, drug manufacturers reaped an additional $4.20 in
> sales."
>
> "That's a pretty good return," said Janet Lundy, senior program officer
> at the foundation.
>
> "When the FDA hears testimony on this subject Sept. 22 and 23,
> hopefully someone will suggest that the DTC ads be refocused so that
> greater emphasis is placed on information about medical conditions and
> less prominence is given to the hawking of specific drugs."
>
> "Ultimately," said Lundy at the Kaiser Family foundation, "we have to
> ask if this is the best thing for the patient."
>
>
> -----------
> "The benefits of psychiatric drugs are vastly exaggerated, their
> disadvantages are too often minimized, and there is far too little
> information about how to *stop* taking them."
>
> "In recent years, the virtues of psychiatric drugs have been widely
> extolled, but an informed decision can be made only when people also
> have access to both a more critical view of drugs and a frank analysis
> of their hazards. The law also supports the right of people to be fully
> informed about potential hazards before agreeing to a doctor's
> recommendation for a drug."
>
> "Do not let anyone pressure you into starting or continuing psychiatric
> drugs. As a competent adult, you have ethical and legal right ... to be
> completely informed in advance about the dangers of any psychiatric
> drug, including its withdrawal effects."
>
> "No matter how many doctors favor one or another psychiatric drug, you
> can and should decide for yourself. Your decisions about taking or
> rejecting drugs need to be made without coercive pressure from doctors
> and in the absence of exaggeration, misinformation, and deception."
>
> "Even if you and your doctor don't realize it, the psychiatric drugs
> that you are taking could be causing you serious mental, emotional, or
> physical harm. Your doctor may fail to appreciate that some of your
> problems are being caused by the prescribed medication and, instead,
> mistakenly increase your dose or add another drug to your regimen. This
> prescription cycle - a common occurance - could expose you to increased
> risks of adverse drug effects."
>
> " When you reduce or skip your medication, you may experience painful
> emotional or physical reactions as the effects of your drug wear off.
> This is due to drug withdrawal between doses. But if you don't realize
> that you are undergoing interdose withdrawal, you may wrongly assume
> that you will *always* feel that uncomfortable if you stop the
> medication. Similarly, your doctor may mistakenly insist that your
> discomfort is proof that you need to take *more* of the drug or
> additional drugs to control your discomfort."
>
> "The reader may assume that these negative reactions to psychiatric
> drugs are rare, but, in reality, they are quite common. Moreover, the
> harm they cause often goes unrecognized or is attributed to something
> other than the medications."
>
> "In fact, stopping is often the only way to discover that psychiatric
> drugs have been the source of your persistent symptoms."
>
> Dr. P. Breggin & Dr. D. Cohen

[blackout]

> > > > > > > > Yup. Why? They feel a need to medicate themselves somehow.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > They apparently feel like drugging themselves. The word
"medicate"
> > is
> > > > > > > unnecessary and inappropriate.
> > > >
> > > > But their goal *is* to self-medicate. That it is not a very wise
> > decision is
> > > > another thing. In actually, it is, as you poiint out indrectly,
> > substance
> > > > abuse.
> > >
> > > Mere terminological insistance. Sort of like preferring "detrimental"
> > > to "deleterious"?

I do not prefer one or the other, it is simply a question of me following
your tight rethorics and terminology. I don't want to miss a thing.

> >
> > Who disliked the word to start with? Terminological insistance, like you
> > just demonstrated?
>
> Is your insertion of the word "disliked" here a terminological
> insistance, or would that be better termed a terminological assignment?

The point being that you insisted on not using a certain termi even though
"self medicating" was perfectly fine in the context.

>
> > > Enjoying a meal is then "self medicating" since it can be described in
> > > neurophsyiological terms, regarding certain involved effects.
> >
> > Well, it is a wellknown fact that some overweight people self-medicate
with
> > food....right? ;)
>
> Apparently, everyone self-medicates with all kinds of things.

Well, I take your word for it, if you so please.

>
> > > Who said "only"? I've several times acknowledged that they likely do
> > > also have the disrupting and disabling effects of normal brain
> > > functions, too, that doctors and psychiatrists explain. Otherwise
> > > euphemisticly termed "side effects" although we may as well refer to
> > > them as main or sole effects, medically, given that no others have
been
> > > scientifically demonstrated.
> >
> > But do you agree that you have no studies that show directly that SSRI's
> > work through placebo?
>
> Define "work".

"Work", as in suppressing symptoms of psychiatric disorders.

>
> > > > Now that I remember it; could you tell me which exact company
studies
> > you
> > > > are referring to......
> > >
> > > I've cited and quoted a number of them earlier in these threads in the
> > > past coupla' days.
> > >
> > Yes, but some more specific data regarding statements like "the
company's
> > own studies show that sugar pills are just as good as their drug" would
be
> > appreciated.
>
> All of their own clinical trials attempting to obtain FDA permission to
> sell the stuff.

Is it me, or does that sentence make no sense grammatically? I don't see the
direct link to the request above. What I meant was if you could give us
company names when you mention studies, drugs, special circumstances, etc,

>
>
> > > > > Is that "toxicity" simply not specifically "neurotoxic"?
> > > >
> > > > No, definetely not. The drug is present in the blood, and can have
> > effect
> > > > anywhere in the body.
> > >
> > > Even toxically in the neuro?
> >
> > Are you trying to be funny? Lemme tell ya, you're no Jerry Seinfeld....
>
> Perhaps you're sufffering from the same humor disorder I am.

Well, your reply to my post about the missing side effects for Ciipramil was
so dry and conceited that I suspect that your disorder is lack of interest
in humor by consensus....so maybe you are right about us having the same
humor disorder.

>
> > > > > Yet, you've been so adamant about this regarding "SSRI's". For
some
> > > > > reason. Generally, while the SSRI's are credited as not having the
> > > > > *same* bothersome or "detrimental" effects as the TRCs, they also
have
> > > > > *other* ones. And they are, indeed, "as common." Some of them are
more
> > > > > common and even usual.
> > > >
> > > > I am talking about comparing Prozac and Celexa. Big difference -
Prozac
> > > > messes with a number of NTs, while Celexa only messes with 2.
> > >
> > > Which is still to only tally "NT"s rather than anything else - like
> > > "effects".
> >
> > Well, would you disageee that Prozac as a drug is less advanced
molecularly
> > than Celexa?
>
> Not until I know what you might mean by "molecularly advanced".

Let me put it simpler; do you agree that Celexa has fewer side effects than
for exampe the tricyclics or even Prozac?
>
>
> > > > I didn't ask you for a study, I asked you
> > > "read your reply to my request of a study"
> > >
> > > > "Where does it say that patients
> > > > are lured into taking more or other drugs and continue to be drugged
in
> > that
> > > > paragraph?" Pretty simple question,eh? Who's squirming now? ;)
> > >
> > > Where does what say, SquirMeister?
> >
> > I'll let that admission of fallacy stand on its own, just so everybody
can
> > see your wonderful arguments.
>
> The wonderfulness of arguments is what really matters, naturally.

Absolutely. I admire your masterful skills of avoiding danger zones and
knowing when to change the subject.

>
> > > > And I thought we had agreed that such studies you requested didn't
> > exist...
> > >
> > > Which is apparently why you haven't produced any at all.

Well, that statement was a bit superfluous, eh?

> >
> > Well, watch out for requesting studies, because you're only having an
easy
> > time at this because side effects are easily identified and recorded for
use
> > against the poor drug companies.
>
> For some inexplicable reason they are apparently much easier to
> identify than the promoted basis for the drugs being sold.

It is in no way inexplicable. Side effects usually manifest themselves
phsysically and are categorized by researchers easily. ´The alleged side
effects also rely completely on the subjective view of the persons in the
trial, which is not entirely satisfactory.

But part of
> what makes quite some number of side effects so easily identified is
> that the drug makers also identify and record them.

Yes, to their credit.
>
> > > We established that there are no studies showing conclusively that
> > > SSRI's do anything specific, biophysiologically, that establishes a
> > > manifest, demonstrable substantiation for the theories promoted for
> > > that. Now we arrive at there are no studies confirming the basis for
> > > folks commonly being giving series of different ones, either?
> > >
> > Well, if we had the final study showing physiological evidence of the
> > benevolent effects of SSRI's, there would be no problem in producing a
study
> > showing that different SSRI's have different benevolent effect.
>
> More "what if" and "let's suppose" conjecture. The very premise for the
> drugs.

Yes, see: "But, alas, we both know that you are taking the easy way out by
requesting
> > the impossible."
>
> Easy way out of what?

The discussion of whether SSRI's have any place in the medical world.

>
>
> > > > > > But they are not permanent. .......and you know that showing
> > physical side effects is a lot easier than showing the physiological
> > evidence that serotonin inhibitors have a supressive effect on certain
> > diseases.
> > >
> > > Reportedly, scientists see enough evidence to be pondering that.
> >
> > You mean, just like scientists see enough evidence that SSRI's actually
> > work?
>
> "Work" being just what, scientifically, aside from placebo effect?

Again; "work", as in supressing symptoms of mental disorders.
>
> > > > *You* shouldn't believe it - there are very few studies showing that
> > > > cognitive therapy can "cure" (I forgot that was the wrong word;
> > SUPPRESS)
> > > > anything serious. And the existing ones are highly dubious.
> > >
> > > How many studies do you suppose it takes, in order to just believe
> > > something?
> >
> > Maybe the same amount that SSRI's have to be succesful to pass the tests
and
> > come on the market?
>
> SSRI's have to almost do as well as placebos to succeed at being
> allowed to be sold.
>
> > > Fair enough, you don't really understand it.
> >
> > Just like you do not *understand* what epileptic damage is.
Nevertheless,
> > can we agree that such a thing exists?
>
> Different topic. I said I can accept that it might. So far, neither you
> nor I quite know what we're referring to as "epileptic damage" yet.

Welll, we can say that they are neural damages in the frontal lopes, and
cause a range of detrimental effects at seemingly arbitrary intervals.

>
> > > > > > We don't know how they work. True. But experience tells us they
do.
> > > > >
> > > > > The best we do know is that they work as placebos, at least in
terms
> > of
> > > > > scientifically determining what "work" means. Unfortunately, they
are
> > > > > also seriously detrimental placebos.
> >
> > I think your placebo-theory has reached its end as a useful way of
> > explaining why SSRI's work...
>
> That's not my theory, but I can understand why you keep trying to
> terminologically insist so.

Well, in the beginning of the thread, it was a big part of your argument
against SSRI's, as far as I recall.

>
> > > >... I understand your points completely,
> > > > and we agree on almost everything, you only have theory, and the
real
> > > > world just works differently. Why? I dont know!)
> > >
> > > Folks take various drugs for various reasons and certain subjective
> > > feelings change, along with some physical effects, even if not the
> > > intended ones. With effects they both like, and effects they don't
> > > like, as far as anyone can yet tell. There's reality. No one really
> > > knows or demonstrably understands, scientifically/medically, just why
> > > about a lot of that and, so far, folks' favored pet theories beyond
> > > that just haven't panned out too much, despite a great deal of effort
> > > for years and years to do just that.
> >
> > So again, you key word is "theory".
> >
> > > Other people, with apparently the same interests and "problem," take
> > > sugar pills and turn to other non-drug, non-medical options and do as
> > > well, or better. For some reason.
> >
> > Good for them. I hope they don't experience relapse too soon - it could
mean
> > a big blow to their ego.
>
> What's ego got to do with it? Besides, there's evidence that the drugs
> cause vulnerability to relapse, as well as causing depression.

I think that since a side effect of ssri's is to lower the threshold for
epileptic attacks, it is more likely that this could be supporting the
theory of mental disorders being epileptic in their nature.

>
> > > I leave it at that. You believe quite more about it anyway.
> >
> > I think we rank just about the same in how much we believe in and what
we
> > "know".
>
> I'm sure you believe so.

I can assure you that I do.

[Virtualoso]

In article <1063723264.17752.0@despina.uk.clara.net>, Ian W wrote:

> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:160920030644130158%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > In article <1063695367.27215.0@lotis.uk.clara.net>, Ian W wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Quite aside from reviews of journalistic styling and whatnot, then
> > there's just the matter of suicides when people are taking the drugs
> > sold and promoted ostensibly to prevent that.
> >
> > Somehow folks can easily accept that suicidal people have some kind
> of
> > speculated "chemical imbalance" that causes this. Yet, there's this
> odd
> > balk when it comes to essentially the same thing regarding folks
> that
> > have been far more certainly chemically drugged -- with chemical
> drugs
> > that even the manufacturer's publish lists of various physical and
> > experiential discomforts, including rather intense or serious ones
> > resulting from ingesting the chemicals.
>
> Well, Dr Arif Khan, who you seem to quote at every opportunity when it
> suits your purposes....

Is that what you're doing by quoting him here?

> (Amer. J. Psychology, April 2003)
>
> "METHOD: Food and Drug Administration (FDA) summary reports of the
> controlled clinical trials for nine modern FDA-approved
> antidepressants provided data for comparing rates of suicide. ...

FDA summary reports. What are those, from what sources? You mean only
the info submitted only by the drug makers and only for the purpose of
getting the FDA to allow them to sell the stuff?

> CONCLUSIONS: These findings fail to support either an overall
> difference in suicide risk between antidepressant- and placebo-treated
> depressed subjects in controlled trials or a difference between SSRIs
> and either other types of antidepressants or placebo.

Well, that pretty much would confirm that the drugs don't appreciably
"prevent" any particular suicides at all -- which is often the bottom
line, most emotional advocacy for them, among pro-drug supporters.

Now, if we'd like to add this info to the non-drug company promo pitch
version, then we begin to see that the drugged folks are actually
having more problems with suicide, too. And that the drug companies
just didn't happen to include that info with the stuff they send the
FDA. For some reason.

[Virtualoso]

In article <lpG9b.72794$Kb2.3422013@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hey Virtualoso!
>
> Did you send me an email? It came, but it was nothing but a message about
> how I couldn't receive it....very weird, possibly a virus? You'd better
> check it. Otherwise, send me the mail again! ;)
>
> Here is the thing I received:
>
> The original message was received at Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:46:23 +0200 (CEST)
> from [62.79.107.117]
>
> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
> <virtualoso@dot.com>
> (reason: 550 <virtualoso@dot.com>... Relaying denied. Please check your
> mail first.)
>
> ----- Transcript of session follows -----
> ... while talking to dot.com.:
> >>> RCPT To:<virtualoso@dot.com>
> <<< 550 <virtualoso@dot.com>... Relaying denied. Please check your mail
> first.
> 550 5.1.1 <virtualoso@dot.com>... User unknown

Actually, that looks like you have a virus. It appears like a message
you'd receive if you'd tried to send me an email and it bounced back to
you.

[Virtualoso]

In article <YVK9b.72926$Kb2.3441983@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > Yup. Why? They feel a need to medicate themselves somehow.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > They apparently feel like drugging themselves. The word
> "medicate"
> > > is
> > > > > > > > unnecessary and inappropriate.
> > > > >
> > > > > But their goal *is* to self-medicate. That it is not a very wise
> > > decision is
> > > > > another thing. In actually, it is, as you poiint out indrectly,
> > > substance
> > > > > abuse.
> > > >
> > > > Mere terminological insistance. Sort of like preferring "detrimental"
> > > > to "deleterious"?
>
> I do not prefer one or the other, it is simply a question of me following
> your tight rethorics and terminology. I don't want to miss a thing.
>
> > >
> > > Who disliked the word to start with? Terminological insistance, like you
> > > just demonstrated?
> >
> > Is your insertion of the word "disliked" here a terminological
> > insistance, or would that be better termed a terminological assignment?
>
> The point being that you insisted on not using a certain termi even though
> "self medicating" was perfectly fine in the context.

No, this is the pivot of disagreement between us. The very term "self
medicate" is oozing presumptions, especially given that there's really
no such thing as "medication" for "depression" since it's not yet been
scientifically/medically established what either might be. They're
"self drugging" or getting "doctor drugged."

> > > > Enjoying a meal is then "self medicating" since it can be described in
> > > > neurophsyiological terms, regarding certain involved effects.
> > >
> > > Well, it is a wellknown fact that some overweight people self-medicate
> with
> > > food....right? ;)
> >
> > Apparently, everyone self-medicates with all kinds of things.
>
> Well, I take your word for it, if you so please.

LOL.

> > > > Who said "only"? I've several times acknowledged that they likely do
> > > > also have the disrupting and disabling effects of normal brain
> > > > functions, too, that doctors and psychiatrists explain. Otherwise
> > > > euphemisticly termed "side effects" although we may as well refer to
> > > > them as main or sole effects, medically, given that no others have
> been
> > > > scientifically demonstrated.
> > >
> > > But do you agree that you have no studies that show directly that SSRI's
> > > work through placebo?
> >
> > Define "work".
>
> "Work", as in suppressing symptoms of psychiatric disorders.

Maybe if anyone can ever actually establish what those are. Until then,
apparently they "work" almost as well as placebos.

> > > Yes, but some more specific data regarding statements like "the
> company's
> > > own studies show that sugar pills are just as good as their drug" would
> be
> > > appreciated.
> >
> > All of their own clinical trials attempting to obtain FDA permission to
> > sell the stuff.
>
> Is it me, or does that sentence make no sense grammatically? I don't see the
> direct link to the request above. What I meant was if you could give us
> company names when you mention studies, drugs, special circumstances, etc,

I have. Others complain that it's too much info. Just can't please
everyone, eh?

> > > Well, would you disageee that Prozac as a drug is less advanced
> molecularly
> > > than Celexa?
> >
> > Not until I know what you might mean by "molecularly advanced".
>
> Let me put it simpler; do you agree that Celexa has fewer side effects than
> for exampe the tricyclics or even Prozac?

Not necessarily, since it remains rather unclear what "side effects"
might actually be and what the "main effects" are, if not the "side
effects". I'm ready to accept that these different drugs do have
different mixes of effects, sure, although most of them all seem to
amount to bothersome ones with, at best, a "placebo boosting" effect
collectively.

> > > I'll let that admission of fallacy stand on its own, just so everybody
> can
> > > see your wonderful arguments.
> >
> > The wonderfulness of arguments is what really matters, naturally.
>
> Absolutely. I admire your masterful skills of avoiding danger zones and
> knowing when to change the subject.

Danger? ooOOOOooo LOL

> Well, that statement was a bit superfluous, eh?

How many do ya' suppose we can string together here? But, does that
take chits away from wonderfulness?

> > > Well, watch out for requesting studies, because you're only having an
> easy
> > > time at this because side effects are easily identified and recorded for
> use
> > > against the poor drug companies.
> >
> > For some inexplicable reason they are apparently much easier to
> > identify than the promoted basis for the drugs being sold.
>
> It is in no way inexplicable. Side effects usually manifest themselves
> phsysically and are categorized by researchers easily. ´The alleged side
> effects also rely completely on the subjective view of the persons in the
> trial, which is not entirely satisfactory.

So far: "side effects" are pulling way ahead of the pack, on all those
counts, compared to the chimerical "main effects" imagined.

> But part of
> > what makes quite some number of side effects so easily identified is
> > that the drug makers also identify and record them.
>
> Yes, to their credit.

Now if only they'd more openly admit all of them that they've known
about.

> > Easy way out of what?
>
> The discussion of whether SSRI's have any place in the medical world.


Who's discussing that? Did you want to change the topic?

> > > You mean, just like scientists see enough evidence that SSRI's actually
> > > work?
> >
> > "Work" being just what, scientifically, aside from placebo effect?
>
> Again; "work", as in supressing symptoms of mental disorders.

And, again, apparently they "work" almost as well as placebos, except
they also cause all those detrimental things, too.

> > > Just like you do not *understand* what epileptic damage is.
> Nevertheless, can we agree that such a thing exists?
> >
> > Different topic. I said I can accept that it might. So far, neither you
> > nor I quite know what we're referring to as "epileptic damage" yet.
>
> Welll, we can say that they are neural damages in the frontal lopes, and
> cause a range of detrimental effects at seemingly arbitrary intervals.

Now that we're done with that, we can avoid mere further guesswork?

> > > I think your placebo-theory has reached its end as a useful way of
> > > explaining why SSRI's work...
> >
> > That's not my theory, but I can understand why you keep trying to
> > terminologically insist so.
>
> Well, in the beginning of the thread, it was a big part of your argument
> against SSRI's, as far as I recall.

I'm not "arguing against" SSRI's. I refuse and challenging mere
unscientific, medically unsubstantiated, personal beliefs about them.
Especially the ones that pretend their scientificly or medically
established.

Otherwise, I continue to acknowledge that SSRI's have been
scientifically proven to work almost as well as pure placebos, as a
"treatment" for "depression". Even with an array of medically
determined health risks and detrimental effects, which may, at best,
serve as "placebo boosting" influences, if not causing quite more
serious harm. And that, regardless, plenty of people are tickled to use
drugs and to sell drugs to them, on that basis.

> > > So again, you key word is "theory".
> > >
> > > > Other people, with apparently the same interests and "problem," take
> > > > sugar pills and turn to other non-drug, non-medical options and do as
> > > > well, or better. For some reason.
> > >
> > > Good for them. I hope they don't experience relapse too soon - it could
> > > mean a big blow to their ego.
> >
> > What's ego got to do with it? Besides, there's evidence that the drugs
> > cause vulnerability to relapse, as well as causing depression.
>
> I think that since a side effect of ssri's is to lower the threshold for
> epileptic attacks, it is more likely that this could be supporting the
> theory of mental disorders being epileptic in their nature.

Where do we find that SSRI's lower any certain thresholds for epileptic
attacks? I don't think I've yet ever spotted that on any labelling, for
instance.

> > I'm sure you believe so.
>
> I can assure you that I do.

OK.

[Ian W]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:160920031759095834%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <1063723264.17752.0@despina.uk.clara.net>, Ian W wrote:
>
> > "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> > news:160920030644130158%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > > In article <1063695367.27215.0@lotis.uk.clara.net>, Ian W wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Well, Dr Arif Khan, who you seem to quote at every opportunity
when it
> > suits your purposes....
>
> Is that what you're doing by quoting him here?

No, just keeping you informed of the facts
>
> FDA summary reports. What are those, from what sources? You mean
only
> the info submitted only by the drug makers and only for the purpose
of
> getting the FDA to allow them to sell the stuff?

The same ones you persistently refer to regarding "sugar pills" :-)
>
> > CONCLUSIONS: These findings fail to support either an overall
> > difference in suicide risk between antidepressant- and
placebo-treated
> > depressed subjects in controlled trials or a difference between
SSRIs
> > and either other types of antidepressants or placebo.
>
> Well, that pretty much would confirm that the drugs don't
appreciably
> "prevent" any particular suicides at all --

I didn't say that they did.

The point is that they have been scientifically shown not to cause
suicide,
which is the claim you were making against SSRIs

In a previous post you said:

'I'm not "arguing against" SSRI's. I refuse and challenging mere
unscientific, medically unsubstantiated, personal beliefs about them.'




> Now, if we'd like to add this info to the non-drug company promo
pitch
> version, then we begin to see that the drugged folks are actually
> having more problems with suicide, too. And that the drug companies
> just didn't happen to include that info with the stuff they send the
> FDA. For some reason.

Do we?

QED

[blackout]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:160920031800411327%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <lpG9b.72794$Kb2.3422013@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
> <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey Virtualoso!
> >
> > Did you send me an email? It came, but it was nothing but a message
about
> > how I couldn't receive it....very weird, possibly a virus? You'd better
> > check it. Otherwise, send me the mail again! ;)

> Actually, that looks like you have a virus. It appears like a message
> you'd receive if you'd tried to send me an email and it bounced back to
> you.

Hmm, weird, since I just checked with Norton Antivirus...but I will check
again.
You should check too, if you don't already.

[blackout]

> > Actually, that looks like you have a virus. It appears like a message
> > you'd receive if you'd tried to send me an email and it bounced back to
> > you.
>
> Hmm, weird, since I just checked with Norton Antivirus...but I will check
> again.
> You should check too, if you don't already.

I didn't send you an email, but worms tend to do that ... tried sending an
email to a person with total protection from this kind of shit, and it came
through. The wonders of the net....

[blackout]

First off, just a request or two: Can you remove the ">" signs in your new
paragraphs? It looks like they belong to a previous post, and are easy to
miss. And please don't snip too much of the posts, since the arguments make
no sense without the starting paragraphs....
>
> > > > > > > > > > Yup. Why? They feel a need to medicate themselves
somehow.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > They apparently feel like drugging themselves. The word
> > "medicate"
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > unnecessary and inappropriate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But their goal *is* to self-medicate. That it is not a very wise
> > > > decision is
> > > > > > another thing. In actually, it is, as you poiint out indrectly,
> > > > substance
> > > > > > abuse.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mere terminological insistance. Sort of like preferring
"detrimental"
> > > > > to "deleterious"?
> >
> > I do not prefer one or the other, it is simply a question of me
following
> > your tight rethorics and terminology. I don't want to miss a thing.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Who disliked the word to start with? Terminological insistance, like
you
> > > > just demonstrated?
> > >
> > > Is your insertion of the word "disliked" here a terminological
> > > insistance, or would that be better termed a terminological
assignment?
> >
> > The point being that you insisted on not using a certain termi even
though
> > "self medicating" was perfectly fine in the context.
>
> No, this is the pivot of disagreement between us. The very term "self
> medicate" is oozing presumptions, especially given that there's really
> no such thing as "medication" for "depression" since it's not yet been
> scientifically/medically established what either might be. They're
> "self drugging" or getting "doctor drugged."

Yes, but you miss the main point; I am talking about their INTENTIONS, not
the actual definition of what they do. They THINK they can self-medicate
(whether or not this term actually makes sense!), since booze and drugs DO
produce euphoria and suppress any disorders temporarily. I never said they
self-medicate, if you read the first paragraph agaiin. I hope you agree, so
we can end this one....

>
> > > > > Enjoying a meal is then "self medicating" since it can be
described in
> > > > > neurophsyiological terms, regarding certain involved effects.
> > > >
> > > > Well, it is a wellknown fact that some overweight people
self-medicate
> > with
> > > > food....right? ;)
> > >
> > > Apparently, everyone self-medicates with all kinds of things.
> >
> > Well, I take your word for it, if you so please.
>
> LOL.
>
> > > > > Who said "only"? I've several times acknowledged that they likely
do
> > > > > also have the disrupting and disabling effects of normal brain
> > > > > functions, too, that doctors and psychiatrists explain. Otherwise
> > > > > euphemisticly termed "side effects" although we may as well refer
to
> > > > > them as main or sole effects, medically, given that no others have
> > been
> > > > > scientifically demonstrated.
> > > >
> > > > But do you agree that you have no studies that show directly that
SSRI's
> > > > work through placebo?
> > >
> > > Define "work".
> >
> > "Work", as in suppressing symptoms of psychiatric disorders.
>
> Maybe if anyone can ever actually establish what those are. Until then,
> apparently they "work" almost as well as placebos.

But no study confirms that SSRI's work as placebos. Your other point about
them working as "disruptors of normal brain function" is the next to
refute...but since you have no studies proving that directly either, I am
afraid I will have to resort to semantics....later on.

>
> > > > Yes, but some more specific data regarding statements like "the
> > company's
> > > > own studies show that sugar pills are just as good as their drug"
would
> > be
> > > > appreciated.
> > >
> > > All of their own clinical trials attempting to obtain FDA permission
to
> > > sell the stuff.
> >
> > Is it me, or does that sentence make no sense grammatically? I don't see
the
> > direct link to the request above. What I meant was if you could give us
> > company names when you mention studies, drugs, special circumstances,
etc,
>
> I have. Others complain that it's too much info. Just can't please
> everyone, eh?

Just please me. I'm the only one reading your elusive arguments anyway LOL

>
> > > > Well, would you disageee that Prozac as a drug is less advanced
> > molecularly
> > > > than Celexa?
> > >
> > > Not until I know what you might mean by "molecularly advanced".
> >
> > Let me put it simpler; do you agree that Celexa has fewer side effects
than
> > for exampe the tricyclics or even Prozac?
>
> Not necessarily, since it remains rather unclear what "side effects"
> might actually be and what the "main effects" are, if not the "side
> effects".

I had made the assumption that you think SSRI's only work through side
effects that disables normal brain functions. Wrong?

I'm ready to accept that these different drugs do have
> different mixes of effects, sure, although most of them all seem to
> amount to bothersome ones with, at best, a "placebo boosting" effect
> collectively.

But if you look at the side effects list, it is a simple matter of counting
and evaluating the seriouness of the side effects...and TRC's do have some
VERY serious side effects that no SSRI has..

> > > > I'll let that admission of fallacy stand on its own, just so
everybody
> > can
> > > > see your wonderful arguments.
> > >
> > > The wonderfulness of arguments is what really matters, naturally.
> >
> > Absolutely. I admire your masterful skills of avoiding danger zones and
> > knowing when to change the subject.
>
> Danger? ooOOOOooo LOL
>
> > Well, that statement was a bit superfluous, eh?
>
> How many do ya' suppose we can string together here? But, does that
> take chits away from wonderfulness?
>
> > > > Well, watch out for requesting studies, because you're only having
an
> > easy
> > > > time at this because side effects are easily identified and recorded
for
> > use
> > > > against the poor drug companies.
> > >
> > > For some inexplicable reason they are apparently much easier to
> > > identify than the promoted basis for the drugs being sold.
> >
> > It is in no way inexplicable. Side effects usually manifest themselves
> > phsysically and are categorized by researchers easily. ´The alleged side
> > effects also rely completely on the subjective view of the persons in
the
> > trial, which is not entirely satisfactory.
>
> So far: "side effects" are pulling way ahead of the pack, on all those
> counts, compared to the chimerical "main effects" imagined.

Yes, and the above paragraph tells you why that could be. They are easily
physiologically measurable, while we currently have no way of measuring the
actual actions of SSRI's

>
> > But part of
> > > what makes quite some number of side effects so easily identified is
> > > that the drug makers also identify and record them.
> >
> > Yes, to their credit.
>
> Now if only they'd more openly admit all of them that they've known
> about.

I don't know of any specific cases of hiding them...but I can't dismiss it.

>
> > > Easy way out of what?
> >
> > The discussion of whether SSRI's have any place in the medical world.
>
> Who's discussing that? Did you want to change the topic?

Well, you snipped the disccusion, so who's to say? :)

> > > > > But they are not permanent. .......and you know that showing
> physical side effects is a lot easier than showing the physiological
> evidence that serotonin inhibitors have a supressive effect on certain
> diseases.

> > > > You mean, just like scientists see enough evidence that SSRI's
actually
> > > > work?
> > >
> > > "Work" being just what, scientifically, aside from placebo effect?
> >
> > Again; "work", as in supressing symptoms of mental disorders.
>
> And, again, apparently they "work" almost as well as placebos, except
> they also cause all those detrimental things, too.

You're talking about the side effects (the "detrimental things")....again,
these are mostly accurately described, but think about how subjective they
are, since the only source of checking them is asking the participent
himself - that's not very realiable, IMO. Of course there are side effects,
but most of what is written on the list is crap - placebo effects.

>
> > > > Just like you do not *understand* what epileptic damage is.
> > Nevertheless, can we agree that such a thing exists?
> > >
> > > Different topic. I said I can accept that it might. So far, neither
you
> > > nor I quite know what we're referring to as "epileptic damage" yet.
> >
> > Welll, we can say that they are neural damages in the frontal lopes, and
> > cause a range of detrimental effects at seemingly arbitrary intervals.
>
> Now that we're done with that, we can avoid mere further guesswork?
>
> > > > I think your placebo-theory has reached its end as a useful way of
> > > > explaining why SSRI's work...
> > >
> > > That's not my theory, but I can understand why you keep trying to
> > > terminologically insist so.
> >
> > Well, in the beginning of the thread, it was a big part of your argument
> > against SSRI's, as far as I recall.
>
> I'm not "arguing against" SSRI's.

Well, I think a lot of people would agee that your critical tone and choice
of words indicate otherwise!

I refuse and challenging mere
> unscientific, medically unsubstantiated, personal beliefs about them.
> Especially the ones that pretend their scientificly or medically
> established.

Then maybe you should be more pragmatic about it.

>
> Otherwise, I continue to acknowledge that SSRI's have been
> scientifically proven to work almost as well as pure placebos

Which apparently works fine!

, as a
> "treatment" for "depression". Even with an array of medically
> determined health risks and detrimental effects, which may, at best,
> serve as "placebo boosting" influences, if not causing quite more
> serious harm.

SSRI's are more or less harmless than most other drugs. They have never been
proved to do any permanent damage, anyway.

And that, regardless, plenty of people are tickled to use
> drugs and to sell drugs to them, on that basis.

> > > > So again, you key word is "theory".
> > > >
> > > > > Other people, with apparently the same interests and "problem,"
take
> > > > > sugar pills and turn to other non-drug, non-medical options and do
as
> > > > > well, or better. For some reason.
> > > >
> > > > Good for them. I hope they don't experience relapse too soon - it
could
> > > > mean a big blow to their ego.
> > >
> > > What's ego got to do with it?

A slip-up. Maybe I thought *we* needed help and I directed the sentence at
ourselves ;)

Besides, there's evidence that the drugs
> > > cause vulnerability to relapse, as well as causing depression.
> >
> > I think that since a side effect of ssri's is to lower the threshold for
> > epileptic attacks, it is more likely that this could be supporting the
> > theory of mental disorders being epileptic in their nature.
>
> Where do we find that SSRI's lower any certain thresholds for epileptic
> attacks? I don't think I've yet ever spotted that on any labelling, for
> instance.

It is certainly a side-effect. Mentioned in several studies. Ask a
psychiatrist.

[Virtualoso]

In article <Sf_9b.80813$Kb2.3462586@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> First off, just a request or two: Can you remove the ">" signs in your new
> paragraphs?

I don't add those, so it might be something set on your end.

> And please don't snip too much of the posts....

I haven't been, and so won't begin to, either.

> > No, this is the pivot of disagreement between us. The very term "self
> > medicate" is oozing presumptions, especially given that there's really
> > no such thing as "medication" for "depression" since it's not yet been
> > scientifically/medically established what either might be. They're
> > "self drugging" or getting "doctor drugged."
>
> Yes, but you miss the main point; I am talking about their INTENTIONS, not
> the actual definition of what they do.

I haven't missed that proffered point. You may be still missing the
point that this is a pivotal point that we disagree upon.

> They THINK they can self-medicate
> (whether or not this term actually makes sense!)....

Now where did they ever get such a groundless idea?

> , since booze and drugs DO
> produce euphoria and suppress any disorders temporarily. I never said they
> self-medicate, if you read the first paragraph agaiin. I hope you agree, so
> we can end this one....

If you never said they self-medicate, and don't regard it as that, then
the term in unnecessary and inappropriate, since I certainly don't say
they self-medicate and don't regard it as that.

> > > > > But do you agree that you have no studies that show directly that
> SSRI's
> > > > > work through placebo?
> > > >
> > > > Define "work".
> > >
> > > "Work", as in suppressing symptoms of psychiatric disorders.
> >
> > Maybe if anyone can ever actually establish what those are. Until then,
> > apparently they "work" almost as well as placebos.
>
> But no study confirms that SSRI's work as placebos.

As best as anyone can tell, so far. There's clearer scientific evidence
of that, while less of anything else.

> Your other point about
> them working as "disruptors of normal brain function" is the next to
> refute...but since you have no studies proving that directly either, I am
> afraid I will have to resort to semantics....later on.

All "theories" of these drugs are based on the very notion of
interfering with what the brain does. If it could be
scientifically/medically shown that there is some distinct, actual
abnormality or dysfunction that the specific interference manifestly
corrects, then that would qualify as "medication" and "treatment" for
that. But, despite extensive efforts, this still can't be shown at all.

Nor has it ever been shown that the experience of "depression" is not
among the normal, natural brain functions (however much disliked) and
that the brain's mechanisms involved in the experience are anything
but performing correctly in the occurance.

Meanwhile, it has been shown that drugging the brain with these
chemicals produces an array of artificially induced effects, which is a
disruption of the brain's functioning unimposed by them.

So all evidence to date continues to confirm this chemical disruption
of brain and central nervous system functions, along with what, so far,
appears to be the "placebo boosting" effect that it has.

The disabling aspect of the chemical drugs is actually asserted by the
developers of them -- specifically to "selectively" disable specific
brain function: "serotonin reuptake". This is all upon the entirely
unestablished imagined notion that this function may be either some
sort of "cause" of the experience of "depression" or that the disabling
of that brain function might somehow be a "cause" of "relieving" the
experience, whether or not that function is aberrant,
biophysiologically.

Aside from liking those ideas or intents, there's really no other
scientific/medical reason to accept them otherwise. The hypothesis has
not been demonstrably evidenced, and far from anything much conclusive
about it. Meanwhile, the anomalous evidence continues to mount, as well
as confirmations otherwise.

Personally, some time ago, I initially "believed" the speculations
about the ever-unproven pitch for the chemical drugs. Until I began to
look into it further. I was, frankly, rather surprised to first
discover how purely speculative it was, given how much over-stated
assertion I'd first found. Then I was further surprised to find how
much existing information otherwise was known, yet not nearly so
publicized. For some reason.

I've continued to be somewhat amazed at how outright resistant so many
people are to it, as well. Especially the "news" that there's other
available, relatively problem-free ways to deal with "depression" that
don't require chemically drugging one's brain with such unfortunate
drug effects otherwise, as well as all the cost and downsides of them.

> > Not necessarily, since it remains rather unclear what "side effects"
> > might actually be and what the "main effects" are, if not the "side
> > effects".
>
> I had made the assumption that you think SSRI's only work through side
> effects that disables normal brain functions. Wrong?

They very well might. There's certainly no other actual
scientific/medical proofs otherwise, aside from the demonstrable
placebo effects of that. Yet, the "placebo boosting" effect of that
could also be masking and counterbalancing drug effects that make them
less effective than harmless non-drug placebos. And the indications
thus far that the drugs increase depressive functions in the brain and
promote vulnerability to it may continue to be confirmed.

> I'm ready to accept that these different drugs do have
> > different mixes of effects, sure, although most of them all seem to
> > amount to bothersome ones with, at best, a "placebo boosting" effect
> > collectively.
>
> But if you look at the side effects list, it is a simple matter of counting
> and evaluating the seriouness of the side effects...and TRC's do have some
> VERY serious side effects that no SSRI has..

So you say. Yet, the serious side effects of the SSRI's could only be
compared if there were some kind of calibration of "seriousness" of
"side effects". Regardless, all of these chemical drugs do have
variations of these effects, which may be their main or only effects,
in terms biophysiological "active ingredients".

> > So far: "side effects" are pulling way ahead of the pack, on all those
> > counts, compared to the chimerical "main effects" imagined.
>
> Yes, and the above paragraph tells you why that could be. They are easily
> physiologically measurable, while we currently have no way of measuring the
> actual actions of SSRI's

Therefore, they don't yet "exist" outside of imagination, in
scientific/medical sense.

[Craig S.]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Sf_9b.80813$Kb2.3462586@news010.worldonline.d k...

> And please don't snip too much of the posts, since the arguments make
> no sense without the starting paragraphs....

Ha! Like that's going to help.

[blackout]

>
> > And please don't snip too much of the posts, since the arguments make
> > no sense without the starting paragraphs....
>
> Ha! Like that's going to help.

Was I really that wrong? Do other people actually follow this discussion?
Colour me surprised!

[Michael H.]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dX%9b.81329$Kb2.3469345@news010.worldonline.d k...
>
> >
> > > And please don't snip too much of the posts, since the arguments make
> > > no sense without the starting paragraphs....
> >
> > Ha! Like that's going to help.
>
> Was I really that wrong? Do other people actually follow this discussion?
> Colour me surprised!
>


Surprise Surprise Surprise!
Golly Gee Gomer....

Peace
Michael H.

"Be an example to your men, in your duty and in private life. Never spare
yourself, and let the troops see that you don't in your endurance of fatigue
and privation. Always be tactful and well-mannered and teach your
subordinates to do the same. Avoid excessive sharpness or harshness of
voice, which usually indicates the man who has shortcomings of his own to
hide."
- Field Marshall Erwin Rommel

[blackout]

> > And please don't snip too much of the posts....
>
> I haven't been, and so won't begin to, either.

Well, I have been confused at times as to what certain arguments were
pertaining to. Maybe others are able to always make the right connections,
but since I am probably the only one reading this endless (hopefully)
discussion, I would appreciate it if you snipped a little less. ;)

>
> > > No, this is the pivot of disagreement between us. The very term "self
> > > medicate" is oozing presumptions, especially given that there's really
> > > no such thing as "medication" for "depression" since it's not yet been
> > > scientifically/medically established what either might be. They're
> > > "self drugging" or getting "doctor drugged."
> >
> > Yes, but you miss the main point; I am talking about their INTENTIONS,
not
> > the actual definition of what they do.
>
> I haven't missed that proffered point.

Well, I could say that these people may have certain beliefs, wrong or not,
that makes them susceptible to believie that they have something called a
"disorder", and therefore they believe they self-medicate. Whoops, and now I
did it.

You may be still missing the
> point that this is a pivotal point that we disagree upon.

You insist on the non-existence of pathology because of the lack of
physiological, hard evidence. Is that the pivotal point? Otherwise, please
elaborate.

> > They THINK they can self-medicate
> > (whether or not this term actually makes sense!)....
>
> Now where did they ever get such a groundless idea?

I guess that's a rethorical quesion ;)

>
> > , since booze and drugs DO
> > produce euphoria and suppress any disorders temporarily. I never said
they
> > self-medicate, if you read the first paragraph agaiin. I hope you agree,
so
> > we can end this one....
>
> If you never said they self-medicate, and don't regard it as that, then
> the term in unnecessary and inappropriate, since I certainly don't say
> they self-medicate and don't regard it as that.

No, but a long, long time ago in a distant galaxy, there was a paragraph
that mentioned that some people *thought* they were doing it.

>
> > > > > > But do you agree that you have no studies that show directly
that
> > SSRI's
> > > > > > work through placebo?
> > > > >
> > > > > Define "work".
> > > >
> > > > "Work", as in suppressing symptoms of psychiatric disorders.
> > >
> > > Maybe if anyone can ever actually establish what those are. Until
then,
> > > apparently they "work" almost as well as placebos.
> >
> > But no study confirms that SSRI's work as placebos.
>
> As best as anyone can tell, so far. There's clearer scientific evidence
> of that, while less of anything else.

But no hard evidence. You believe in it, though.

> > Your other point about
> > them working as "disruptors of normal brain function" is the next to
> > refute...but since you have no studies proving that directly either, I
am
> > afraid I will have to resort to semantics....later on.
>
> All "theories" of these drugs are based on the very notion of
> interfering with what the brain does. If it could be
> scientifically/medically shown that there is some distinct, actual
> abnormality or dysfunction that the specific interference manifestly
> corrects, then that would qualify as "medication" and "treatment" for
> that. But, despite extensive efforts, this still can't be shown at all.

As we have agreed on so many times before. But I appreciate your more
pragmatic tone.

> Nor has it ever been shown that the experience of "depression" is not
> among the normal, natural brain functions (however much disliked) and
> that the brain's mechanisms involved in the experience are anything
> but performing correctly in the occurance.

But what if we broaden the subject to psyhosis and schitzophrenia? Is it
normal for a person to believe he is Jesus, or that he hears voices, or that
he actually thinks that even though hard evidence does not exist for a
theory yet, the anecdoctal evidence of 20 years could actually indicate that
it may be true? ;)

> Meanwhile, it has been shown that drugging the brain with these
> chemicals produces an array of artificially induced effects, which is a
> disruption of the brain's functioning unimposed by them.

Exactly which essential (or even semi-important) function of the brain is
disrupted?
>
> So all evidence to date continues to confirm this chemical disruption
> of brain and central nervous system functions, along with what, so far,
> appears to be the "placebo boosting" effect that it has.

"Appears" is an important word in your sentence about "placebo"

> The disabling aspect of the chemical drugs is actually asserted by the
> developers of them -- specifically to "selectively" disable specific
> brain function: "serotonin reuptake". This is all upon the entirely
> unestablished

Except for the 20 years of using SSRI's that supports the notion. That
sounds rather established to me,

imagined notion that this function may be either some
> sort of "cause" of the experience of "depression" or that the disabling
> of that brain function might somehow be a "cause" of "relieving" the
> experience, whether or not that function is aberrant,
> biophysiologically.
>
> Aside from liking those ideas or intents, there's really no other
> scientific/medical reason to accept them otherwise.

Except 20 years of anecdotal evidence ( I would call that medical...)

The hypothesis has
> not been demonstrably evidenced, and far from anything much conclusive
> about it. Meanwhile, the anomalous evidence continues to mount, as well
> as confirmations otherwise.
>
> Personally, some time ago, I initially "believed" the speculations
> about the ever-unproven pitch for the chemical drugs.

Why? maybe because it is being used on such a large scale without more than
a minority of problems....

Until I began to
> look into it further. I was, frankly, rather surprised to first
> discover how purely speculative it was, given how much over-stated
> assertion I'd first found.

That would be "experience in the field".

Then I was further surprised to find how
> much existing information otherwise was known, yet not nearly so
> publicized. For some reason.

Such as?

>
> I've continued to be somewhat amazed at how outright resistant so many
> people are to it, as well. Especially the "news" that there's other
> available, relatively problem-free ways to deal with "depression" that
> don't require chemically drugging one's brain with such unfortunate
> drug effects otherwise, as well as all the cost and downsides of them.

WOW! tell me about them! I never heard of them! And I've heard a lot about
anti-medication methods!

>
> > > Not necessarily, since it remains rather unclear what "side effects"
> > > might actually be and what the "main effects" are, if not the "side
> > > effects".
> >
> > I had made the assumption that you think SSRI's only work through side
> > effects that disables normal brain functions. Wrong?
>
> They very well might. There's certainly no other actual
> scientific/medical proofs otherwise, aside from the demonstrable
> placebo effects of that.

So if some theory is not proven, the alternative has to be right?

Yet, the "placebo boosting" effect of that
> could also be masking and counterbalancing drug effects that make them
> less effective than harmless non-drug placebos.

placebo boosting is purely speculation.

And the indications
> thus far that the drugs increase depressive functions in the brain and
> promote vulnerability to it may continue to be confirmed.

The operative word being "may". And that indication is just not credible.

>
> > I'm ready to accept that these different drugs do have
> > > different mixes of effects, sure, although most of them all seem to
> > > amount to bothersome ones with, at best, a "placebo boosting" effect
> > > collectively.

Well, if you stopped reading books and went out into the real world, you
would see otherwise.

> >
> > But if you look at the side effects list, it is a simple matter of
counting
> > and evaluating the seriouness of the side effects...and TRC's do have
some
> > VERY serious side effects that no SSRI has..
>
> So you say. Yet, the serious side effects of the SSRI's could only be
> compared if there were some kind of calibration of "seriousness" of
> "side effects". Regardless, all of these chemical drugs do have
> variations of these effects, which may be their main or only effects,
> in terms biophysiological "active ingredients".

TRCs are so much more crude than ssri's, and they are definitely more
dangerous (except the posibility of causing serontin syndrome, which is more
likely to happen with SSRI's (even though it never happens)),

>
> > > So far: "side effects" are pulling way ahead of the pack, on all those
> > > counts, compared to the chimerical "main effects" imagined.
> >
> > Yes, and the above paragraph tells you why that could be. They are
easily
> > physiologically measurable, while we currently have no way of measuring
the
> > actual actions of SSRI's
>
> Therefore, they don't yet "exist" outside of imagination, in
> scientific/medical sense.

"Medical sense" --- I consider anecdotal evidence as medical evidence.

[Virtualoso]

In article <U63ab.81398$Kb2.3490400@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > I haven't missed that proffered point.
>
> Well, I could say that these people may have certain beliefs, wrong or not,
> that makes them susceptible to believie that they have something called a
> "disorder", and therefore they believe they self-medicate. Whoops, and now I
> did it.
>
> You may be still missing the
> > point that this is a pivotal point that we disagree upon.
>
> You insist on the non-existence of pathology because of the lack of
> physiological, hard evidence. Is that the pivotal point? Otherwise, please
> elaborate.

Non-existent scientific/medical speculation is science fiction.
Granted, it can be interesting and even very accurately and extensively
techically crafted. But it's still fiction. I suppose "trekkies" and
whatnot take it a bit further, because the like it so much.

> > > But no study confirms that SSRI's work as placebos.
> >
> > As best as anyone can tell, so far. There's clearer scientific evidence
> > of that, while less of anything else.
>
> But no hard evidence. You believe in it, though.

Sure there's hard evidence - every bit as much that any placebo is a
placebo.

> > All "theories" of these drugs are based on the very notion of
> > interfering with what the brain does. If it could be
> > scientifically/medically shown that there is some distinct, actual
> > abnormality or dysfunction that the specific interference manifestly
> > corrects, then that would qualify as "medication" and "treatment" for
> > that. But, despite extensive efforts, this still can't be shown at all.
>
> As we have agreed on so many times before. But I appreciate your more
> pragmatic tone.
>
> > Nor has it ever been shown that the experience of "depression" is not
> > among the normal, natural brain functions (however much disliked) and
> > that the brain's mechanisms involved in the experience are anything
> > but performing correctly in the occurance.
>
> But what if we broaden the subject to psyhosis and schitzophrenia? Is it
> normal for a person to believe he is Jesus, or that he hears voices, or that
> he actually thinks that even though hard evidence does not exist for a
> theory yet, the anecdoctal evidence of 20 years could actually indicate that
> it may be true? ;)

Just what "psychosis" or "schizophrenia" may refer to are both
especially vague, nebulous and apparently every-changing notions. You
may recall that a number of the experts quoted have plainly
acknowledged that "psychiatric diagnosis is descriptive, we don't
understand psychiatric disorders at a biological level". While we've
been examining how this applies to "depression" it also applies to all
the other ones, as well. And as much. In the same ways.

There are NO "psychiatric cures" for ANY "psychiatric diseaes" to date.
None. And it sure ain't for lack of trying.

> > Meanwhile, it has been shown that drugging the brain with these
> > chemicals produces an array of artificially induced effects, which is a
> > disruption of the brain's functioning unimposed by them.
>
> Exactly which essential (or even semi-important) function of the brain is
> disrupted?

Whatever you might mean by "(un)essential" or (un)important" brain
fuctions is an entirely different matter.

> > The disabling aspect of the chemical drugs is actually asserted by the
> > developers of them -- specifically to "selectively" disable specific
> > brain function: "serotonin reuptake". This is all upon the entirely
> > unestablished imagined notion that this function may be either some
> > sort of "cause" of the experience of "depression" or that the disabling
> > of that brain function might somehow be a "cause" of "relieving" the
> > experience, whether or not that function is aberrant,
> > biophysiologically.
>
> Except for the 20 years of using SSRI's that supports the notion. That
> sounds rather established to me,

I understand that you "believe" that. By "established" I refer to bona
fide scientific/medical, not merely "beliefs" otherwise. This is the
crux of difference between us, it seems. Folks wanting to "believe"
that something is scientific/medically so, then purpose toward that --
otherwise known as distinctly biasing and/or speculatively promoting
what, in scientific terms, is better considered a far more objective
process.

However, the same 20 years of using SSRI's apparently at least
"establishes" not only the consistent non-existence of objective
confirmation for that notion, but also a progressive removal of
variations upon that them -- while the same time also has revealed
actual anomolous evidences and disproofs and demonstrations
significantly otherwise.

We might also bear in mind that for even quite longer than 20 years,
psychiatry has consistently failed to substantiate it's core premises,
with biopsychiatry pretty much abandoning them outright in favor of
somehow attempting to re-invent itself as a quasi-neurology with a
pedigree in experimental brain electrocution, brain ice-picking and
disfiguring and drugging with the slightest of medical basis, if any at
all. And all for a remarkably changing, often elusive, set of verbal
and conceptual descriptions.

That may, indeed, establish something. So far.

> imagined notion that this function may be either some
> > sort of "cause" of the experience of "depression" or that the disabling
> > of that brain function might somehow be a "cause" of "relieving" the
> > experience, whether or not that function is aberrant,
> > biophysiologically.
> >
> > Aside from liking those ideas or intents, there's really no other
> > scientific/medical reason to accept them otherwise.
>
> Except 20 years of anecdotal evidence ( I would call that medical...)

You Believe, then. Many do. It's one of the major religions anymore,
especially in the western world, and the US in particular.

> The hypothesis has
> > not been demonstrably evidenced, and far from anything much conclusive
> > about it. Meanwhile, the anomalous evidence continues to mount, as well
> > as confirmations otherwise.
> >
> > Personally, some time ago, I initially "believed" the speculations
> > about the ever-unproven pitch for the chemical drugs.
>
> Why? maybe because it is being used on such a large scale without more than
> a minority of problems....

That' the pitch and catechism, and remarkably effective PR effect, even
while it gets shown increasingly the lack of tangible unique results,
and quite a growing roster of problems, including the not minor ones.

> Until I began to
> > look into it further. I was, frankly, rather surprised to first
> > discover how purely speculative it was, given how much over-stated
> > assertion I'd first found.
>
> That would be "experience in the field".
>
> Then I was further surprised to find how
> > much existing information otherwise was known, yet not nearly so
> > publicized. For some reason.
>
> Such as?

How very much is scientifically/medically nonexistent, outright
unproven or even denounced within the field and/or closely related
fields.

> > I've continued to be somewhat amazed at how outright resistant so many
> > people are to it, as well. Especially the "news" that there's other
> > available, relatively problem-free ways to deal with "depression" that
> > don't require chemically drugging one's brain with such unfortunate
> > drug effects otherwise, as well as all the cost and downsides of them.
>
> WOW! tell me about them! I never heard of them! And I've heard a lot about
> anti-medication methods!

For instance, the drug makers have demonstrated that sugar pills work
at least as well as, and better than, their drugs.

> > > > Not necessarily, since it remains rather unclear what "side effects"
> > > > might actually be and what the "main effects" are, if not the "side
> > > > effects".
> > >
> > > I had made the assumption that you think SSRI's only work through side
> > > effects that disables normal brain functions. Wrong?
> >
> > They very well might. There's certainly no other actual
> > scientific/medical proofs otherwise, aside from the demonstrable
> > placebo effects of that.
>
> So if some theory is not proven, the alternative has to be right?

What's "the alternate" to "some theory"? For instance, what is "the
alternative" to the psychiatric theory that nose cauterization cures
"neurosis"?

> Yet, the "placebo boosting" effect of that
> > could also be masking and counterbalancing drug effects that make them
> > less effective than harmless non-drug placebos.
>
> placebo boosting is purely speculation.

Is "placebo effect" pure speculation?


> > > I'm ready to accept that these different drugs do have
> > > > different mixes of effects, sure, although most of them all seem to
> > > > amount to bothersome ones with, at best, a "placebo boosting" effect
> > > > collectively.
>
> Well, if you stopped reading books and went out into the real world, you
> would see otherwise.

So you presume. Again, I'm sure you genuinely believe your pure beliefs
about all this stuff, while lacking any objective scientific/medical
confirmations of it and, obvious, highly resistant to
scientific/medical evidences otherwise. My own impression is that the
latter has long been kept from near the publicity as the former,
especially intentionally.

> > So you say. Yet, the serious side effects of the SSRI's could only be
> > compared if there were some kind of calibration of "seriousness" of
> > "side effects". Regardless, all of these chemical drugs do have
> > variations of these effects, which may be their main or only effects,
> > in terms biophysiological "active ingredients".
>
> TRCs are so much more crude than ssri's, and they are definitely more
> dangerous (except the posibility of causing serontin syndrome, which is more
> likely to happen with SSRI's (even though it never happens)),

That's one "syndrome" and there are others associated with SSRI's as
well. But this is all comparing unproven chemicals with unproven
chemicals, and detrimental effects with detrimental effects, as if that
"justifies" any of them for any particular purpose.

> > Therefore, they don't yet "exist" outside of imagination, in
> > scientific/medical sense.
>
> "Medical sense" --- I consider anecdotal evidence as medical evidence.

You've made that plain.

[Moonraker]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:170920031804365734%virtualoso@dot.com...
>
> Non-existent scientific/medical speculation is science fiction.
> Granted, it can be interesting and even very accurately and extensively
> techically crafted. But it's still fiction. I suppose "trekkies" and
> whatnot take it a bit further, because the like it so much.

OK, Virt!!! Geez!!! Given that it's speculation....could you PLEASE
give it a rest, already?

[Virtualoso]

In article <0t8ab.148$16.83@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Moonraker
<fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:170920031804365734%virtualoso@dot.com...
> >
> > Non-existent scientific/medical speculation is science fiction.
> > Granted, it can be interesting and even very accurately and extensively
> > techically crafted. But it's still fiction. I suppose "trekkies" and
> > whatnot take it a bit further, because the like it so much.
>
> OK, Virt!!! Geez!!! Given that it's speculation....could you PLEASE
> give it a rest, already?

Hey, what the heck are you doing not only reading all this, but even
writing about it now yourself? Sheesh. Give it a rest.

[Moonraker]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:170920031941344850%virtualoso@dot.com...
>>
> Hey, what the heck are you doing not only reading all this, but even
> writing about it now yourself? Sheesh. Give it a rest.

Reading it? Naaaah. I don't think so......

I'll maybe find time to start reading this thread after I get done watching
some paint dry.

[Virtualoso]

In article <3Aaab.2699$9u3.871@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, Moonraker
<fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:170920031941344850%virtualoso@dot.com...
> >>
> > Hey, what the heck are you doing not only reading all this, but even
> > writing about it now yourself? Sheesh. Give it a rest.
>
> Reading it? Naaaah. I don't think so......
>
> I'll maybe find time to start reading this thread after I get done watching
> some paint dry.

Oh. Well, then, no problem.

[Michael H.]

"Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3eb81ace4d7223765868c8715152b2cc@news.teranew s.com...
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:30:18 +0200, "blackout"
> <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >(chronic does mean permanent, right?)
>
> No.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=chronic
>
> --
> Blue Moon


No

Chronic, (KRAN-ik) n., marijuana, bot. cannabis sativa. "He's messed up
because he can't lay off the chronic." [Etym., Rastafarian]

Peace
Michael H.

[blackout]

> >
> > >(chronic does mean permanent, right?)
> >
> > No.
> >
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=chronic

> No
>
> Chronic, (KRAN-ik) n., marijuana, bot. cannabis sativa. "He's messed up
> because he can't lay off the chronic." [Etym., Rastafarian]

Yeah I know; perfect example of semantic ambiguity. ;)

>
> Peace
> Michael H.
>
>

[blackout]

Our perfectly challenging thread is entertaining, but too messy... I can't
find the post I have to reply to anymore...I could reply to most of them,
since they are so alike. I could find your latest of course, but why not
start over? Just write the gist of your last post, if you want to continue
this interesting and intellectually challenging (for me) thread...

[GaryE]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 02:44:02 +0200, "blackout"
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Our perfectly challenging thread is entertaining, but too messy... I can't
>find the post I have to reply to anymore...I could reply to most of them,
>since they are so alike. I could find your latest of course, but why not
>start over? Just write the gist of your last post, if you want to continue
>this interesting and intellectually challenging (for me) thread...
>

Sucker punch?

[blackout]

> > Was I really that wrong? Do other people actually follow this
discussion?
> > Colour me surprised!

> Surprise Surprise Surprise!
> Golly Gee Gomer....

How the h*ll can other people who don't contribute to the thread actually
follow it? I mean, I am having a hard time finding the right places to place
new arguments!

[blackout]

> Sucker punch?

More like "sugar punch", if you want to hear my opinon about your
statement..

How come people who never say anything in a thread suddenly pop up and say a
one-sentence piece of bullshit? Or do you have a valid point at all?

[Virtualoso]

In article <9Xsbb.84610$Kb2.3673309@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Sucker punch?
>
> More like "sugar punch", if you want to hear my opinon about your
> statement..
>
> How come people who never say anything in a thread suddenly pop up and say a
> one-sentence piece of bullshit? Or do you have a valid point at all?

It's just the GarGame. He's explained it more than once in the past.
Demonstrated it quite more. You're catching on, though, I see.

But then, he also took psychidrugs for some time. Not that he takes
anything in a dicussion on the mere topic personally. No, not that.

[Craig S.]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9Xsbb.84610$Kb2.3673309@news010.worldonline.d k...
>
> > Sucker punch?
>
> More like "sugar punch", if you want to hear my opinon about your
> statement..
>
> How come people who never say anything in a thread suddenly pop up and say
a
> one-sentence piece of bullshit? Or do you have a valid point at all?

Non sequiturs are to keep it interesting for the common folk. The "point"
added by most contributors in this vein is typically as relevant as the
monotonous prolixity that preceded it.

[blackout]

> But then, he also took psychidrugs for some time. Not that he takes
> anything in a dicussion on the mere topic personally. No, not that.

You never miss a chance, do you, Virt? ;)

[blackout]

> > How come people who never say anything in a thread suddenly pop up and
say
> a
> > one-sentence piece of bullshit? Or do you have a valid point at all?
>
> Non sequiturs are to keep it interesting for the common folk. The "point"
> added by most contributors in this vein is typically as relevant as the
> monotonous prolixity that preceded it.

It seems to me that there are only two serious posters in this thread. I
don't see how his post makes it more "interesting" to follow at all, but I
may be wrong. One thing that would be helpful would be asking questions and
asking for elaborations on certain arguments. That would make "common folk"
more involved, if they so desire.

[blackout]

> > > > Sucker punch?
> > >
> > > More like "sugar punch", if you want to hear my opinon about your
> > > statement..
> > >
> > > How come people who never say anything in a thread suddenly pop up and
> say
> > a
> > > one-sentence piece of bullshit? Or do you have a valid point at all?
> >
> > Non sequiturs are to keep it interesting for the common folk. The
"point"
> > added by most contributors in this vein is typically as relevant as the
> > monotonous prolixity that preceded it.
> >
> >
>
> Very true. This ongoing thread full of psycho-pharmaceutical-pseudo
> scientific babble has gone WAY past the point of monotony.
>
>

that's exactly why I am calling for a new thread with more structure and
less monotony. Everybody is welcome to join in! ;)

[Moonraker]

"Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vmspef5t0g1af0@corp.supernews.com...
> "blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9Xsbb.84610$Kb2.3673309@news010.worldonline.d k...
> >
> > > Sucker punch?
> >
> > More like "sugar punch", if you want to hear my opinon about your
> > statement..
> >
> > How come people who never say anything in a thread suddenly pop up and
say
> a
> > one-sentence piece of bullshit? Or do you have a valid point at all?
>
> Non sequiturs are to keep it interesting for the common folk. The "point"
> added by most contributors in this vein is typically as relevant as the
> monotonous prolixity that preceded it.
>
>

Very true. This ongoing thread full of psycho-pharmaceutical-pseudo
scientific babble has gone WAY past the point of monotony.

[Virtualoso]

In article <vmspef5t0g1af0@corp.supernews.com>, Craig S.
<cspurlock@charter.net> wrote:

> "blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9Xsbb.84610$Kb2.3673309@news010.worldonline.d k...
> >
> > > Sucker punch?
> >
> > More like "sugar punch", if you want to hear my opinon about your
> > statement..
> >
> > How come people who never say anything in a thread suddenly pop up and say
> a
> > one-sentence piece of bullshit? Or do you have a valid point at all?
>
> Non sequiturs are to keep it interesting for the common folk. The "point"
> added by most contributors in this vein is typically as relevant as the
> monotonous prolixity that preceded it.

You're not interested, don't find it interesting, yet you read it
anyway? Fascinating.

[Virtualoso]

In article <UPtbb.11053$iO.10134@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, Moonraker
<fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> "Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:vmspef5t0g1af0@corp.supernews.com...
> > "blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9Xsbb.84610$Kb2.3673309@news010.worldonline.d k...
> > >
> > > > Sucker punch?
> > >
> > > More like "sugar punch", if you want to hear my opinon about your
> > > statement..
> > >
> > > How come people who never say anything in a thread suddenly pop up and
> say
> > a
> > > one-sentence piece of bullshit? Or do you have a valid point at all?
> >
> > Non sequiturs are to keep it interesting for the common folk. The "point"
> > added by most contributors in this vein is typically as relevant as the
> > monotonous prolixity that preceded it.
> >
> >
>
> Very true. This ongoing thread full of psycho-pharmaceutical-pseudo
> scientific babble has gone WAY past the point of monotony.

And so it's time for this scintillating commentary about only just
that. Much better.

[Virtualoso]

In article <1Xtbb.84650$Kb2.3673615@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Sucker punch?
> > > >
> > > > More like "sugar punch", if you want to hear my opinon about your
> > > > statement..
> > > >
> > > > How come people who never say anything in a thread suddenly pop up and
> > say
> > > a
> > > > one-sentence piece of bullshit? Or do you have a valid point at all?
> > >
> > > Non sequiturs are to keep it interesting for the common folk. The
> "point"
> > > added by most contributors in this vein is typically as relevant as the
> > > monotonous prolixity that preceded it.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Very true. This ongoing thread full of psycho-pharmaceutical-pseudo
> > scientific babble has gone WAY past the point of monotony.
> >
> >
>
> that's exactly why I am calling for a new thread with more structure and
> less monotony. Everybody is welcome to join in! ;)

What -- and give up the best seats in the Peanut Gallery? No way.

[blackout]

> > Non sequiturs are to keep it interesting for the common folk. The
"point"
> > added by most contributors in this vein is typically as relevant as the
> > monotonous prolixity that preceded it.
>
> You're not interested, don't find it interesting, yet you read it
> anyway? Fascinating.

Well, that seems to be a common situation in here...people telling you they
will never read your posts again, yet they continue to reply to them. I
wouldn't call it fascinating, though.

[`F.H]

Moonraker wrote:
>
> "Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote in message

> > Non sequiturs are to keep it interesting for the common folk. The "point"
> > added by most contributors in this vein is typically as relevant as the
> > monotonous prolixity that preceded it.
> >
> >
>
> Very true. This ongoing thread full of psycho-pharmaceutical-pseudo
> scientific babble has gone WAY past the point of monotony.

There's a thread/debate on alt.isuzu about transmission dipsticks that's
been going on for about a week.

Gramps
Hall monitor

[Virtualoso]

In article <3F6E79D8.C1DB2EB9@earthlink.net>, `F.H
<disconnectu@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Moonraker wrote:
> >
> > "Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote in message
>
> > > Non sequiturs are to keep it interesting for the common folk. The "point"
> > > added by most contributors in this vein is typically as relevant as the
> > > monotonous prolixity that preceded it.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Very true. This ongoing thread full of psycho-pharmaceutical-pseudo
> > scientific babble has gone WAY past the point of monotony.
>
> There's a thread/debate on alt.isuzu about transmission dipsticks that's
> been going on for about a week.

Dipsticks, dipshits, dysthymics... what's the difference?

[Moonraker]

"`F.H" <disconnectu@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F6E79D8.C1DB2EB9@earthlink.net...
> Moonraker wrote:
> >
> > "Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote in message
>
> > > Non sequiturs are to keep it interesting for the common folk. The
"point"
> > > added by most contributors in this vein is typically as relevant as
the
> > > monotonous prolixity that preceded it.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Very true. This ongoing thread full of psycho-pharmaceutical-pseudo
> > scientific babble has gone WAY past the point of monotony.
>
> There's a thread/debate on alt.isuzu about transmission dipsticks that's
> been going on for about a week.
>
> Gramps
> Hall monitor

Funny. "Our" thread is authored _ BY_ dipsticks.

[Moonraker]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:210920032049534606%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <vmspef5t0g1af0@corp.supernews.com>, Craig S.
> <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > "blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9Xsbb.84610$Kb2.3673309@news010.worldonline.d k...
> > >
> > > > Sucker punch?
> > >
> > > More like "sugar punch", if you want to hear my opinon about your
> > > statement..
> > >
> > > How come people who never say anything in a thread suddenly pop up and
say
> > a
> > > one-sentence piece of bullshit? Or do you have a valid point at all?
> >
> > Non sequiturs are to keep it interesting for the common folk. The
"point"
> > added by most contributors in this vein is typically as relevant as the
> > monotonous prolixity that preceded it.
>
> You're not interested, don't find it interesting, yet you read it
> anyway? Fascinating.


Nah. What's facinating is that you actually think anybody's bothering to
read any of it. I thought Bill Wilson was "windy".....;>)

[blackout]

> Why, thank you.
>
> Your volumnious postings have convinced me that you have learned more and
> more about less and less, until you got to the point where you know
> absolutely everything there is to know about nothing. ;>)
>
Oh, I so do enjoy the witty replies from Moonraker -- they are always *spot
on*. Keep it up!

[blackout]

> Funny. "Our" thread is authored _ BY_ dipsticks.

Amazing! He did it again! That man MUST be a stand-up comedian!

and the most funny part is how he says that he DOES NOT CARE about anything
we say - but continues to reply and comment on our posts.......

[Moonraker]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:210920032050457711%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > >
> > Very true. This ongoing thread full of psycho-pharmaceutical-pseudo
> > scientific babble has gone WAY past the point of monotony.
>
> And so it's time for this scintillating commentary about only just
> that. Much better.

Why, thank you.

Your volumnious postings have convinced me that you have learned more and
more about less and less, until you got to the point where you know
absolutely everything there is to know about nothing. ;>)

[Virtualoso]

In article <G7vbb.11128$iO.10762@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, Moonraker
<fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:210920032050457711%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > > >
> > > Very true. This ongoing thread full of psycho-pharmaceutical-pseudo
> > > scientific babble has gone WAY past the point of monotony.
> >
> > And so it's time for this scintillating commentary about only just
> > that. Much better.
>
> Why, thank you.
>
> Your volumnious postings have convinced me that you have learned more and
> more about less and less, until you got to the point where you know
> absolutely everything there is to know about nothing. ;>)

Gee, did you make that snappy phrase up, or learn it somewhere? Such is
the demonstration of clear expertise.

[blackout]

> What -- and give up the best seats in the Peanut Gallery? No way.

OK, maybe we should dumb it down a lot more so certain people in the back
rows can hear what we say and say "booooh!" and throw pop corn at us.

[blackout]

> > Your volumnious postings have convinced me that you have learned more
and
> > more about less and less, until you got to the point where you know
> > absolutely everything there is to know about nothing. ;>)
>
> Gee, did you make that snappy phrase up, or learn it somewhere? Such is
> the demonstration of clear expertise.

why do you think he only posts one time a day? He has a job one the side?
LOL

[`F.H]

Virtualoso wrote:
>
> In article <3F6E79D8.C1DB2EB9@earthlink.net>, `F.H
> <disconnectu@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Moonraker wrote:
> > >
> > > "Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > > Non sequiturs are to keep it interesting for the common folk. The "point"
> > > > added by most contributors in this vein is typically as relevant as the
> > > > monotonous prolixity that preceded it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Very true. This ongoing thread full of psycho-pharmaceutical-pseudo
> > > scientific babble has gone WAY past the point of monotony.
> >
> > There's a thread/debate on alt.isuzu about transmission dipsticks that's
> > been going on for about a week.
>
> Dipsticks, dipshits, dysthymics... what's the difference?

Low on, full of, down in the dumps.

[Craig S.]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:210920032049534606%virtualoso@dot.com...

> You're not interested, don't find it interesting, yet you read it
> anyway? Fascinating.

Never know where a gem might turn up.

[GaryE]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 04:15:35 +0200, "blackout"
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>> Sucker punch?
>
>More like "sugar punch", if you want to hear my opinon about your
>statement..
>
>How come people who never say anything in a thread suddenly pop up and say a
>one-sentence piece of bullshit? Or do you have a valid point at all?

now that you mentioned it, take your long, monotous, discussion off
line. get the point?

[blackout]

> >How come people who never say anything in a thread suddenly pop up and
say a
> >one-sentence piece of bullshit? Or do you have a valid point at all?
>
> now that you mentioned it, take your long, monotous, discussion off
> line. get the point?

Listen, you pathetic little nitwit, you can't even spell, and yet you have
the nerve to tell me WHAT TO WRITE ABOUT IN A PUBLIC NEWSGROUP?? You should
seek help, and I'm talking major surgery to the frontal lobes here...!

The morons you have to put up with in here....complaining about what people
can or cannot write, and yet they STILL have nothing else to do than read my
posts and come up with poorly writtten complaints....Get a life, suckers.

[`F.H]

Moonraker wrote:
>
> "Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:vmtjarg8j0ok64@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> > news:210920032049534606%virtualoso@dot.com...
> >
> > > You're not interested, don't find it interesting, yet you read it
> > > anyway? Fascinating.
> >
> > Never know where a gem might turn up.
>
> Yep. You "might" find a 10 carat diamond lodged in a goat's ass.
> >
> >

Hope springs eternal.

[Moonraker]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:210920032156505626%virtualoso@dot.com...
> Gee, did you make that snappy phrase up, or learn it somewhere? Such is
> the demonstration of clear expertise.

It does not take a degree in agriculture to be able to recognize bullshit.

[Virtualoso]

In article <ODDbb.12364$iO.502@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, Moonraker
<fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:210920032156505626%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > Gee, did you make that snappy phrase up, or learn it somewhere? Such is
> > the demonstration of clear expertise.
>
> It does not take a degree in agriculture to be able to recognize bullshit.

If you figure quotes and info from highly qualified experts in a field
are bullshit, yet you're not degreed in either that topic or
agriculture, then it's obvious that you're simply uncomfortable with
the subject and have no better basis for attempting to quash it. For
some reason.

[Moonraker]

"Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vmtjarg8j0ok64@corp.supernews.com...
> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:210920032049534606%virtualoso@dot.com...
>
> > You're not interested, don't find it interesting, yet you read it
> > anyway? Fascinating.
>
> Never know where a gem might turn up.

Yep. You "might" find a 10 carat diamond lodged in a goat's ass.
>
>

[blackout]

> > Gee, did you make that snappy phrase up, or learn it somewhere? Such is
> > the demonstration of clear expertise.
>
> It does not take a degree in agriculture to be able to recognize bullshit.
>
>
Oh what incredible wit is being demonstrated here today! I love the fact
that people who cannot contribute otherwise choose to show their interest in
this thread by coming with these wonderful witty remarks!

[Moonraker]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:220920030735523635%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <ODDbb.12364$iO.502@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, Moonraker
> <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> > news:210920032156505626%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > > Gee, did you make that snappy phrase up, or learn it somewhere? Such
is
> > > the demonstration of clear expertise.
> >
> > It does not take a degree in agriculture to be able to recognize
bullshit.
>
> If you figure quotes and info from highly qualified experts in a field
> are bullshit,


Yawn.
It's not the quotes and info...it's the interpretations thereof. Ad
nauseum.


yet you're not degreed in either that topic or
> agriculture, then it's obvious that you're simply uncomfortable with
> the subject

Uncomfortable? Nah. After 5 or 6 gigabytes of the same reposts and
arguments about the meaning of the word "is", you've about worn the topic
out, don'tcha think? What should be obvious is that it's just flat
B-O-R-I-N-G. And has virtually nothing to do with recovery from
alcoholism......OK?

I mean, how many obscure psychiatrists and scientists and studies can you
quote, fer crying out loud?

(NO! NEVER MIND! DON'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I REALLY DON'T WANNA
KNOW!!!). ;>)

All to prove "what", exactly, to some pseudo-intellectual binge drinking
college kid? That yer pee-pee is bigger than his?


and have no better basis for attempting to quash it. For
> some reason.

Actually, I kinda like you. For some reason. So you haven't been
killfiled. Yet. But....give us a break? OK? Take it to email if you need
to continue whatever it is. Please.

[blackout]

> Actually, I kinda like you.

Oh man! He likes you! That must mean so much to you, Virt!

>For some reason. So you haven't been> killfiled.

That is the greatest honor ever given by Moonraker! You should be proud!

Yet. But....give us a break? OK? Take it to email if you need
> to continue whatever it is. Please.

You should follow this advice, because Moonraker cannot stop reading our
posts, and he has full control over what is good posts and what is not. The
good ones are usually his own one-liners, often including the word
Bullshit - that's because he's grown up in a country hut with pigs sleeping
next to him.

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE DOING, MOOONII? SHUT THE HELL UP AND
`STAY AWAY FROM PEOPLE WHO COULD NEVER POSSIBLE LIKE A DUMB SSHITHEAD LIKE
YOU!


>
>
>
>
>

[Michael H.]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Gsbb.84601$Kb2.3673015@news010.worldonline.d k...
>
> > > Was I really that wrong? Do other people actually follow this
> discussion?
> > > Colour me surprised!
>
> > Surprise Surprise Surprise!
> > Golly Gee Gomer....
>
> How the h*ll can other people who don't contribute to the thread actually
> follow it? I mean, I am having a hard time finding the right places to
place
> new arguments!
>


Glad you got around to responding already! ;)

Just pretend your ice-fishing
http://utut.essortment.com/icefishingsafe_rgmt.htm
Note #4

and expect anything.

Maybe even nessie.....
http://www.lochness.co.uk/

Peace
Michael H.

[blackout]

> > How the h*ll can other people who don't contribute to the thread
actually
> > follow it? I mean, I am having a hard time finding the right places to
> place
> > new arguments!
> >
>
>
> Glad you got around to responding already! ;)>
> Just pretend your ice-fishing
> http://utut.essortment.com/icefishingsafe_rgmt.htm
> Note #4
> > and expect anything.

Well, at least your post was mildly entertaining and not directly
antagonising, in contrast to several other posters who just join the lowlife
club because they can't contribute. I appreciate your maturity.

But never the less, I'm still not sure what you expect from this; are you
also saying we should stop an interesting discussion (that nobody has to
read!) or do you find it just a bit intersting?

[Markus]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1Xtbb.84650$Kb2.3673615@news010.worldonline.d k...

> that's exactly why I am calling for a new thread with more structure and
> less monotony.

Ever hear of "Lead, Follow, or get outof the way"? Where do you fit in?

-Markus
--
to reply, remove 4u

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen Roberts

[blackout]

>
> > that's exactly why I am calling for a new thread with more structure and
> > less monotony.
>
> Ever hear of "Lead, Follow, or get outof the way"? Where do you fit in?

well, there is no "getting out of the way", since this an umoderated NG and
our subject does have something to do with the group, indrecly, even though
some people dont realize this.

Guess I sort of hoped Virt would find his last post and rewrite it...since I
never answered it, becasue of all this commotion. But if he doesn't, I will
start the thread again. It IS interesting stuff - to ME!

>
> -Markus
> --
> to reply, remove 4u
>
> "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
> you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you
> will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen Roberts
>
> s

[Tommy]

"blackout">
> > > How the h*ll can other people who don't contribute to the thread
> actually
> > > follow it? I mean, I am having a hard time finding the right places to
> > place
> > > new arguments!
> > Glad you got around to responding already! ;)>
> > Just pretend your ice-fishing
> > http://utut.essortment.com/icefishingsafe_rgmt.htm
> > Note #4
> > > and expect anything.
>
> Well, at least your post was mildly entertaining and not directly
> antagonising, in contrast to several other posters who just join the
lowlife
> club because they can't contribute. I appreciate your maturity.
>
> But never the less, I'm still not sure what you expect from this; are you
> also saying we should stop an interesting discussion (that nobody has to
> read!) or do you find it just a bit intersting?


I'm afraid I've been 747'ed, I can't even remember what the thread was/is
about. Seems a good time to butt in so. The price of butter, now that's a
subject. I mean jsut think a lb of butter costs as much today as a whole
cow (or a wife) cost 40 years ago. That is profound.
I bought a car not too long ago, for what I paid for a set of alloys this
year,
- and my low profile goodyears cost twice what my alloys cost. Profounder
still.

Your nick could do with changing, we'd never get away with that in Holy
Catholic Ireland, policy police would crucify us - not PC I'm afraid. Might
I suggest "temporary lack of cohesion" or is that adhesion, these languages
feck up my brain.
Carry on with the errh ahhm conversation lads. Ad break over
Tommy

[Moonraker]

"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:q4Gbb.5781$ev2.2652366@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> "blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1Xtbb.84650$Kb2.3673615@news010.worldonline.d k...
>
> > that's exactly why I am calling for a new thread with more structure and
> > less monotony.
>
> Ever hear of "Lead, Follow, or get outof the way"? Where do you fit in?
>
> -Markus

It's the part about monotony?

[Tommy]

"Moonraker" <> > Ever hear of "Lead, Follow, or get outof the way"? Where
do you fit in?
> >
> > -Markus
>
> It's the part about monotony?

Well it sure beats bigamy :-)
Tommy

[blackout]

> I'm afraid I've been 747'ed, I can't even remember what the thread was/is
> about.

No, you just didn't understand a word of it. It was for people with an IQ of
at least 50.

Seems a good time to butt in so.

yes, for you; so you can make yousself look even more stupid.

> Your nick could do with changing, we'd never get away with that in Holy
> Catholic Ireland, policy police would crucify us - not PC I'm afraid.
Might
> I suggest "temporary lack of cohesion" or is that adhesion, these
languages
> feck up my brain.

It has been fucked up all along, my friend....

> Carry on with the errh ahhm conversation lads. Ad break over
> Tommy

Thank you. I appreciate your valuable input.


>
>

[`F.H]

Tommy wrote:
>
> "Moonraker" <> > Ever hear of "Lead, Follow, or get outof the way"? Where
> do you fit in?
> > >
> > > -Markus
> >
> > It's the part about monotony?
>
> Well it sure beats bigamy :-)
> Tommy

Not if you're a Mormon.

Brother Frank

[Moonraker]

"Tommy" <Tommyschleprechaun@anyway.com> wrote in message
news:bknbri$3lgeu$1@ID-49277.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Moonraker" <> > Ever hear of "Lead, Follow, or get outof the way"? Where
> do you fit in?
> > >
> > > -Markus
> >
> > It's the part about monotony?
>
> Well it sure beats bigamy :-)
> Tommy
>
Having two wives would be like saying cancer doesn't hurt the second time
you get it.

[Tommy]

"`F.H" <> > > It's the part about monotony?
> >
> > Well it sure beats bigamy :-)
> > Tommy
>
> Not if you're a Mormon.
>
> Brother Frank

AHh jaysus no, that'd be moronotomy - what I find hard to figure out is how
them fellows don't drink. I have only one wife and well even though she's
only part-time she sure took a lot of my time up, with me needing drink :-)
Tommy

[GaryE]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:15:07 +0200, "blackout"
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>> >How come people who never say anything in a thread suddenly pop up and
>say a
>> >one-sentence piece of bullshit? Or do you have a valid point at all?
>>
>> now that you mentioned it, take your long, monotous, discussion off
>> line. get the point?
>
>Listen, you pathetic little nitwit, you can't even spell, and yet you have
>the nerve to tell me WHAT TO WRITE ABOUT IN A PUBLIC NEWSGROUP?? You should
>seek help, and I'm talking major surgery to the frontal lobes here...!
>
>The morons you have to put up with in here....complaining about what people
>can or cannot write, and yet they STILL have nothing else to do than read my
>posts and come up with poorly writtten complaints....Get a life, suckers.
>
>
>
easy college boy. you can write all day long if you wish. if Usenet
can have viruses, it can have bright people, like you. I did read
some of your posts and thought you had some good answers to our
resident droner, aka "whatever it is, I'm agin it." Shucks. I know I
should be more grateful for guys like you....tell me, do you know
anything about geology? Cosmology? Particle physics? Southern
Baptists? politics? heh. Now there's a con game much better than the
folks who brought you Prozac ever thought of. Prozac is pikers
compared to the trillions that politicians can beat you out of. But
you don't live here, do you? Lucky you.

Sorry to upset your cool....looks like you're taking a beating without
me.

Best,
GaryE

[Dylin]

blackout wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid I've been 747'ed, I can't even remember what the thread was/is
> > about.
>
> No, you just didn't understand a word of it. It was for people with an IQ of
> at least 50.

I don't know the Danish word for skytsånd, but that's what our Tommy is.
>
> Seems a good time to butt in so.
>
> yes, for you; so you can make yousself look even more stupid.

I can tell you haven't met our Tommy face to face yet. He's downright
brilliant. Can charm cranky old people, small children and an occasional
irate Dansk but.

(I know he'd say the same about me).

Right Tommy?

Tommy....
--
Cranky Old Dylin

[Craig S.]

"Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:SFDbb.12368$iO.11156@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
>
> "Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:vmtjarg8j0ok64@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> > news:210920032049534606%virtualoso@dot.com...
> >
> > > You're not interested, don't find it interesting, yet you read it
> > > anyway? Fascinating.
> >
> > Never know where a gem might turn up.
>
> Yep. You "might" find a 10 carat diamond lodged in a goat's ass.

I'll never find that one with your head in the way.

[Craig S.]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JtDbb.86855$Kb2.3682718@news010.worldonline.d k...

> The morons you have to put up with in here....

Don't you mean the morons YOU *choose* to put up with in here? See that
little button on the front of your computer? Yes, that's the on/off switch.

[Virtualoso]

In article <jREbb.12488$iO.6862@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, Moonraker
<fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Yawn.
> It's not the quotes and info...it's the interpretations thereof. Ad
> nauseum.

What interpretations? Yours?

> yet you're not degreed in either that topic or
> > agriculture, then it's obvious that you're simply uncomfortable with
> > the subject
>
> Uncomfortable? Nah. After 5 or 6 gigabytes of the same reposts and
> arguments about the meaning of the word "is", you've about worn the topic
> out, don'tcha think? What should be obvious is that it's just flat
> B-O-R-I-N-G. And has virtually nothing to do with recovery from
> alcoholism......OK?

So you say. Others say otherwise. Pesky predicament, eh?


> All to prove "what", exactly, to some pseudo-intellectual binge drinking
> college kid? That yer pee-pee is bigger than his?

"Prove"? Is that what's bothering you, concerns about people "proving"
things or not?

> and have no better basis for attempting to quash it. For
> > some reason.
>
> Actually, I kinda like you. For some reason. So you haven't been
> killfiled. Yet. But....give us a break? OK? Take it to email if you need
> to continue whatever it is. Please.

It's simple. Just don't bother reading it. Kill file me, if that
automates it for you.

[Virtualoso]

In article <bknbfk$3m52t$1@ID-49277.news.uni-berlin.de>, Tommy
<Tommyschleprechaun@anyway.com> wrote:

> "blackout">
> >
> > But never the less, I'm still not sure what you expect from this; are you
> > also saying we should stop an interesting discussion (that nobody has to
> > read!) or do you find it just a bit intersting?
>
>
> I'm afraid I've been 747'ed, I can't even remember what the thread was/is
> about. Seems a good time to butt in so. ... [snip]

The thread was/is "Problems other than alcohol..." and, specifically,
about taking psychiadrugs as well. Many people believe that their
alcoholism is "really" just "self medicating" and that the solution is
to get a doctor to give you certain drugs, instead.

The examination has been what the basis of believing that might be,
especially in terms of "scientific" or "medical." And how that's been
going, so far, according to various ways known to be relied on for
telling that.

Please do join in, if you like.

[Virtualoso]

In article <xeGbb.89310$Kb2.3692692@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Guess I sort of hoped Virt would find his last post and rewrite it...since I
> never answered it, becasue of all this commotion. But if he doesn't, I will
> start the thread again. It IS interesting stuff - to ME!

Naw, I'm not going to rewrite that post. But have at it, if you like.

[Virtualoso]

In article <3upumvg61tl4b549b8lhsvmr5imhch5o3t@4ax.com>, GaryE
<garyexxxnospam@swbell.net> wrote:

> ... Now there's a con game much better than the
> folks who brought you Prozac ever thought of. Prozac is pikers
> compared to the trillions that politicians can beat you out of. ...

And, yet, it takes politics to not only sell Prozac and the like, but
to corner the market on doing so. In fact, things like national bills
and MediCare budgets and state legislations, and FDA deals, and
commercial licensing. Not enough "politics" involved for you?

Not to mention drugging quite a few folks while they're at it. On what
turns out to be rather dubious basis, despite a huge PR/ad campaign
expressly designed to foster quite another impression. For some reason.

[Moonraker]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:220920031743200061%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <jREbb.12488$iO.6862@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, Moonraker
> <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Yawn.
> > It's not the quotes and info...it's the interpretations thereof. Ad
> > nauseum.
>
> What interpretations? Yours?

Actually, I never bothered to interpret any part of it, as it wasn't of
much interest to me from a minutia detail perspective. I pretty much agreed
with your initial premise regarding self-medicating and left it at that.

>
> > yet you're not degreed in either that topic or
> > > agriculture, then it's obvious that you're simply uncomfortable with
> > > the subject
> >
> > Uncomfortable? Nah. After 5 or 6 gigabytes of the same reposts and
> > arguments about the meaning of the word "is", you've about worn the
topic
> > out, don'tcha think? What should be obvious is that it's just flat
> > B-O-R-I-N-G. And has virtually nothing to do with recovery from
> > alcoholism......OK?
>
> So you say. Others say otherwise. Pesky predicament, eh?

Other than the two main participants, who else? I mean, the other usual
contributors in a.r.a.a don't seem to be commenting or interested. I'd
betcha they wish you'd move on to another topic, too. Mostly, they are
probably just too polite to say so. (Bwahaaahaaa!)

>
>
> > All to prove "what", exactly, to some pseudo-intellectual binge drinking
> > college kid? That yer pee-pee is bigger than his?
>
> "Prove"? Is that what's bothering you, concerns about people "proving"
> things or not?

Prove, determine. Whatever.

>
> > and have no better basis for attempting to quash it. For
> > > some reason.
> >
> > Actually, I kinda like you. For some reason. So you haven't been
> > killfiled. Yet. But....give us a break? OK? Take it to email if you
need
> > to continue whatever it is. Please.
>
> It's simple. Just don't bother reading it. Kill file me, if that

I don't "read" it....usually, not even scan it. But when I click "Next",
and the thread goes on and on and on and there's nothing much (apparently)
being accomplished, I wonder "why"....

Mostly, what you have to say is interesting to me....until it gets into
rehashing the rehash of the rehash.

> automates it for you.

[Virtualoso]

In article <vVNbb.18514$8j.7543@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Moonraker
<fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> > So you say. Others say otherwise. Pesky predicament, eh?
>
> Other than the two main participants, who else? I mean, the other usual
> contributors in a.r.a.a don't seem to be commenting or interested. I'd
> betcha they wish you'd move on to another topic, too. Mostly, they are
> probably just too polite to say so. (Bwahaaahaaa!)

So you say. Or, you somehow figure that two folks ought not be pursuing
a thread together if you aren't interested. For some reason.

> > It's simple. Just don't bother reading it. Kill file me, if that
>
> I don't "read" it....usually, not even scan it. But when I click "Next",
> and the thread goes on and on and on and there's nothing much (apparently)
> being accomplished, I wonder "why"....
>
> Mostly, what you have to say is interesting to me....until it gets into
> rehashing the rehash of the rehash.

Then just skip it. You're getting a tad repetitive and monotonous
already here yourself.

[blackout]

> easy college boy. you can write all day long if you wish.

That should not even be worth mentioning. But apparently I have to put up
with people wanting to dictate what I can write about or not. It's gets to
be a little irritating, and it borders on sensorhip. You say "you don't live
in the states, lucky you" - isn't it sometimes called "land of the free"?
Or maybe that notion has dissappeared in this NG?

if Usenet
> can have viruses, it can have bright people, like you. I did read
> some of your posts and thought you had some good answers to our
> resident droner, aka "whatever it is, I'm agin it." Shucks. I know I
> should be more grateful for guys like you....

Why, thank you. I would never have expected that.

tell me, do you know
> anything about geology? Cosmology? Particle physics? Southern
> Baptists? politics? heh. Now there's a con game much better than the
> folks who brought you Prozac ever thought of. Prozac is pikers
> compared to the trillions that politicians can beat you out of. But
> you don't live here, do you? Lucky you.

But those subjects don't have ANYTHING to do with recovery at all. This
discussion does, however elusive it might be to a number of people in here.

> Sorry to upset your cool....looks like you're taking a beating without
> me.

Well, when people try to shut me up, it reminds me of dictatorships and lack
of free speech. Those notions were the ones you should be worried about
*not* taking a beating here.

>
> Best,
> GaryE

[blackout]

>
> > The morons you have to put up with in here....
>
> Don't you mean the morons YOU *choose* to put up with in here? See that
> little button on the front of your computer? Yes, that's the on/off
switch.

I refuse to let people dictate what I can write about. These people mess up
a thread containinng some valuable information, reminding me of mob-like
behaviour. I never intrude on others people's threads if it doesn't interest
me. And I certainly don't interfere if I have nothing to contribute with.

[rosie readandpost]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uMRbb.89726$Kb2.3720881@news010.worldonline.d k...

>
> I refuse to let people dictate what I can write about.


i think my biggest question would be WHAT are you trying to do here?
at first you came here, seemly looking for help with a possible alcohol problem.
now, it seems like you think this is a philosophy 101 class.................

what is it that you want blackout?
help with your drinking problem? drug problem?
treatment for depression?
or are you here just to chat?

[Moonraker]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:220920032128542097%virtualoso@dot.com...
> You're getting a tad repetitive and monotonous
> already here yourself.

I see. This would be a classic case of don't do as Virt does, do as Virt
says.

[Virtualoso]

In article <68Xbb.20320$eX1.9437@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, rosie
readandpost <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uMRbb.89726$Kb2.3720881@news010.worldonline.d k...
>
> >
> > I refuse to let people dictate what I can write about.
>
>
> i think my biggest question would be WHAT are you trying to do here?
> at first you came here, seemly looking for help with a possible alcohol
> problem.
> now, it seems like you think this is a philosophy 101 class.................
>
> what is it that you want blackout?
> help with your drinking problem? drug problem?
> treatment for depression?
> or are you here just to chat?

"Just"? Imagine that - just discussing something on a discussion NG.
Or even just a chat. And a topic/subject related to that of the NG.
What could they possibly really be up to?

Rather than, say, reading the daily philosophical postings.

[Virtualoso]

In article <8lXbb.13613$jO.13175@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Moonraker
<fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:220920032128542097%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > You're getting a tad repetitive and monotonous
> > already here yourself.
>
> I see. This would be a classic case of don't do as Virt does, do as Virt
> says.

Or it's don't do as Moonraker says, but as Moonraker does. Is that
classic?

[blackout]

> what is it that you want blackout?

Thanks for asking. Finally someone found out that just complaining or
flamiing will result in nothing..

> help with your drinking problem? drug problem?

I dont have a drug problem, of course...Help with my drinking problem in the
sense that I have a need to talk to someone with similar problems, not
advice on stopping (I have). I just need to talk - about whatever, evem if
it is only remotely related to alcohollism. It helps me stay focused
somehow.

> treatment for depression?

I am not depressed, luckily.

> or are you here just to chat?

That too, call it what you will. Whether or not people understand it, this
thread has actually helped me decide if I should take medication or not, and
therefore has the right to be here. Many drunks are offered SSRI's every
day, and maybe if someone would care to even read the thread, they could
maybe make a better decision. Yes, the thread became long and perhaps
monotonous, but it was necessary since the subject is so complicated that
everything has to be scrutinized.

This is important to ME, it may not be to you, but maybe others. And I
definetely do not like certain ppl trying to decide what are proper posts -
that is simply not the way things work. I lost my head (again) over this,
but dictating what you can or cannot write is simply WRONG.

Hope you understand me a little better now.

>
>

[blackout]

> > I see. This would be a classic case of don't do as Virt does, do as
Virt
> > says.
>
> Or it's don't do as Moonraker says, but as Moonraker does. Is that
> classic?

This place would be nothing but insults then. That's all he does, as far as
I can see.

[Moonraker]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:230920030640368227%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <8lXbb.13613$jO.13175@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Moonraker
> <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> > news:220920032128542097%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > > You're getting a tad repetitive and monotonous
> > > already here yourself.
> >
> > I see. This would be a classic case of don't do as Virt does, do as
Virt
> > says.
>
> Or it's don't do as Moonraker says, but as Moonraker does. Is that
> classic?

No...I'm sorry.

You got it all fucked up.

It's do as Moonraker says, not as Virt does.

Thank you, and keep coming back.

Don't drink and go to meetings.

[`F.H]

blackout wrote:

> That too, call it what you will. Whether or not people understand it, this
> thread has actually helped me decide if I should take medication or not, and
> therefore has the right to be here. Many drunks are offered SSRI's every
> day, and maybe if someone would care to even read the thread, they could
> maybe make a better decision. Yes, the thread became long and perhaps
> monotonous, but it was necessary since the subject is so complicated that
> everything has to be scrutinized.
>
> This is important to ME, it may not be to you, but maybe others.

The vast majority of practicing alcoholics are hypoglycemic. I've been
sober for since 88 and I'm still borderline. To take *any* kind of
medication before going on a proper diet and exercise program to me is
very foolish. Low blood sugar is a trigger for reaching for a drink.
/////
AA cofounder Bill Wilson was very interested in the link between
alcoholism and hypoglycemia. He collected research papers demonstrating
the extent of abnormal glucose fluctuations among alcoholics and sent
three different reports on the subject to AA physicians. Wilson's
interest was personal as well as professional. For many years, he
suffered from depression and other hypoglycemic symptoms. He also
consumed huge amounts of sugar and caffeine. Finally, by eliminating
sugar and caffeine and making other dietary changes, he stabilized his
blood sugar and achieved a sense of well-being.
//////
There are many sites on hypoglycemia. Here is a site that offers a book
that I found most helpful. Scroll down to the bottom and click on any
chapter for an idea what's it about.

http://www.healthrecovery.com/Seven_Weeks_To_Sobriety.html

[rosie readandpost]

> Many drunks are offered SSRI's every
> day, and maybe if someone would care to even read the thread, they could
> maybe make a better decision.

a better idea?
go see an addictionologist/psychiatrist.
DO NOT make your decision on the advise you get from a newsgroup!
we are here to suggest only, and NOT diagnose.



>Yes, the thread became long and perhaps
> monotonous,

BIG TIME!



> but it was necessary since the subject is so complicated that
> everything has to be scrutinized.


just what subject would that be?




i believe that you have successfully passed what i call, ALCOHOLIC BULLSHIT 101class.................we are
sooooooooooooooo good at talking, and talking, and talking. (typing) and then doing nothing!
(look at the length of this thread)





>
> This is important to ME, it may not be to you, but maybe others.
And I
> definetely do not like certain ppl trying to decide what are proper posts -
> that is simply not the way things work.

i agree that there isn't anyone in here who can dictate to anyone else what they should or should not
do..........................sharing experience, seems to work better!
:)
it seems to me, though, that you would be better off in private email, seeking your answers, if answers are what you
seek.
again, i caution you about seeking this type of help on usenet.

[rosie readandpost]

you are absolutely correct imo, about the hypoglycemia issues that SOME alcoholics suffer.
i WISH that proper diet, and exercise were the answer for all who suffer depression, but alas, its not.

--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie
http://www.moveon.org/

every reform was once a private opinion.
....................ralph waldo emerson




"`F.H" <disconnectu@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3F705796.539C6C5A@earthlink.net...
> blackout wrote:
>
> > That too, call it what you will. Whether or not people understand it, this
> > thread has actually helped me decide if I should take medication or not, and
> > therefore has the right to be here. Many drunks are offered SSRI's every
> > day, and maybe if someone would care to even read the thread, they could
> > maybe make a better decision. Yes, the thread became long and perhaps
> > monotonous, but it was necessary since the subject is so complicated that
> > everything has to be scrutinized.
> >
> > This is important to ME, it may not be to you, but maybe others.
>
> The vast majority of practicing alcoholics are hypoglycemic. I've been
> sober for since 88 and I'm still borderline. To take *any* kind of
> medication before going on a proper diet and exercise program to me is
> very foolish. Low blood sugar is a trigger for reaching for a drink.
> /////
> AA cofounder Bill Wilson was very interested in the link between
> alcoholism and hypoglycemia. He collected research papers demonstrating
> the extent of abnormal glucose fluctuations among alcoholics and sent
> three different reports on the subject to AA physicians. Wilson's
> interest was personal as well as professional. For many years, he
> suffered from depression and other hypoglycemic symptoms. He also
> consumed huge amounts of sugar and caffeine. Finally, by eliminating
> sugar and caffeine and making other dietary changes, he stabilized his
> blood sugar and achieved a sense of well-being.
> //////
> There are many sites on hypoglycemia. Here is a site that offers a book
> that I found most helpful. Scroll down to the bottom and click on any
> chapter for an idea what's it about.
>
> http://www.healthrecovery.com/Seven_Weeks_To_Sobriety.html

[blackout]

> > That too, call it what you will. Whether or not people understand it,
this
> > thread has actually helped me decide if I should take medication or not,
and
> > therefore has the right to be here. Many drunks are offered SSRI's every
> > day, and maybe if someone would care to even read the thread, they could
> > maybe make a better decision. Yes, the thread became long and perhaps
> > monotonous, but it was necessary since the subject is so complicated
that
> > everything has to be scrutinized.

> The vast majority of practicing alcoholics are hypoglycemic. I've been
> sober for since 88 and I'm still borderline. To take *any* kind of
> medication before going on a proper diet and exercise program to me is
> very foolish. Low blood sugar is a trigger for reaching for a drink.
> /////.

Probably true, I've heard about it. But there are others that believe that
taking in too much sugar results in a worsening of a feedback system in the
brain that actually enforces the need for a drink. That is just speculation,
though.

Well, doctors DO prescribe SSRI's to drunks every day, so the issue must be
discussed so people can say yes or no, depending on what they believe is
best. For them.

But helpful post. Thanks.

[blackout]

> > Many drunks are offered SSRI's every
> > day, and maybe if someone would care to even read the thread, they could
> > maybe make a better decision.
>
> a better idea?
> go see an addictionologist/psychiatrist.

Of course. But if you have read the thread, one could adress some of the
concerns that is associated with medication with your doctor, if he tries to
give you them.

> DO NOT make your decision on the advise you get from a newsgroup!

I have never given advice, nor will I. I have discussed these things mostly
for my own reasons, and how people interpret it is not my direct concern.

> we are here to suggest only, and NOT diagnose.

I dont even suggest. I took the role of the advocate of SSRI's, that should
be clear, but only to build up my own opinion about it. I am in no way
saying that SSRI's are the solution.


>
>
>
> >Yes, the thread became long and perhaps
> > monotonous,
>
> BIG TIME!
>
>
>
> > but it was necessary since the subject is so complicated that
> > everything has to be scrutinized.
>
>
> just what subject would that be?
>
>
>
>
> i believe that you have successfully passed what i call, ALCOHOLIC
BULLSHIT 101class.................we are
> sooooooooooooooo good at talking, and talking, and talking. (typing) and
then doing nothing!
> (look at the length of this thread)
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > This is important to ME, it may not be to you, but maybe others.
> And I
> > definetely do not like certain ppl trying to decide what are proper
posts -
> > that is simply not the way things work.
>
> i agree that there isn't anyone in here who can dictate to anyone else
what they should or should not
> do..........................sharing experience, seems to work better!
> :)
> it seems to me, though, that you would be better off in private email,
seeking your answers, if answers are what you
> seek.
> again, i caution you about seeking this type of help on usenet.
>
>

[Virtualoso]

In article <_OYbb.20549$eX1.8673@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, rosie
readandpost <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Many drunks are offered SSRI's every
> > day, and maybe if someone would care to even read the thread, they could
> > maybe make a better decision.
>
> a better idea?
> go see an addictionologist....
> DO NOT make your decision on the advise you get from a newsgroup!
> we are here to suggest only, and NOT diagnose.

Of course, an "addictionologist" may be simply a chiropractor that's
sure it's invisible "subluxations" in your spine that are the problem.

> > but it was necessary since the subject is so complicated that
> > everything has to be scrutinized.
>
> just what subject would that be?
>
> i believe that you have successfully passed what i call, ALCOHOLIC BULLSHIT
> 101class.................we are
> sooooooooooooooo good at talking, and talking, and talking. (typing) and then
> doing nothing!

In other words, it bugs you to see taking unproven drugs for unknown,
possibly nonexistent, brain disorders being discussed so frankly.

> > This is important to ME, it may not be to you, but maybe others.
> And I
> > definetely do not like certain ppl trying to decide what are proper posts -
> > that is simply not the way things work.
>
> i agree that there isn't anyone in here who can dictate to anyone else what
> they should or should not
> do..........................sharing experience, seems to work better!

Just so long as we're sure to dismiss dialogues and information that
doesn't jibe with going to shrinks and getting drugged.


> :)
> it seems to me, though, that you would be better off in private email,
> seeking your answers, if answers are what you
> seek.

Private email with whom, Rosie?

[Michael H.]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YZFbb.89069$Kb2.3691455@news010.worldonline.d k...
>
> > > How the h*ll can other people who don't contribute to the thread
> actually
> > > follow it? I mean, I am having a hard time finding the right places to
> > place
> > > new arguments!
> > >
> >
> >
> > Glad you got around to responding already! ;)>
> > Just pretend your ice-fishing
> > http://utut.essortment.com/icefishingsafe_rgmt.htm
> > Note #4
> > > and expect anything.
>
> Well, at least your post was mildly entertaining and not directly
> antagonising, in contrast to several other posters who just join the
lowlife
> club because they can't contribute. I appreciate your maturity.
>
> But never the less, I'm still not sure what you expect from this; are you
> also saying we should stop an interesting discussion (that nobody has to
> read!) or do you find it just a bit intersting?
>
>


There are certain aspects of the discussion that are interesting...not to
mention the investment each of you have in making your by point by quoting
studies that are still open to study and revision thereby changing the
"point". But that's just a given for me. The "facts" in any discussion are
always open to interpretation. To every Ph.D. there is an equal and opposite
Ph.D. and indeed many with no degree of schooling who possess a completely
"outside" opinion that includes our interpretation as well as others. Anyway
it just seemed to be a pissing contest with weak streams....... And others
have actually input opinions with an intention of forwarding the
conversation...in more ways than one. Your inability to follow a threads
various branches could use some polishing. Branch out baby.

Peace
Michael H.

Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts don't stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape
I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...
I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...
I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...

Talking Heads
Cross-eyed and Painless
Remain in Light

[blackout]

> > But never the less, I'm still not sure what you expect from this; are
you
> > also saying we should stop an interesting discussion (that nobody has to
> > read!) or do you find it just a bit intersting?

> There are certain aspects of the discussion that are interesting...not to
> mention the investment each of you have in making your by point by
quoting
> studies that are still open to study and revision thereby changing the
> "point". But that's just a given for me.

Yes, the discussion has basicly been dialectic, but as you said, that is a
given. Maybe we should have made clearer.

The "facts" in any discussion are
> always open to interpretation. To every Ph.D. there is an equal and
opposite
> Ph.D. and indeed many with no degree of schooling who possess a completely
> "outside" opinion that includes our interpretation as well as others.

Another given. Dialectic discussions always yield the best results. That's
the reason for the multifacetted thread.

Anyway
> it just seemed to be a pissing contest with weak streams....... And others
> have actually input opinions with an intention of forwarding the
> conversation...

Maybe one or two....but that would be the desirable situation if more people
truly dived in..

in more ways than one. Your inability to follow a threads
> various branches could use some polishing. Branch out baby.

due to my statement about it, or just by looking at thread?
I think I got it as right as everyone else would have. I dont know.

>
> Peace
> Michael H.
>
> Facts are simple and facts are straight
> Facts are lazy and facts are late
> Facts all come with points of view
> Facts don't do what I want them to
> Facts just twist the truth around
> Facts are living turned inside out
> Facts are getting the best of them
> Facts are nothing on the face of things
> Facts don't stain the furniture
> Facts go out and slam the door
> Facts are written all over your face
> Facts continue to change their shape
> I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...
> I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...
> I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...
>
> Talking Heads
> Cross-eyed and Painless
> Remain in Light
>
>

[Kai]

Moonraker wrote:
> "Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:vmtjarg8j0ok64@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
>> news:210920032049534606%virtualoso@dot.com...
>>
>>> You're not interested, don't find it interesting, yet you read it
>>> anyway? Fascinating.
>>
>> Never know where a gem might turn up.
>
> Yep. You "might" find a 10 carat diamond lodged in a goat's ass.

Ouch, I bet that would hurt. Gotta be more careful from now on.

Kai

[Virtualoso]

In article <bkpn7r$4bbh2$1@ID-190703.news.uni-berlin.de>, Michael H.
<mgh111@hotmail.com> wrote:

> There are certain aspects of the discussion that are interesting...not to
> mention the investment each of you have in making your by point by quoting
> studies that are still open to study and revision thereby changing the
> "point". But that's just a given for me. The "facts" in any discussion are
> always open to interpretation. To every Ph.D. there is an equal and opposite
> Ph.D. ....

Oh, there's a great deal of medical science that's really rather
established, agreed and manifestly demonstrable. Way out on the
speculative edges, though, is where things get... well, especially
speculative. At best.

Waving our arms about any degree of uncertainty is perhaps different
than noting only the slightest degrees of uncertainty.

> and indeed many with no degree of schooling who possess a completely
> "outside" opinion that includes our interpretation as well as others.

The very predicament of "most people." "Most people" are not only not
"qualified professionals" in these topics, they are largely uninformed
or outright misinformed. Especially by others in the "most people"
gang, and particularly by those that urge going to subject one's self
to just the drug prescribing docs as being the "real professional help"
(as if that means something specific).

> Anyway
> it just seemed to be a pissing contest with weak streams......

The Real pissing contest is about just who oughta' be posting just
what, and just how much of it, to be read by just whom. Where are the
studies and citations? Only original thoughts, now.

[GaryE]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:45:00 +0200, "blackout"
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:


>> go see an addictionologist/psychiatrist.
>
>Of course. But if you have read the thread, one could adress some of the
>concerns that is associated with medication with your doctor, if he tries to
>give you them.
>
This newsgroup (and maybe others too) has a tendency to have polar
type discussions on issues that most of us have few, if any,
professional qualifications. One way you can overcome that, it seems,
is to minimize the value of professional people, en masse. By doing
so, one can become some kind of authority, I suppose.

The reason people search and post articles is also subject to some
question. I would say that there is a preconceived opinion rather
than doing any 'objective' (a fuzzy term, sometimes) research. As you
must know, in academia, the granting of certifications of degrees of
knowledge is done on thorough research of all sides, not just one. It
doesn't mean that one side of a point of view doesn't have some value,
it just means that's not the way our educational culture institutions
passes out their degrees of knowledge. Learning, I believe, is about
seeing both or all sides. A difficult task, impossible for some, for
whatever their reasons. Opinions are essentially, one side. True,
we got two sides but the topic is not nearly fresh here. So,
unbeknownst to you, you participated in an ageless re run, which was
interesting for a few posts...

Let me assure you that it is a interesting characteristic of
recovering (or recovered) alcoholics that we become quite expert and
authoritarian in some (for Chris sake) endeavor. It is not limited to
alcoholics, but it's a prevalent type trait among alcoholics to my
limited observation. My speculation is that it probably has to do, in
the final analysis, that drunks under it all, have this over whelming
need to be right and an absurd, ungodly fear of being wrong. I can
identify with that and by many conversations know there are more than
a few others who find identification with that attitude.

I am now 64. I read more now than I ever have. I also have a
reasonably good education. What is more clear to me now, than ever,
is that the more I learn, the more I can appreciate the range of facts
and knowledge that I can't even get to, much less own. And one of the
things I have learned by reading about very very bright people, in
science, in particular, but in philosophy and religion as well is that
the more they (if I can lump the all together, for convenience) seem
to know, the more they seem to understand how little they do know.
Most that I have read, though not all, accept that. Peacefully, it
seems. I admire that.

I think life in its larger sense is about acquiring information. We
have some kind of internal, intuitive, need to find things out. Try
to master things and people with that information. Then we die.
It is truly vanity, I think. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity and a
chasing after the wind. That is not an ultimate statement but it is
one which captures a great deal of life, from my perspective anyway.

Best,
GaryE

[rosie readandpost]

> My speculation is that it probably has to do, in
> the final analysis, that drunks under it all, have this over whelming
> need to be right and an absurd, ungodly fear of being wrong. I can
> identify with that and by many conversations know there are more than
> a few others who find identification with that attitude.
>


BINGO!
(egomaniacs with inferiority complexes)

[`F.H.]

rosie readandpost wrote:
>
> > My speculation is that it probably has to do, in
> > the final analysis, that drunks under it all, have this over whelming
> > need to be right and an absurd, ungodly fear of being wrong. I can
> > identify with that and by many conversations know there are more than
> > a few others who find identification with that attitude.
> >
>
> BINGO!
> (egomaniacs with inferiority complexes)

Grumpy old former kings of beasts anticipating their impending eviction
from the pride. Drunks are just ahead of the curve that's all.

[Virtualoso]

In article <wO5cb.23120$eX1.17111@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, rosie
readandpost <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > My speculation is that it probably has to do, in
> > the final analysis, that drunks under it all, have this over whelming
> > need to be right and an absurd, ungodly fear of being wrong. I can
> > identify with that and by many conversations know there are more than
> > a few others who find identification with that attitude.
>
> BINGO!
> (egomaniacs with inferiority complexes)

You figure someone's got something wrong about something?

[Virtualoso]

In article <mjo1nv8oba6g177228t6bgrg1brt6hevvf@4ax.com>, GaryE
<garyexxxnospam@swbell.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:45:00 +0200, "blackout"
> <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> go see an addictionologist/psychiatrist.
> >
> >Of course. But if you have read the thread, one could adress some of the
> >concerns that is associated with medication with your doctor, if he tries to
> >give you them.
> >
> This newsgroup (and maybe others too) has a tendency to have polar
> type discussions on issues that most of us have few, if any,
> professional qualifications. One way you can overcome that, it seems,
> is to minimize the value of professional people, en masse. By doing
> so, one can become some kind of authority, I suppose.

An interesting pickle: we're simply not even qualified to determine who
is - or, among who may seem to be, just which are worthy of being
believed, for any particular reason that doesn't require equivalent
professional qualifications in order to determine. Yet, ought we hire
.... someone... for something ... on some basis, anyway?

Naturally, it's a very unfortunate thing to have non-professionally
qualified folks discussing matters that might affect them, among
themselves. Something seriously wrong with that picture. Must be
suspect personal characteristics or motives in there. Perhaps they
should seek some qualified professional help? LOL

But maybe where the jigsaw picture gets really scrambled is when anyone
non-professional might discuss something with another non-professional
that comes directly from qualified professionals assuring some distinct
things directly to non-professionals? Now we're stuck in the Gran
Paradox of only being able to take qualified professionals' word that
it's okay for us to know or discuss what only they are professionally
qualified to grant us the okayness to know or discuss it. Or to defy
that professionally qualified call, while unprofessionally unqualified
to do so.

> The reason people search and post articles is also subject to some
> question.

Oh, well, imagining "why" people "really" do certain things is
naturally what matters. Much better topic. Even if professionally
unqualified to venture any such thing.

> I would say that there is a preconceived opinion rather
> than doing any 'objective' (a fuzzy term, sometimes) research. As you
> must know, in academia, the granting of certifications of degrees of
> knowledge is done on thorough research of all sides, not just one. It
> doesn't mean that one side of a point of view doesn't have some value,
> it just means that's not the way our educational culture institutions
> passes out their degrees of knowledge. Learning, I believe, is about
> seeing both or all sides. A difficult task, impossible for some, for
> whatever their reasons. Opinions are essentially, one side. True,
> we got two sides but the topic is not nearly fresh here.

Ah.... "fresh topics" being the crux. But, alas, the Topic of Topics,
and their freshness or the discussers qualifications or the Real Motive
examinations are about as old and dusty as it gets.

> Let me assure you that it is a interesting characteristic of
> recovering (or recovered) alcoholics that we become quite expert and
> authoritarian ...

Is that so?

[Virtualoso]

In article <3F70F1A3.DC2AE313@earthlink.net>, `F.H.
<disconnectu@earthlink.net> wrote:

> rosie readandpost wrote:
> >
> > > My speculation is that it probably has to do, in
> > > the final analysis, that drunks under it all, have this over whelming
> > > need to be right and an absurd, ungodly fear of being wrong. I can
> > > identify with that and by many conversations know there are more than
> > > a few others who find identification with that attitude.
> > >
> >
> > BINGO!
> > (egomaniacs with inferiority complexes)
>
> Grumpy old former kings of beasts anticipating their impending eviction
> from the pride. Drunks are just ahead of the curve that's all.

I like the very notion of Identifying with an Attitude. Is that an
alcoholic thing, too?

[`F.H.]

Virtualoso wrote:
>
> In article <3F70F1A3.DC2AE313@earthlink.net>, `F.H.
> <disconnectu@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > rosie readandpost wrote:
> > >
> > > > My speculation is that it probably has to do, in
> > > > the final analysis, that drunks under it all, have this over whelming
> > > > need to be right and an absurd, ungodly fear of being wrong. I can
> > > > identify with that and by many conversations know there are more than
> > > > a few others who find identification with that attitude.
> > > >
> > >
> > > BINGO!
> > > (egomaniacs with inferiority complexes)
> >
> > Grumpy old former kings of beasts anticipating their impending eviction
> > from the pride. Drunks are just ahead of the curve that's all.
>
> I like the very notion of Identifying with an Attitude. Is that an
> alcoholic thing, too?

Or ethnicity perhaps? My ex is in a perpetual state of indignation and
I blame in on her Pollock mother, (may she shovel fire in peace).

[Kai]

rosie readandpost wrote:
>> My speculation is that it probably has to do, in
>> the final analysis, that drunks under it all, have this over whelming
>> need to be right and an absurd, ungodly fear of being wrong. I can
>> identify with that and by many conversations know there are more than
>> a few others who find identification with that attitude.
>>
>
>
> BINGO!
> (egomaniacs with inferiority complexes)

You're wrong!

Kai

[Craig S.]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uMRbb.89726$Kb2.3720881@news010.worldonline.d k...
> >
> > > The morons you have to put up with in here....
> >
> > Don't you mean the morons YOU *choose* to put up with in here? See that
> > little button on the front of your computer? Yes, that's the on/off
> switch.
>
> I refuse to let people dictate what I can write about. These people mess
up
> a thread containinng some valuable information, reminding me of mob-like
> behaviour. I never intrude on others people's threads if it doesn't
interest
> me. And I certainly don't interfere if I have nothing to contribute with.

"Dictate?" On an unmoderated, public forum? It's all in your head, dude.

[blackout]

> > I refuse to let people dictate what I can write about. These people mess
> up> > a thread containinng some valuable information, reminding me of
mob-like
> > behaviour. I never intrude on others people's threads if it doesn't
> interest> > me. And I certainly don't interfere if I have nothing to
contribute with.
>
> "Dictate?" On an unmoderated, public forum? It's all in your head, dude.

You think so? let me give you a few examples:

>> now that you mentioned it, take your long, monotous, discussion off
>> line. get the point?
(A gem by GaryE)

>See that
>little button on the front of your computer? Yes, that's the on/off
switch.
(another one, by Craig S)

and several other more or less well disguised attempts at stopping the
thread. Please read the thread and you will see what I mean.

[Moonraker]

"Craig S." <cspurlock@mtneer.net> wrote in message
news:j2icb.5710$ai7.4703@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> "Dictate?" On an unmoderated, public forum? It's all in your head, dude.
>
Well...at least there's "something" in his head, even if it's only the
delusion that his long, wandering diatribe is "valuable information".


>

[rosie readandpost]

"Kai" <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com> wrote in message news:bkr9a5$1it$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
> rosie readandpost wrote:
> >> My speculation is that it probably has to do, in
> >> the final analysis, that drunks under it all, have this over whelming
> >> need to be right and an absurd, ungodly fear of being wrong. I can
> >> identify with that and by many conversations know there are more than
> >> a few others who find identification with that attitude.
> >>
> >
> >
> > BINGO!
> > (egomaniacs with inferiority complexes)
>
> You're wrong!
>
> Kai
>
>


:)

[Passed Lane]

blackout wrote:

>> > I refuse to let people dictate what I can write about. These people
>> > mess
>> up> > a thread containinng some valuable information, reminding me of
> mob-like
>> > behaviour. I never intrude on others people's threads if it doesn't
>> interest> > me. And I certainly don't interfere if I have nothing to
> contribute with.
>>
>> "Dictate?" On an unmoderated, public forum? It's all in your head,
>> dude.
>
> You think so? let me give you a few examples:
>
>>> now that you mentioned it, take your long, monotous, discussion off
>>> line. get the point?
> (A gem by GaryE)
>
>>See that
>>little button on the front of your computer? Yes, that's the on/off
> switch.
> (another one, by Craig S)
>
> and several other more or less well disguised attempts at stopping the
> thread. Please read the thread and you will see what I mean.

Not cutting out any of the groups on this one, because it kind of has to do
with my question and getting some things straight in my mangled up mind.
;-)

Are you subscribed to, and reading all three of the groups on a daily basis
and keeping up with the general drift of all three news groups? Are you
generally acquainted with the posting patterns and habits of all the
posters so far involved in the thread? Any idea of their background and
where they are coming from?

I'm not going to back track and see who started the thread, or even delve
into the whys of the original poster or the continuing posters, and why
they felt a need to disseminate it so widely, but it could be a cause for
speculation if I were to be comming up with a sense of irritation at the
thread instead of following it up to a point as I did, or were still on
dialup or limited in daily download time and really hungry for a subject
with some meat in it. ;-)

I got a lot of problems other than alcohol. Political, religious, spiritual,
automotive, operating systems, dietary, budgetary, dictionary and
revolutionary. ;-)

And if I do a boolean string search of news groups with an exclusion of
alcohol from the subject, sheesh, I come up with 29,245 news groups on my
particular server what don't got alcohol in the subject line. There is even
one group about and seeming devoted to "Talks about nothing" and nothing
being something which I've got a hell of a lot of and experience with, and
having so much of it and so much experience with it causes me a hell of a
lot of problems in my daily doings, I may need to subscribe to it. ;-)

Think I'll trip on over there and do a "Problems Other Than Nothi..." post.

But, I'm trying to follow about five regular groups and several
professional, techie and trendy mailing lists, and really don't have a hell
of a lot of time to deal with my nothing problem at present, so I reckon
I'll just keep this thread lowered volume wise like I do my news channel
and reach over and turn it up when something interesting catches my ear.

:-), ;-) <Smiley, smiley, smiley,,,, feeble humor attempt...OK>

Charlie

[Craig S.]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uzicb.91156$Kb2.3768209@news010.worldonline.d k...
> > > I refuse to let people dictate what I can write about. These people
mess
> > up> > a thread containinng some valuable information, reminding me of
> mob-like
> > > behaviour. I never intrude on others people's threads if it doesn't
> > interest> > me. And I certainly don't interfere if I have nothing to
> contribute with.
> >
> > "Dictate?" On an unmoderated, public forum? It's all in your head,
dude.
>
> You think so? let me give you a few examples:
>
> >> now that you mentioned it, take your long, monotous, discussion off
> >> line. get the point?
> (A gem by GaryE)
>
> >See that
> >little button on the front of your computer? Yes, that's the on/off
> switch.
> (another one, by Craig S)
>
> and several other more or less well disguised attempts at stopping the
> thread. Please read the thread and you will see what I mean.

HaHa! Yes, this was in response to your reference to the "morons" you "have
to" put up with here. You're not too big on exercising free will, huh?

But just in case you're seeking validation, by all means, please feel free
to regard or disregard any thread or the contribution of any other poster to
this NG as you see fit. Oh, wait, I just dictated that you exercise free
will! Now what? WWJD?

[GraceHague]

[Grace] at [spiritone.com] wrote:

> Virtualoso wrote:
>>
>> In article <3F70F1A3.DC2AE313@earthlink.net>, `F.H.
>> <disconnectu@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> rosie readandpost wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My speculation is that it probably has to do, in
>>>>> the final analysis, that drunks under it all, have this over whelming
>>>>> need to be right and an absurd, ungodly fear of being wrong. I can
>>>>> identify with that and by many conversations know there are more than
>>>>> a few others who find identification with that attitude.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BINGO!
>>>> (egomaniacs with inferiority complexes)
>>>
>>> Grumpy old former kings of beasts anticipating their impending eviction
>>> from the pride. Drunks are just ahead of the curve that's all.
>>
>> I like the very notion of Identifying with an Attitude. Is that an
>> alcoholic thing, too?
>
> Or ethnicity perhaps? My ex is in a perpetual state of indignation and
> I blame in on her Pollock mother, (may she shovel fire in peace).

Your ex's mother is a fish? And why would a fish be responsible for you ex's
indignation? You're being cryptic again, Virt.

Grace

[David M]

GaryE wrote:

> My speculation is that it probably has to do, in the final
> analysis, that drunks under it all, have this over whelming
> need to be right and an absurd, ungodly fear of being wrong.

Thank God I don't have to worry about that. ;-)

[blackout]

> > > "Dictate?" On an unmoderated, public forum? It's all in your head,
> dude.
> >
> > You think so? let me give you a few examples:
> >
> > >> now that you mentioned it, take your long, monotous, discussion off
> > >> line. get the point?
> > (A gem by GaryE)
> >
> > >See that
> > >little button on the front of your computer? Yes, that's the on/off
> > switch.
> > (another one, by Craig S)
> >
> > and several other more or less well disguised attempts at stopping the
> > thread. Please read the thread and you will see what I mean.
>
> HaHa! Yes, this was in response to your reference to the "morons" you
"have
> to" put up with here. You're not too big on exercising free will, huh?

Those "morons" were the exact same people who more or less demanded that we
"stopped wasting their time". What does free will have to do with this?
Maybe the fact that free will is excersized by people choosing to stop
reading the thread and return to whatever they do.

>
> But just in case you're seeking validation, by all means, please feel free
> to regard or disregard any thread or the contribution of any other poster
to
> this NG as you see fit.

That was *my* point.exactly - people who do not like what they read should
find something else to read, instead of mowing down a thread with insults. I
dont seek validation - none of you can give me that - but rather the freedom
to write about what I think is relevant. Insults and pointless attacls are
easy to ignore, but they do sometimes cross the line and destroy the thread.
This one for example. This is what I mean when I say that some people are
trying to dictate what can be said and not said. Indirectly.

Oh, wait, I just dictated that you exercise free
> will! Now what? WWJD?

I am not sure that you truly understand the fundamental point of what I am
trying to say.

>
>

[Robert McGregor]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wGjcb.91877$Kb2.3772313@news010.worldonline.d k...
> I am not sure that you truly understand the fundamental point of what I am
> trying to say.
>

Have you tried alt.thread-addicts.anonymous ?

Bob

[Craig S.]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wGjcb.91877$Kb2.3772313@news010.worldonline.d k...

> I am not sure that you truly understand the fundamental point of what I am
> trying to say.

I'm really trying hard, but I'm sure it must be way over my head. (sniff,
sniff) I smell smoke. Oh, SHIT! My brain is on fire!!!

[blackout]

> Have you tried alt.thread-addicts.anonymous ?

Yet another attempt at shifting focus from the real problem; the lack of
"free will" to say whatever I want to without being harrassed.

[blackout]

>
> > I am not sure that you truly understand the fundamental point of what I
am
> > trying to say.
>
> I'm really trying hard, but I'm sure it must be way over my head. (sniff,
> sniff) I smell smoke. Oh, SHIT! My brain is on fire!!!

Don't worry, I will make it easier for you by quoting another post I just
wrote:

"Yet another attempt at shifting focus from the real problem; the lack of
"free will" to say whatever I want to without being harrassed."

It's that simple.

[Robert McGregor]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6Pjcb.91968$Kb2.3772791@news010.worldonline.d k...
>
> > Have you tried alt.thread-addicts.anonymous ?
>
> Yet another attempt at shifting focus from the real problem; the lack of
> "free will" to say whatever I want to without being harrassed.
>
>
Oh, you poor harrassee. You certainly do have problems other than alcohol,
don't you.

[Craig S.]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ISjcb.92006$Kb2.3772687@news010.worldonline.d k...
>
> >
> > > I am not sure that you truly understand the fundamental point of what
I
> am
> > > trying to say.
> >
> > I'm really trying hard, but I'm sure it must be way over my head.
(sniff,
> > sniff) I smell smoke. Oh, SHIT! My brain is on fire!!!
>
> Don't worry, I will make it easier for you by quoting another post I just
> wrote:
>
> "Yet another attempt at shifting focus from the real problem; the lack of
> "free will" to say whatever I want to without being harrassed."
>
> It's that simple.

Speaking of simple points, not everyone is here to solve all the world's
problems (other than alcohol). Growing up, some of us held the coveted
seats at the back of the school bus.

[Moonraker]

"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:bksi1c$5i6m0$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6Pjcb.91968$Kb2.3772791@news010.worldonline.d k...
> >
> > > Have you tried alt.thread-addicts.anonymous ?
> >
> > Yet another attempt at shifting focus from the real problem; the lack of
> > "free will" to say whatever I want to without being harrassed.
> >
> >


> Oh, you poor harrassee. You certainly do have problems other than alcohol,
> don't you.

And quite liberal in sharing them, wouldn't you say?

[blackout]

> > "Yet another attempt at shifting focus from the real problem; the lack
of
> > "free will" to say whatever I want to without being harrassed."
> >
> > It's that simple.
>
> Speaking of simple points, not everyone is here to solve all the world's
> problems (other than alcohol). Growing up, some of us held the coveted
> seats at the back of the school bus.

I understand what you are saying; this newgroup is not about "free speech".
However, I think that people should be able to discuss things that may not
appeal to others in the group. When this thread developed into simple
kindergarden fights, it lost all its appeal, even to the few people who
actually fóund it interesting.

What I am trying to say is that people should respect the fact that
different people have different opinions and beliefs, and that posters
should try not to destroy a thread simply because they find it boring,
stupid or irrelevant. That was exactly what happened here. I think a lot of
lurkers in here are afraid of speaking up, simply because of the risk of
taking a verbal beating. As you said, some people like to sit in the back of
the bus. But there is a reason for them to like it; they avoid insulting
remarks. I understand them.

[Michael H.]

"GraceHague" <graceh@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:BB970FB2.65C5%graceh@spiritone.com...
> [Grace] at [spiritone.com] wrote:
>
> > Virtualoso wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3F70F1A3.DC2AE313@earthlink.net>, `F.H.
> >> <disconnectu@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > Or ethnicity perhaps? My ex is in a perpetual state of indignation and
> > I blame in on her Pollock mother, (may she shovel fire in peace).
>
> Your ex's mother is a fish? And why would a fish be responsible for you
ex's
> indignation? You're being cryptic again, Virt.
>
> Grace
>

Damn Grace....
Talk about playing the straight man.

Wide open.


Fishing Tips

A man has been fishing on the bank of a river for hours without a nibble. A
newcomer sits down 25 feet away, baits up and casts out. Not two minutes
later, he gets a huge strike and lands a trophy. Again and again he baits,
casts out and immediately catches a huge fish. The luckless man is now
watching the new guy to see his secret. He sees that the man removes a piece
of bait from a jar, inspects it carefully and smells it before putting it on
the hook. He walks over to him and asks about the bait.

The man replies "This is very special bait indeed. I get it from a friend
who is a mortician, he cuts the pussy lips off all the women that he works
on. The fish really love 'em".

The luckless man asks "But why do you smell each one?"


"Well.."

he replies, " he's a real joker, sometimes he throws an asshole in there".


And then there is;

http://www.punkrocksex.com/stink9.htm

Don't blame me.
I was in a hurry.
Saw the "opening"
and took the bait.

Peace
Michael H

[`F.H.]

GraceHague wrote:
>
> [Grace] at [spiritone.com] wrote:
>
> > Virtualoso wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3F70F1A3.DC2AE313@earthlink.net>, `F.H.

> >> I like the very notion of Identifying with an Attitude. Is that an
> >> alcoholic thing, too?
> >
> > Or ethnicity perhaps? My ex is in a perpetual state of indignation and
> > I blame in on her Pollock mother, (may she shovel fire in peace).
>
> Your ex's mother is a fish? And why would a fish be responsible for you ex's
> indignation? You're being cryptic again, Virt.
>
> Grace

Hey Grace, that was me. :)) My ex mother in-law was married to a fish
but her name was Kicinski.

Gramps
"God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."

Carlson (WKRP in Cincinnati)

[Moonraker]

"Craig S." <cspurlock@mtneer.net> wrote in message
news:nZjcb.5252$pB6.89@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
> "blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ISjcb.92006$Kb2.3772687@news010.worldonline.d k...
> >
> > >
> > > > I am not sure that you truly understand the fundamental point of
what
> I
> > am
> > > > trying to say.
> > >
> > > I'm really trying hard, but I'm sure it must be way over my head.
> (sniff,
> > > sniff) I smell smoke. Oh, SHIT! My brain is on fire!!!
> >
> > Don't worry, I will make it easier for you by quoting another post I
just
> > wrote:
> >
> > "Yet another attempt at shifting focus from the real problem; the lack
of
> > "free will" to say whatever I want to without being harrassed."
> >
> > It's that simple.
>
> Speaking of simple points, not everyone is here to solve all the world's
> problems (other than alcohol). Growing up, some of us held the coveted
> seats at the back of the school bus.
>
>

[Craig S.]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Sskcb.92387$Kb2.3775682@news010.worldonline.d k...

> I understand what you are saying; this newgroup is not about "free
speech".

Sure it is. Say whatever you feel like. Nobody can do a thing about it -
except bitch, ignore it or tune out.

> However, I think that people should be able to discuss things that may not
> appeal to others in the group.

Absolutely. Have at it.

> When this thread developed into simple
> kindergarden fights, it lost all its appeal, even to the few people who
> actually fóund it interesting.

All one of you, huh?

> What I am trying to say is that people should respect the fact that
> different people have different opinions and beliefs, and that posters
> should try not to destroy a thread simply because they find it boring,
> stupid or irrelevant.

Those "shoulds" betray your expectations. Often disappointing things, those
expectations are.

> That was exactly what happened here. I think a lot of
> lurkers in here are afraid of speaking up, simply because of the risk of
> taking a verbal beating.

Some people have courage, some people learn courage, some people remain
lifelong sheep.

> As you said, some people like to sit in the back of
> the bus. But there is a reason for them to like it; they avoid insulting
> remarks.

No, it's because every passenger sitting in front of them becomes a
potential spitball target.

> I understand them.

I'm not so sure about that, but I'm holding out hope. Stick around.

[Moonraker]

"Craig S." <cspurlock@mtneer.net> wrote in message
news:M7ncb.5626$pB6.4572@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> "blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Sskcb.92387$Kb2.3775682@news010.worldonline.d k...
>
> > I understand what you are saying; this newgroup is not about "free
> speech".
>
> Sure it is. Say whatever you feel like. Nobody can do a thing about it -
> except bitch, ignore it or tune out.

Or complain to the poster's ISP about off-topic posts to newsgroups?

>
> > However, I think that people should be able to discuss things that may
not
> > appeal to others in the group.
>
> Absolutely. Have at it.

But don't act surprised when people aren't interested, and/or complain.


>
> > When this thread developed into simple
> > kindergarden fights, it lost all its appeal, even to the few people who
> > actually fóund it interesting.
>
> All one of you, huh?

Even Virt, who played him like a cheap fiddle, tired of the monotony.


>
> > What I am trying to say is that people should respect the fact that
> > different people have different opinions and beliefs, and that posters
> > should try not to destroy a thread simply because they find it boring,
> > stupid or irrelevant.
>
> Those "shoulds" betray your expectations. Often disappointing things,
those
> expectations are.

Yeah. They are premeditated resentments.

And somehow, Blackout forgets that others who find a thread boring, stupid,
and irrelevant are only exercising their right to express their opinion,
belief, and free speech when they point this out to him.

>
> > That was exactly what happened here. I think a lot of
> > lurkers in here are afraid of speaking up, simply because of the risk of
> > taking a verbal beating.
>
> Some people have courage, some people learn courage, some people remain
> lifelong sheep.
>
> > As you said, some people like to sit in the back of
> > the bus. But there is a reason for them to like it; they avoid insulting
> > remarks.
>
> No, it's because every passenger sitting in front of them becomes a
> potential spitball target.
>
> > I understand them.
>
> I'm not so sure about that, but I'm holding out hope. Stick around.


Or, better yet, find some other group to discuss your "philosophy" in?
>
>

[Shawster]

> >
> > I'm not so sure about that, but I'm holding out hope. Stick around.

Should I dab a sponge in vinegar for him?
>
>
> Or, better yet, find some other group to discuss your "philosophy" in?

you call that philosophy? that's being generous.

that's like calling someone having a grand mal seizure a breakdancer.

> >
> >
>
>
>

[Virtualoso]

In article <BB970FB2.65C5%graceh@spiritone.com>, GraceHague
<graceh@spiritone.com> wrote:

> [Grace] at [spiritone.com] wrote:
>
> > Virtualoso wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3F70F1A3.DC2AE313@earthlink.net>, `F.H.
> >> <disconnectu@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> rosie readandpost wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> My speculation is that it probably has to do, in
> >>>>> the final analysis, that drunks under it all, have this over whelming
> >>>>> need to be right and an absurd, ungodly fear of being wrong. I can
> >>>>> identify with that and by many conversations know there are more than
> >>>>> a few others who find identification with that attitude.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> BINGO!
> >>>> (egomaniacs with inferiority complexes)
> >>>
> >>> Grumpy old former kings of beasts anticipating their impending eviction
> >>> from the pride. Drunks are just ahead of the curve that's all.
> >>
> >> I like the very notion of Identifying with an Attitude. Is that an
> >> alcoholic thing, too?
> >
> > Or ethnicity perhaps? My ex is in a perpetual state of indignation and
> > I blame in on her Pollock mother, (may she shovel fire in peace).
>
> Your ex's mother is a fish? And why would a fish be responsible for you ex's
> indignation? You're being cryptic again, Virt.

So cryptic that I didn't even write that.

[blackout]

> > I understand what you are saying; this newgroup is not about "free
> speech".
>
> Sure it is. Say whatever you feel like. Nobody can do a thing about it -
> except bitch, ignore it or tune out.

Yes, but don't you see the destructive forces at play there? I betcha more
people would have joined in if ppl wouldn't do so. But they did. And I know
there were people other than me and Virt actually enjoying the subject.

> > However, I think that people should be able to discuss things that may
not
> > appeal to others in the group.
>
> Absolutely. Have at it.

Maybe I am being too idealistic in this context. Usually, this is something
that is unquestionable most places I go. But this is a group for drunks; I
do realize now not to expect too much.

> > When this thread developed into simple
> > kindergarden fights, it lost all its appeal, even to the few people who
> > actually fóund it interesting.
>
> All one of you, huh?

I know it got repetitious at the end, but that is usually how these
discussions develop; then, suddenly new development happens, and more things
are thrown at the table. Some people do not have enough patience for this.

>
> > What I am trying to say is that people should respect the fact that
> > different people have different opinions and beliefs, and that posters
> > should try not to destroy a thread simply because they find it boring,
> > stupid or irrelevant.
>
> Those "shoulds" betray your expectations. Often disappointing things,
those
> expectations are.

As said above, I was being to idealistic. In the serious newsgroups I visit,
this never happens, because they know these things take time. Yes, I got
very dissapointed in this NG, especially since I thought it had helped me a
lot. That's too bad. A recovery group should never scare people away.

>
> > That was exactly what happened here. I think a lot of
> > lurkers in here are afraid of speaking up, simply because of the risk of
> > taking a verbal beating.
>
> Some people have courage, some people learn courage, some people remain
> lifelong sheep.

Yes, but especially alcoholics, even more so the "new" ones, have raw nerves
all over. What has been practised here is not very likely to make them seek
help in here. But maybe that's the best thing, anyway.

>
> > As you said, some people like to sit in the back of
> > the bus. But there is a reason for them to like it; they avoid insulting
> > remarks.
>
> No, it's because every passenger sitting in front of them becomes a
> potential spitball target.

Ok, the people in front of the bus actually dare say something new,
sometimes. The ones in the back usually just use their mouth for spitting. I
know which one I would never be.

>
> > I understand them.
>
> I'm not so sure about that, but I'm holding out hope. Stick around.

Well, I sure will. But I am dissapointed that some people have the need to
spit at others. You can come with the "you can only be dissapointed if you
let them..."-proverb, but that is just wrong.
I will try sitting in the middle of the bus, now. That is what the majority
does. Too bad noone sits in front anymore. Would be interesting to hear
something new for a change.

[Craig S.]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:W6ycb.94957$Kb2.3801787@news010.worldonline.d k...

> I know it got repetitious at the end, but that is usually how these
> discussions develop; then, suddenly new development happens, and more
things
> are thrown at the table. Some people do not have enough patience for this.

I have engaged in lengthy NG discussions before. They generally die a
natural (and well deserved) death. Best thing to do is restart the thread
with a fresh idea and a fresh subject line - but if everyone but you is
burnt out on discussing the thing, it will become quickly evident.

> As said above, I was being to idealistic. In the serious newsgroups I
visit,
> this never happens, because they know these things take time. Yes, I got
> very dissapointed in this NG, especially since I thought it had helped me
a
> lot. That's too bad. A recovery group should never scare people away.

There is no universal understanding of "recovery." It's a twisted little
catch-all phrase that's nearly meaningless beyond "don't drink" around here.
"Recovery" need not be doom and gloom. I see plenty of laughs shared here -
some good senses of humor on display. If you prefer the "serious"
newsgroups - well, there you go.

> Yes, but especially alcoholics, even more so the "new" ones, have raw
nerves
> all over. What has been practised here is not very likely to make them
seek
> help in here. But maybe that's the best thing, anyway.

Exactly what kind of "help" would you expect someone to seek or find on a
public discussion forum open for all the the world to see and participate
in?

For the record, my participation here helped me immensely and opened a new
world for me. But it wasn't from tired old, worn out fellowship platitudes
and clichés - it was from different ideas that I had not been exposed to
locally. THAT is the beauty of this forum as I see it. If I'm only looking
for the S.O.S., I know where to find that just up the road.

[GraceHague]

[Grace] at [spiritone.com] wrote:

> In article <BB970FB2.65C5%graceh@spiritone.com>, GraceHague
> <graceh@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
>> [Grace] at [spiritone.com] wrote:
>>
>>> Virtualoso wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article <3F70F1A3.DC2AE313@earthlink.net>, `F.H.
>>>> <disconnectu@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> rosie readandpost wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My speculation is that it probably has to do, in
>>>>>>> the final analysis, that drunks under it all, have this over whelming
>>>>>>> need to be right and an absurd, ungodly fear of being wrong. I can
>>>>>>> identify with that and by many conversations know there are more than
>>>>>>> a few others who find identification with that attitude.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BINGO!
>>>>>> (egomaniacs with inferiority complexes)
>>>>>
>>>>> Grumpy old former kings of beasts anticipating their impending eviction
>>>>> from the pride. Drunks are just ahead of the curve that's all.
>>>>
>>>> I like the very notion of Identifying with an Attitude. Is that an
>>>> alcoholic thing, too?
>>>
>>> Or ethnicity perhaps? My ex is in a perpetual state of indignation and
>>> I blame in on her Pollock mother, (may she shovel fire in peace).
>>
>> Your ex's mother is a fish? And why would a fish be responsible for you ex's
>> indignation? You're being cryptic again, Virt.
>
> So cryptic that I didn't even write that.

Sorry Virt. Frank told me I had the two of you confused :-)

Grace

[Virtualoso]

In article <BB989394.681A%graceh@spiritone.com>, GraceHague
<graceh@spiritone.com> wrote:

> [Grace] at [spiritone.com] wrote:
>
> > In article <BB970FB2.65C5%graceh@spiritone.com>, GraceHague
> > <graceh@spiritone.com> wrote:
> >
> >> [Grace] at [spiritone.com] wrote:
> >>
> >>> Virtualoso wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> In article <3F70F1A3.DC2AE313@earthlink.net>, `F.H.
> >>>> <disconnectu@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> rosie readandpost wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My speculation is that it probably has to do, in
> >>>>>>> the final analysis, that drunks under it all, have this over whelming
> >>>>>>> need to be right and an absurd, ungodly fear of being wrong. I can
> >>>>>>> identify with that and by many conversations know there are more than
> >>>>>>> a few others who find identification with that attitude.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> BINGO!
> >>>>>> (egomaniacs with inferiority complexes)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Grumpy old former kings of beasts anticipating their impending eviction
> >>>>> from the pride. Drunks are just ahead of the curve that's all.
> >>>>
> >>>> I like the very notion of Identifying with an Attitude. Is that an
> >>>> alcoholic thing, too?
> >>>
> >>> Or ethnicity perhaps? My ex is in a perpetual state of indignation and
> >>> I blame in on her Pollock mother, (may she shovel fire in peace).
> >>
> >> Your ex's mother is a fish? And why would a fish be responsible for you
> >> ex's
> >> indignation? You're being cryptic again, Virt.
> >
> > So cryptic that I didn't even write that.
>
> Sorry Virt. Frank told me I had the two of you confused :-)

I'm glad we cleared that up. Thus, it's now evident that all such
detractions toward me of supposed crypticity and whatnot are actually
only artifacts of your confusion, and it's all Frank's fault. '-)

[Dylin]

blackout wrote:
>
> > Have you tried alt.thread-addicts.anonymous ?
>
> Yet another attempt at shifting focus from the real problem; the lack of
> "free will" to say whatever I want to without being harrassed.

Posting on newsgroups and not expecting to have the thread get
side-tracked is unrealistic. But if you don't like it, just read your
posts and Virt's answers and ignore the rest. Or you two could take it
private.

BTW -You'd probably get less hassle, if you weren't cross posting to two
newsgroups. 'Course you'd only have half as many people reading your
correspondence with Virtualoso.
--
Dylin