Premier Rock Forum

Posted: **Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:15 am**

Earwicker wrote:
tmidgett wrote:A 'high' is something extra. Returning to sanity isn't my idea of something extra.

You mean 'extra' like vomiting, sleeplessness, loss of libido - that sort of thing?

Huh?

Is that your idea of a high, then?

Haven't picked any of that up, either.

Your conspiracy theory involving the great ??? and the 'blah blah' is very interesting.

>>the continued use of addictive drugs that don't cure anything at all

Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

Goodbye.

Posted: **Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:20 am**

happyandbored wrote:
Earwicker wrote:You don’t see your double standard do you?

There is no double standard.

As I am now pointing out for the second time, I never actually said anything about who deserves medication and who does not - that is for a doctor or pyschiatrist to decide.

Rick can defend himself but I didn't read his initial statement as if he considered himself to be the anti-depression dispenser of America. It just sounded like he made a fairly obvious statement to me - that some people get miserable cause they sit around all day doing toss all.

happyandbored wrote:Unless either of you have actually studied this or have some pool of life experiences that you're not telling us about, then both yours and Rick's opinions on mental health are worth about as much as a drama student's opinion on rocket science.

You are presuming I don't have those 'life experiences'

You are presuming wrong.

happyandbored wrote:I was criticising Rick's attitude to depression and those suffering from it.

Okay, I thought you were saying he shouldn't have an opinion because he's not a trained doctor.

I also just wanted to point out (not to you specifically but to everyone saying these pills are over subscribed) that it is doctors (i.e 'experts) doing the over subscribing.

Am I to take it you don't think they are over subscribed?
You agree with the doctors cause they've all been through medical school?

happyandbored wrote:As for my family history, erm, yes I think that does make my views slightly more informed than many others. I've also done a small amount of reading on the topic and spoken to both friends and family about their experiences.

And you have steadfastly failed to consider that I (or Rick - who, again, can speak for himself) might have similar life experience or done a small amount of reading.

happyandbored wrote:Rick could have made the same point by suggesting that a mild depressive should be recommend exercise or refered to councilling before being prescribed medication, but instead he choose to insult the vulnerable.

I think you are being too sensitive.
Some people bum around all day and get depressed as a result - seems fairly obvious to me.
Just like when people eat loads of pies and burgers - they get fat.

Why should everyone tip toe round saying such obvious things for fear of the PC police coming and kicking the door in?

Posted: **Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:25 am**

tmidgett wrote:Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

Goodbye.

This should be the title of this thread. 80% of the text above reminds me of the Lancet, if the Lancet was edited by morons. Get help when and where you need it, good people.

Posted: **Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:31 am**

tmidgett wrote:Huh?

Is that your idea of a high, then?

....

Your conspiracy theory involving the great ??? and the 'blah blah' is very interesting.

>>the continued use of addictive drugs that don't cure anything at all

Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

Goodbye.

I am getting the impression you have only read the posts of mine with a few words in them. That's fine.

I was just pointing out that these drugs do more than just return people to 'sanity'

I have offered no conspiracy theory - in fact I stated that I don't see that there is a need for one.

You don't want to talk about it anymore?

That's fine too.

but, maybe, it's because you don't know what you are talking about.

I honestly wouldn't know as you've so far largely concentrated on my use of the word 'high' on this thread and not said a whole lot else.

Posted: **Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:41 am**

Earwicker wrote:but, maybe, it's because you don't know what you are talking about.

tmidgett wrote:The most recent research on SSRIs indicates that the brain can suffer an actual, physical injury in situations of extreme emotional duress.

The brain is used by its bearer to think things out and cope with whatever.

To allow coping, the brain uses neurotransmitters to send signals within itself.

Serotonin (a neurotransmitter) has to be 'held' in receptors for the brain to use it.

When the brain burns through an inordinate amount of serotonin in short order, those receptors are weakened and start to do a bad job of holding serotonin.

The brain ends up doing a poor job of sending signals at the very time its bearer needs it the most.

SSRIs make those receptors 'sticky' again, which allows the brain to retain serotonin longer and more efficiently. Over time, activity returns to something approaching normality (though perhaps never what it was before the injury). At this time (6mos, a year, maybe a longer period of time after treatment began), the user can try being weaned (with medical supervision) from the drug.

Recovery from this condition is possible without drugs. You can also just wait for a cut to stop bleeding on its own. But it can take forfuckingever, and untended recovery is not necessarily wise in either case.

To call SSRIs 'not crap' in this application is like calling a splint and physical therapy 'not crap.'

Posted: **Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:53 am**

Rick Reuben wrote:There's a lot of classic liberal handwringing in this thread, bunch of 'everybody is a victim' bullshit. It's like the people that sue Hershey Chocolate for making their ass too big for a bus seat- nobody is accountable for their mistakes. There's always some cause beyond a person's control for every ditch they dig for themselves. Jesus...

Earlier in this thread, i wrote:As with any drug, it should be taken in addition to the lifestyle changes necessary to improve one's life. Antidepressants should be prescribed along with therapy or whatever else is needed to get a person to deal with their shit. When someone's morbidly overweight, sure, you can get liposuction or gastric bypass, but they should still exercise, right? (Not the best analogy, i know.)

I can't honestly say i've gotten the impression from anyone in this thread that anyone's saying doig any "liberal hand-wringing."

Posted: **Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:56 am**

Earwicker wrote:You are presuming I don't have those 'life experiences'

You are presuming wrong.

I'm not presuming you don't, that's why I said 'unless you have...' - if you do have some relevant experiences to back up your belief that a large number of depressed people are being wrongly prescribed meds, then please tell us. I gave you a run down of my family history because you made out that my opinion was irrelevant, despite the fact that I had already alluded to my family's history in a previous post.

You mentioned your own experience with anti-depressants - that's a start. You found they were not for you. Fine, but how does that experience lead you to conclude that there is no value in other people taking them?

Earwicker wrote:Am I to take it you don't think they are over subscribed?
You agree with the doctors cause they've all been through medical school?

I don't know whether they are being oversubscribed - if they help get someone off their arse and that person only has a mild form of depression, then I don't necessarily see that as being a bad thing. People's fear of anti-depressants seems a little irrational. Would you deny someone paracetemol for a head ache because they do not have a 'real' migraine?

And yes, I value the opinion of someone who's entire career is dedicated to improving people's health and wellbeing over my own. Someone who has had direct experience of treating all forms of illness day-in, day-out; who has seen first hand the effects of the drugs he or she prescribes, as well as studying them in text books for at least six years. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't value that expertise.

That does not that mean I don't share concerns about advertising and the pharmaceutical industry.

Earwicker wrote:And you have steadfastly failed to consider that I (or Rick - who, again, can speak for himself) might have similar life experience or done a small amount of reading.

Well when you and/or Rick imply that anti-depressants turn people into zombies or are no different than recreational drugs, it's hard not to make those assumptions.

Earwicker wrote:Why should everyone tip toe round saying such obvious things for fear of the PC police coming and kicking the door in?

Because people with more serious disorders *will* read what you're saying as applying to them.

Posted: **Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:06 pm**

Dr Awkward quotes tmidgett wrote:The most recent research on SSRIs indicates that the brain can suffer an actual, physical injury in situations of extreme emotional duress.
etc etc

I did actually go back and check to see what he'd wrote Mr Awkward - and saw that.

However, this post tells us how they work. Great, we can all look that up in Wikipedia or New Scientist.
What it doesn't do is discuss the implications of the drug.
Personal and social.
That's what I'm interested in.
Mr Midgett has added nothing to that other than eye rolling and tutting. This, in my experience, is the sign that someone has nothing to say.

Which is fine - but I don't hold with the attempt to dismiss (with eye rolling, tutting etc) what someone else is saying if they have nothing to say.

He may work in a chemical factory producing this stuff for all I know and he may have wonderfully penetrating insights into the subject too but I've not heard it.
All I've heard is the suggestion that all these drugs do is return you to 'sanity'.

I am not going to go back and check this but weren't you the one condemning me for oversimplifying earlier on?

Posted: **Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:14 pm**

Earwicker: You have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that you have absolutely nothing to say on this subject. Yet you keep typing on and on.

How I long for the "PC Police" of your moronic fantasies to come and bludgeon you with your own keyboard. That would cure the shit out of my depression.

Posted: **Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:16 pm**

Earwicker wrote:However, this post tells us how they work. Great, we can all look that up in Wikipedia or New Scientist.
What it doesn't do is discuss the implications of the drug.
Personal and social.
That's what I'm interested in.
Mr Midgett has added nothing to that other than eye rolling and tutting. This, in my experience, is the sign that someone has nothing to say.

I can't speak for Tim, but i can theorize that when one, like yourself, has stumbled throughout the debate by using inaccurate terms such as "high" and given the impression that you're coming from a position of ignorance, it could be very frustrating to continue to try conversing with you on the subject. I know it's getting on my nerves.

It's a very delicate thing, to discuss the drug companies' advertising campaigns that attempt to shove antidepressants down society's throats, as well as the occasional shitty doctor overprescribing them, without minimizing the pain that someone suffering from real, crippling depression has to endure. I really don't think you or Rick are doing a good job with that at all (although in fairness to Rick, he has stated previously in this thread, i believe, that he concedes that antidepressant meds do help with real depression, and he has made pains at times to separate clinical depression from "people who are just bummed out").

Premier Rock Forum

Drugs: Antidepressants

Drugs: Antidepressants

Drugs: Antidepressants

Drugs: Antidepressants

Drugs: Antidepressants

Drugs: Antidepressants

Drugs: Antidepressants

Drugs: Antidepressants

Drugs: Antidepressants

Drugs: Antidepressants

Drugs: Antidepressants