big_dave wrote:For the record I think clinical/chemical depression is over diagnosed and anti-depressants over prescribed. I can't think of anyone that I'd like to discuss this with less than Clocker Bob.

My sentiments.

It is possible to hold the position that anti-depressants are over-prescribed (I do) and not crap at the same time, for the help they offer people who genuinely need them.

Are doctors giving these drugs to people who don't really need them? I'm sure they are, though I have no statistical or other evidence for this. Do they save people's lives? Yes. I have first hand evidence of this.

Yer Bobbies and Rickies seem unable to comprehend this.

I hereby prescribe this thread 60mg of Effexor, whether it really needs it or not, just to stop the whining and get it the fuck out of my office.

Rick Reuben wrote:

big_dave wrote:I meant that Bob gets personal, abusive

big_dave wrote:Anyone who actually follows the links that Boberick posts and joins the dots between his posts would realise that he is probably unhinged

Hey, big dave- if you're afraid to post that

big dave wrote:I think clinical/chemical depression is over diagnosed and anti-depressants over prescribed.

because you can't stand to be on the same side of an issue with me, that illustrates one thing: you're more concerned with your popularity on the forum than you're concerned with taking an honest position.

Speaking as a long time forum arsehole on other boards, I know for a fact that discussing psychiatric medication and its parent industry isn't the way to go about making yourself popular.

I'm not on the same side as you. At least not a to greater extent that I'm on the same side as you on the Iraq war, privatisation of health, the media and such. But like those issues I wouldn't want to connect myself to someone like you, because you are a bullying internet kook who gets his facts from rense.com and his rhetoric from Ron Paul, and who screams with disgust whenever someone gets their sources from books not web pages.

space junk wrote:

big_dave wrote:For the record I think clinical/chemical depression is over diagnosed and anti-depressants over prescribed. I can't think of anyone that I'd like to discuss this with less than Clocker Bob.

My sentiments.

It is possible to hold the position that anti-depressants are over-prescribed (I do) and not crap at the same time, for the help they offer people who genuinely need them.

Are doctors giving these drugs to people who don't really need them? I'm sure they are, though I have no statistical or other evidence for this. Do they save people's lives? Yes. I have first hand evidence of this.

Yer Bobbies and Rickies seem unable to comprehend this.

I hereby prescribe this thread 60mg of Effexor, whether it really needs it or not, just to stop the whining and get it the fuck out of my office.

The over-diagnosis of clinical depression is not the same thing as drugs being over-prescribed. Both things are tools, not an extension of some evil Philip K Dicky corporation.

Rick Reuben wrote:

space junk wrote:It is possible to hold the position that anti-depressants are over-prescribed (I do) and not crap at the same time, for the help they offer people who genuinely need them.

Oh, you mean my position? Quote me where I called antidepressants 'CRAP', without exception. I haven't voted 'CRAP' or 'NOT CRAP'. I have pointed out that they are overprescribed. Overprescription is CRAP. See the difference?

Maybe if you actually read the thread instead of relying on what big_dave is telling you, you'd know enough about what I wrote to properly complain about it.

space junk wrote:Are doctors giving these drugs to people who don't really need them? I'm sure they are

Oh, you mean my position?

space junk wrote:, though I have no statistical or other evidence for this.

But I actually have presented statistics in support of my position... you know, the position that you are agreeing with.

space junk wrote: Do they save people's lives? Yes. I have first hand evidence of this.

Quote me where I said that they never have helped people.

space junk wrote:Yer Bobbies and Rickies seem unable to comprehend this.

What a dope. Criticizing overprescription does not equate to opposition of all prescriptions.

Night night.

Rick Reuben wrote:What a genius. You really can babble the psuedo-profundities as your night wears on. Over- prescription doesn't happen without over- diagnosis occuring first! Your point is about as useful as saying "a head-on collision is not the same thing as a driver ejecting through the windshield".

I didn't say that they couldn't be connected, I said they were not the same thing. They are two seperate issues that can have a common effect. If you are unwilling to look at issue at the level of its different causes, effects and elements (rather than the totality of your usual delusions), why is it worth talking to you?

Over-diagnosis of depression has to do with the eagerness to promote biological reasons, rather than psychological reasons, for mental illness as since the mid-60s clinical psychiatry has had to "justify" itself needlessly as a real science. So-called "talking cures" are frowned upon, and so is older language like trauma, melancholia, etc. Again, I dread to think about the arse-shat opinion you might hold about this.

Genius, part two. Who promotes the tool of diagnosis and the tool of prescription, Dave?? Some of the most Philip K. Dicky corporations around, the pharmaceutical companies.

Yes, but clinical psychiatry and its medication have origins outside of those institutions and cannot be just seen as an extension that industry when they have a firm and historic clinical basis. Over-prescribed they might be, but they are still actual medical science and not merely just product as you seem to be implying.

Again, you are also implying that they are consciously being produced to make the "sheeple" docile and passive. Proving that you are paranoid and wacky.

Why don't you tell us next that missiles and fighter jets are tools, but defense contractors play no role in promoting their use??

What a thoughtless comparison. Why discuss this with you? Every argument is the same shit, you just substitution drugs for fighter jets, Guiliani for Cheney, Ron Paul for Aldous Huxley. Same script everytime, who gives a shit about the actors?

See Bobrick - it's not so bad, other people have arrived now to carry on the debate with you.

In time, they will understand your complex arguments, I am sure. Just try and stay calm - for many, common-sense based statistical reasoning is a hard concept to grasp. Sometimes it takes a while to shift paradigms.

Rick Reuben wrote:

big_dave wrote: clinical psychiatry and its medication have origins outside of those institutions and cannot be just seen as an extension that industry when they have a firm and historic clinical basis.

Psychiatric medication has origins outside of the pharmaceutical companies?? Like where, the Brazilian rain forest? The 'firm and historical clinical basis' you cite was born in the marketing departments of the drug companies, in research funded by the drug companies, in journals influenced by the drug companies, you delusional wanker.

There there, Bobrick.

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.

space junk wrote:I hereby prescribe this thread 60mg of Effexor, whether it really needs it or not, just to stop the whining and get it the fuck out of my office.

I just chortled.

Rick Reuben wrote:

big_dave wrote: clinical psychiatry and its medication have origins outside of those institutions and cannot be just seen as an extension that industry when they have a firm and historic clinical basis.

Psychiatric medication has origins outside of the pharmaceutical companies?? Like where, the Brazilian rain forest? The 'firm and historical clinical basis' you cite was born in the marketing departments of the drug companies, in research funded by the drug companies, in journals influenced by the drug companies, you delusional wanker.

Laughably America orientated and ethno-centric coming from you, Bobster. Keep peddling the "big pharma" myth that is only relevant for a handful of nations and a couple of decades.

Where does the "company" end for you? The class room? The patient? The university? Turtles all the way down.