Rick Reuben wrote:

happyandbored wrote: I don't have an opinion on whether these drugs are overprescribed or not.

Yes, you do. You're just afraid to state it clearly. Again:

If I say that they are overprescribed, and I tell you who I think is taking these drugs unnecessarily, and you say "Oh no, you can't suggest that people without 'real' depression are using these drugs, that's mean and you're insensitive", then you have offered your opinion: that they are not overprescribed. If you think they are oversprescribed, then tell me who might be on them when they shouldn't be. If you don't think they are overprescribed, then have the guts to say that everyone using them needs to be.

If you refuse to offer an opinion on whether antidepressants are overprescribed, then you're a chump and a coward, and you have far less right to be in this thread than I do, you self-proclaimed expert.

happyandbored wrote:The point is that sales figures alone offer absolutely no indicator as to the validity of a patient's complaints

Of course they do. Sales figures tell you nothing about whether overprescription is occuring?? What do you think is admissible evidence? Tarot cards??

Again, do you have the guts to offer an opinion? If the prescriptions for AD's tripled in six years, do you think that increase in prescriptions was prompted by a trebling of the number of Americans with genuine chemical imbalance?

I say no. Do you have the guts to answer 'yes' or 'no'? If you refuse, then that shows one thing: you want to preach to others about their opinions, without laying your own cards on the table.

Oh for fucks sake, one last time...

No it doesn't. What the hell are you on about, "laying cards on the table"? I already have laid my cards on the table by saying I don't know. Do you really see all your conversations as if they're some strange game of poker? It's some loaded game if you're going to start telling me what answers I'm allowed to give.

Tired, need to do work.

Everything else has already been addressed - please reread all previous posts.

happyandbored wrote:As for Earwicker's comments regarding leadership qualities. Fair point, but those qualities are surely just as important for a supporter of any given cause.

So are you suggesting that any supporter of any social movement that has affected change throughout history (or let's say the last hundred years) has had all the following qualities:

extraordinary strength of character

the ability to give rousing speeches,

the ability to argue passionately without losing your temper or breaking down,

clear-mindedness not clouded by emotions,

total belief that what you are doing is right and much more.

??

If so, I think you're crazy.
It is ridiculous to suggest everyone listening to MLK in Washington (for example) had all those qualities.
I would also say it's ridiculous to suggest that none of them were depressed.

happyandbored wrote:Let's say the Depressive Apathetic Revolutionary Front (DARF) are out on the street handing out leaflets informing the sheep to rise up and overthrow the global elites.

This is facetious. That's fine - I use facetiousness all the time - but I think it worth noting that this repeated tactic of scoffingly referring to the suggestion of a revolt against global elitism does absolutely nothing toward suggesting it isn't necessary or, at least, desirable. In fact many of the scoffers, I think, would agree that it is desirable.
If I'm missing your point then feel free to explain.

On the other hand what I am suggesting is that if there was any sense that the current status could be altered by citizen action I think there would be a hell of a lot less depressed people about.

That's just my opinion.

bassdriver wrote:well I would not compare belief to the personal experience of a disease like depression.

Okay but I see it like this - Some folks get depressed and as a result get leeched upon (my negative use of language) by god botherers and converted. When converted these once depressed say, from their own experience, that converting to Christianity has been good for them, psychologically - and they are no longer depressed (they say).

Now, I think this isn't good because, I think, the retreat into a fantasy world doesn't help the depressed person come to terms with the root problem.

now a similar thing happens when people use pills and I have a similar feeling toward it.
The user may feel a benefit - cool. but I don't think, in the long run, it is necessarily better for them.

Now I also think many here would agree with my assessment of Christianity but disagree with my assessment of pills. And I do not understand why.
both are a means of hiding from the truth of an experience - however painful that experience may be.

And, after all this I should say that, despite knowing people diagnosed with it, I don't know what 'clinical depression' is.
Could someone explain it to me?
Some people seem to be talking as though it is something that just pops up out of nowhere but I have never known anyone who was depressed, clinically or otherwise, without a reason or some cause.
Adding the word 'clinical' makes it sound really official and scientific, sure - but what is it exactly?

Earwicker wrote:This is facetious. That's fine - I use facetiousness all the time - but I think it worth noting that this repeated tactic of scoffingly referring to the suggestion of a revolt against global elitism does absolutely nothing toward suggesting it isn't necessary or, at least, desirable. In fact many of the scoffers, I think, would agree that it is desirable.
If I'm missing your point then feel free to explain.

A little facetious, yes... Really though, I was just trying to inject a bit of humour. I did not mean to infer that change is not desirable.

The only point I was trying to make there, is that depression is not conducive to encouraging the kind of personality needed to form effective resistance. Obviously, if you're just on about someone voting left-wing/libertarian/socialist/anarchist/whatever, signing a petition or something like that, then yes, I expect all but the most severly depressed will be able to do something along those lines. Any form of support more involved, then the sort of traits I listed will start to become important.

Best bet is to forget the other two posts and just read what I'm saying as something like depression makes it hard to do things.

Hope that makes sense. Your criticisms were otherwise fair - I think I could have made that point better. If you still don't get me, then no offence intended, but please could you just forget it, as I really need a break from this discussion. I'm sure someone else will step in soon.

Now onto Rick:

Rick Reuben wrote:

happyandbored, answering the question, "are antidepressants overprescribed? wrote: I already have laid my cards on the table by saying I don't know.

You're contradicting yourself. Here's your quote from earlier:

happyandbored wrote:the idea that mental illness is merely a symptom of sociey's ills at large or an invention of the pharmaceutical industry just doesn't ring true

You wrote that, right? Here's the link:
http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewto ... 523#482523

Now- if you are saying that mental illness is not a symptom of society's ills or an invention of the phamaceutical industry, then you are saying that all depression must be genuine, and therefore, there is no problem with overprescription of antidepressants.

Then, in your next reply, you said this:

happyandbored wrote:If you're on about people who aren't depressed taking anti-depressants then I share that concern

Do you really?? Then why don't you have the guts to call antidepressants overprescribed? You're implying that they are in that quote above. Are you afraid that if you answer in the affirmative, you'll have to agree with me that some people on these drugs don't have real depression?

You are quoting me out of context.

happyandbored wrote:The Adam Curtis documentaries were all excellent. However, his over-simplification of mental health issues was a big flaw in an otherwise very interesting series. I totally understood the points he was making and even agreed to a point. However, the idea that mental illness is merely a symptom of sociey's ills at large or an invention of the pharmaceutical industry just doesn't ring true, both with my own experiences with anxiety and depression and those of a couple of relatives, one with clinical depression and the other schizophrenia.

Note that I said "merely", implying that it is the idea that these are the sole or primary causes of mental illness that "doesn't ring true", according to my own experiences. Note also that nowhere in that paragraph, do I make any reference to over-prescription. In fact, I was criticising the Adam Curtis documentary, not talking specifically about overprescription as you are trying to imply. The documentary talked about many aspects of mental health, not just the alleged overprescription of anti-depressants.

Ditto your second example - I said "I share your *concern*". I do. I don't however, *know* whether these drugs are overprescribed. I have no data which would lead me to draw that conclusion. Sales figures tell us nothing about the efficiency of these drugs or the suitability of the patient for medication. I have however, had direct personal experience from which to draw the conclusion that there must be more going on with mental illness than it being *just* the result of a bad society or *just* an invention of the pharmaceutical industry alone.

Regarding over-prescription: you can dub me a coward for refusing to give a binary answer, but the truth is that I have absolutely no evidence to back up either a yes or no answer. My own experiences are not really relevant to the question of over-prescription - they were definitely real, no grey areas. I read reports where some doctors and other experts think they are over-prescribed, then I read others where they don't. Since I'm not really interested in studying pyschiatry or pyschology in depth at this point in my life or doing the necessary tests and research, to develop my own knowledge of the subject, I believe it is foolish to hold either view.

However all this is irrelevant. As I've stated repeatedly, my main gripe with you was the initial lack of sensitivity displayed in your early posts, not your views on over-prescription, which I am not interested in discussing. I have already stated my opinion on the subject of over-presription - that I don't know - so I see no point in continuing. If you are not sure of my position or why I have taken such an intense disliking to your posts, please go back and read this thread again from the beginning. If you still don't get it, then let's just move on.

I'm really fed up of repeating these points. To me, it feels like you don't really understand what I am saying and I cannot think of a more effective way of getting my point across.

Having responded to your latest round of criticisms, I'd really like to withdraw from this discussion without being drawn back into the debate with further posts from you. I have already tried once to draw this to a close. As you may appreciate, it's a fairly sensitive topic for me, one which perhaps I should not have been drawn into in the first place.

Therefore, I would greatly appreciate it if you could stop responding to or quoting my posts - I have said all I can say on this subject and I have made no points in this post that were not made several times in my earlier posts. There should really be no need to involve me in any further comments.

There are many other people on here with similar views who will no doubt continue the debate with you. I will continue to read your comments with interest, but please leave me out. Many thanks for the debate.

[Moved Earwicker reply to start of previous message.]

happyandbored wrote:I'm really fed up of repeating these points. To me, it feels like you don't really understand what I am saying and I cannot think of a more effective way of getting my point across.

Having responded to your latest round of criticisms, I'd really like to withdraw from this discussion without being drawn back into the debate with further posts from you. I have already tried once to draw this to a close. As you may appreciate, it's a fairly sensitive topic for me, one which perhaps I should not have been drawn into in the first place.

Therefore, I would greatly appreciate it if you could stop responding to or quoting my posts - I have said all I can say on this subject and I have made no points in this post that were not made several times in my earlier posts. There should really be no need to involve me in any further comments.

In case you have not realized it, you are arguing with a couple of insensitive, solipsistic hacks, who get more rude and more irritating when you try to reason with them.

Put it this way: if this was someone you worked with, and you saw him out in public, but he didn't see you, would you cross the street to avoid him?

Of course you would. You'd never waste your time talking to someone like that.

The internet shouldn't be any different.

Admittedly, it took me a while to learn this, and I don't always follow my own advice. Sometimes it is painful to watch them pollute someplace I used to enjoy spending time.

But there is the advice nonetheless.

Best to you, happyandbored, whomever you are.

TM

Rick Reuben wrote:

space junk wrote:No, you can't. ( oh, you disagree? )If you're miserable and unhappy with your life situation, yes, I'm sure you can.( oh, wait, you agree? ) If you are pissed off because you have problems at work, yes, you probably can.( oh, wait, you agree? ) Girlfriend left you? Work through it.( oh, wait, you agree? )

Way to contradict yourself three times in a single paragraph, genius. You're a very disorganized thinker. Try some pills.

Okay, you really are a fucking cock. You're being sneaky with your quoting selection and you know it. There is no point discussing this with you. Cock.

Earwicker wrote:Adding the word 'clinical' makes it sound really official and scientific, sure - but what is it exactly?

It is an annoyingly officious term, but I don't know a good substitute for it. It's when you are chemically and biologically fucked. This is not the same as misery, sadness, mental anguish, angst, self loathing, being down in the dumps, glumness, self pity, moroseness, bad luck, bad job, broken heart, whatever. A severe chemical imbalance in the brain.

Antidepressants....

I've taken lots of them over the years, and for me I'm at the point where I think they mess with my mind in more bad ways than good. That being said, the drugs do a great deal of good when they are used properly for the people with the right diagnosis to warrant that sort of treatment. I think I get better results from running long distances (6+ miles or so) and playing drums on a regular basis, but that's just me. Despite my personal experiences with them, I have to vote not crap here.

DrAwkward wrote:Your brain is an organ, just like your heart, kidney, anything else. The only difference is that the brain affects how you think. If your kidney is broken and a medicine will fix it, you'd take it, right? You wouldn't say "i need to be strong and figure this out on my own," you'd take the fucking medicine. Why some people don't get that the brain can be broken just like any other organ in the body is something i'll never understand.

Antidepressants are NOT CRAP. Believe you me.

This is the rational and correct position, of which mine is naturally a mirror. Those drugs sure did me right. Salut, DrAwkward!

All kidding aside, the continued prejudice against mental disabilities is akin to medieval superstition. We need to get rid of it.

Bennett Williams wrote: I think I get better results from running long distances (6+ miles or so) and playing drums on a regular basis, but that's just me.

Whatever works. I applaud your ability to separate out your own subjective experience from that which is objectively necessary. Too bad we can't administer a pill to the Rick Reubens of the world who show themselves to be mentally incapable of this subtlety. Nevertheless, we do extend our gratitude to Sir Rick for being the bumptious moron this thread needed.

So I have no intention of reading this entire thread, but in the spirit of CRAP/NOT CRAP I'll add an emphatic NOT CRAP.

I took an SSRI going into college that was prescribed to me for OCD. After about 8 months I saw symptoms were gone and quit taking them.

I recently (about 2 months ago) started taking one again because a doctor believed low serotonin might be linked to complex gastrointestinal issues I've been dealing with for several years (mentioned elsewhere on this board). I never thought they would help, but I have become much more regular (yes, bathroom regular) and have even been able to eat more food and gain about 20 lbs. (I was at 135 lbs when I started).

So again, NOT CRAP.

tmidgett wrote:In case you have not realized it, you are arguing with a couple of insensitive, solipsistic hacks, who get more rude and more irritating when you try to reason with them.

I'm presuming I'm being referred to here and if so I think it's a touch out of order.
I don't think I've been anywhere near as rude in this thread as you have been and that without any attempt at all to reason with my argument.

You just insulted and then carried on insulting after I conceded that your criticism (over my choice of one word!) was, in part, justified.

It sounds to me like you come on here expecting everyone to agree with your stance. If they don't you just dismiss them (without a discussion), insult them, then ignore them.

These are all things I think you would criticise someone else for.

It seems no-one here really wants to look at the issue beyond some users of the drugs saying that it helped them. I accept that these drugs might do good I'd just like to discuss how they might also do bad. The suggestion is largely met with an irrational derision as far as I can see.

If we are now deciding that we have to accept everyone's assessment of their own situation as the best and most level headed assessment of that situation then fair dos.
But I'd like to see the same courtesy afforded to born again Christians.

If anyone else would like to discuss this point further - beyond the 'I (or someone I know) felt bad, then felt better after taking these pills' position then I'd be glad to continue. Even if (especially if) they disagree with what I've said already.

If not then I'm through with this.

It's a shame cause I thought it was something quite important worth discussing.



Oh well.