Bobrick, have you ever considered a career in psychology?

You seem to be very knowledgable. You're so intelligent, I just can't argue with any of your points.

bump

Eating Noddemix wrote:Hmmm... I was about to share some personal insights I've had into depression, and explain why, in spite of previous sentiments expressed here, I will be giving antidepressants (or some other form of medication) another shot this week. But looking at what a fucking cesspoll this thread has turned into, on second thought, I'd rather not.

*winces*

Such is the way of the internet.

I may give it another shot. Sharing personal insights, that is.

I need to get my thoughts together on this.

Here is a link to a really good documentary called The drugging of our children by Gary Null.

"In the absence of any objective medical tests to determine who has ADD or ADHD, doctors rely in part on standardized assessments and the ... all » impressions of teachers and guardians while the they administer leave little room for other causes or aggravating factors, such as diet, or environment. Hence, diagnosing a child or adolescent with ADD or ADHD is often the outcome, although no organic basis for either disease has yet to be clinically proven. Psychiatrists may then prescribe psychotropic drugs for the children without first without making it clear to parents that these medications can have severe side-effects including insomnia, loss of appetite, headaches, psychotic symptoms and even potentially fatal adverse reactions, such as cardiac arrhythmia. And yet, despite these dangers, many school systems actually work with government agencies to force parents to drug their children, threatening those who refuse with the prospect of having their children taken from the home unless they cooperate."

He also has another good documentary called "Prescription for Disaster" which can be linked to from the above links page.

I take Zoloft. I think it helps me.

And Bob's long-expected commentary on video games arrives.

Now taking bets!

Awwwwww...

Look folks, Rick's sharing his valuable 'opinions' with us again. How sweet!

Buh Buh bu Buuuh


What a surprise!

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/ ... 3&src=news

Rick Reuben wrote:

Earwicker wrote:What a surprise!

94% of published studies report favorable results, 96% of unpublished studies raise questions about the effectiveness of the drugs. That's what I call controlling the message. INGSOC!

Are they talking about studies publishes in peer-reviewed journals?

Are they unpublished because they didn't pass the peer-review process?

If they are unpublished even though have otherwise passed the peer-review process, than I think you can make an argument that they are being suppressed.

If they are unpublished because the studies were found to be faulty in some way, then it means nothing.

I'm sorry if it goes into detail in the link, but it wasn't working very well for me.

I've got a friend whose life work is in Bio-Statistics, (she is now doing research at Oxford) and from what she has told me, a lot of faulty studies are done on almost any topic you can imagine. She has seen a lot which base their findings on faulty statistical methods.