New generation anti-depressants have little clinical benefit for most patients, research suggests.

A University of Hull team concluded the drugs actively help only a small group of the most severely depressed.

Marjorie Wallace, head of the mental health charity Sane, said that if these results were confirmed they could be "very disturbing".

But the makers of Prozac and Seroxat, two of the commonest anti-depressants, said they disagreed with the findings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7263494.stm

I would say in most of the school shootings in the US the kids are A. on one or more of these drugs, or B. have stopped taking them shortly before.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3609599239524875493&q=drugging+our+children&total=1082&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I am sure some people are helped. Especially those who do not mind the costs - both in terms of money and emotions and physical side effects. The widespread knee jerk prescription of these drugs, especially when it is to children, is a very sad and poorly thought out phase in medical practice.

Imagine giving pain killers to every person who felt pain and then sending them home without seeing what the real causes are, and, when appropriate, as a society, family, community, actually tackling those causes.

I'm on Lithium and Wellbutrin and they work pretty damn good MOST of the time. It sure beats not having them for I wouldn't be here today without them as well as the doctors help.:)

New generation anti-depressants have little clinical benefit for most patients, research suggests.

A University of Hull team concluded the drugs actively help only a small group of the most severely depressed.

Marjorie Wallace, head of the mental health charity Sane, said that if these results were confirmed they could be "very disturbing".

But the makers of Prozac and Seroxat, two of the commonest anti-depressants, said they disagreed with the findings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7263494.stm

there was somthing in the gaudian about this today, and i will ahve to admit that i disagree! i have children on Fluoxetine (prozac) for Bi Polar and ticks!! (and no not the little animals that live under your skin, or in yur hair) and they are doing extreemly well, and when it is time for them to come of the drugs they will be slowly weaned of them and not just stop taken them, because that would lead to problems

...But the makers of Prozac and Seroxat, two of the commonest anti-depressants, said they disagreed with the findings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7263494.stm

Of course the makers of these drugs would disagree. Pharmaceutical companies are the worst drug dealers on the planer! They're not concerned with people getting better, they're concerned with getting as many people as they can to take their meds so they can exploit peoples weakness and get rich off of our low moments.

But on the note of "do they work", well, I think that if someone is having severe and long term depression then a combination of meds and talk therapy can definitely be a benefit. I think the meds should be prescribed in the lowest dose possible, and the talk therapy should be as much as possible. Sadly, in our society, they overdose people with meds and have them meet a psychologist maybe a few times, never truly addressing what the underlying problem is. As a result, people end up being on anti depressants for a very long time.

I think they work, they are just used wrong. But you know, insurance companies dont want to pay $150 an hour for you to see a therapist, so they bribe everyone involved and co conspire with the pharmaceutical companies to make sure that they can pay for something much cheaper like medication. And the pharmaceutical companies probably give the insurance companies a cut so that they wont allow someone to see a therapist long enough to get well enough to get off meds.

Theres my rant!!!

First and foremost we need to differentiate psychotropics from other drugs used for heart disease, diabetes etc. The psychotropics do work especially for severe cases but one has to take into consideration that their effectiveness is limited in time AND the brain makes adjustments so as given time a particular reaction can actually turn into an opposite reaction. Other than that i dont have any answers.

I agree that anti-depressants are bullshit.
Sure, in certain extreme circumstances to prevent a person from harming himself or others they're a temporary solution, but strictly temporary.
What should be cured is the source of the problem, the reasons why that person has depression in the first place have to be addressed, and psychological therapy should be applied.

These drugs are like painkillers to cure a broken leg.

Well a good friend of mine has a brother who cannot function without them. I agree that overuse\over prescribing is bad but for some people they really do help.

Very mild sedative. Increasing Rest is a good think.
SSI unhibitors, may need <<< correction, could provide a temp. rela x cycle.

So, that when you deJones, your fired up, 'gain.

Then, you may try and not ___Experience_ anything that one may consider, shall we say:

OFFSETTING.

How is that THC pill coming along?

I think it largely has to do whether the source is a psychological trauma or a chemical disbalance in the brain due to genetics or illness, or smthing like that.

New generation anti-depressants have little clinical benefit for most patients, research suggests. A University of Hull team concluded the drugs actively help only a small group of the most severely depressed.I think the problem is in identifying the patients who are likely to be helped by the drugs, and then MONITORING them closely to see if the hypothesis was correct. Psychiatry/psychotherapy is a very imprecise discipline to start with. And virtually every practitioner will tell you that in order to do as good a job as he would like to and as he believes he could, he would have to spend far more time with the patients than is practical, from both a financial and logistical standpoint. They settle for seeing patients once a week because that's all most insurance plans will cover; wealthy patients think they're really putting themselves out to come in three times a week; but the shrinks would like to see the people once a day or even more than once.

There is a lot of bad medicine being practiced: I've seen family practice "specialists" prescribe both Prozac and Trazodone.But the makers of Prozac and Seroxat, two of the commonest anti-depressants, said they disagreed with the findings.Those are lawyers, accountants and bureaucrats talking, not doctors, pharmacists or scientists. The problem with America is that lawyers, accountants and bureaucrats run everything because of government rules and regulations and the threat of lawsuits.I think it largely has to do whether the source is a psychological trauma or a chemical disbalance in the brain due to genetics or illness, or smthing like that.And that is not an easy thing to find out. The biology of the brain is only dimly understood. Generally the only information doctors have is what the patient tells them.How is that THC pill coming along?Don't laugh. The reason for the enduring popularity of traditional herbal medicines that have been in use for thousands of years--as opposed to corporate products that were invented so recently that the first generation of users hasn't even died and been autopsied yet--is that quite often THEY WORK.

The biology of the brain is only dimly understood. Generally the only information doctors have is what the patient tells them..

Which makes the field experimental and hubristic (if such an adjective exists).



The reason for the enduring popularity of traditional herbal medicines that have been in use for thousands of years--as opposed to corporate products that were invented so recently that the first generation of users hasn't even died and been autopsied yet--is that quite often THEY WORK.

They also, in distinction from pharmaceuticals, tend not to suppress the immune system.

prozac = sugar pill

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/feb/26/mentalhealth.medicalresearch?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

"When all the data was pulled together, it appeared that patients had improved - but those on placebo improved just as much as those on the drugs.

The only exception is in the most severely depressed patients, according to the authors - Prof Irving Kirsch from the department of psychology at Hull University and colleagues in the US and Canada. But that is probably because the placebo stopped working so well, they say, rather than the drugs having worked better."

prozac = sugar pill

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/feb/26/mentalhealth.medicalresearch?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Nice link.

A sugar pill with side effects. I'll take my sugar neat, thank you.

I agree that anti-depressants are bullshit.
Sure, in certain extreme circumstances to prevent a person from harming himself or others they're a temporary solution, but strictly temporary.
What should be cured is the source of the problem, the reasons why that person has depression in the first place have to be addressed, and psychological therapy should be applied.

These drugs are like painkillers to cure a broken leg.

I have a feeling that in most cases, curing the source of the problem would mean changing the world and making it a better place for people to live. I’m an unhappy person because I hate the current state of humanity, and no amount of antidepressants or psychotherapy is going to change the way I feel. Psychotherapy and antidepressants can help people cope with reality, but they can’t take away a person’s depression.

You just have to change your perception of the world. It's all in your head, we don't perceive objective reality any way.

Psychotherapy and antidepressants can help people cope with reality, but they can’t take away a person’s depression.

But they do help contend with depression allot better than without them. I'll say it again , I wouldn't be here today without the aid of the Lithium and Wellbutrin medications so they really do help.

I have a feeling that in most cases, curing the source of the problem would mean changing the world and making it a better place for people to live. I’m an unhappy person because I hate the current state of humanity, and no amount of antidepressants or psychotherapy is going to change the way I feel.That's a common argument. But the issue is clearly far more complicated than that. Millions of people face the same crappy reality without being depressed and lots of them are downright happy.

They've done studies of concentration camp survivors, people who in some cases watched their entire family and all their friends get murdered and spent weeks or months expecting the same to happen to them. Some of them came out with hopeless lifelong depression. Yet others bounced back in an unbelievably short time, went on to do great things, and by every objective and subjective measure ended up happy.

So what causes the difference?

There are people right now who look at the world and see exactly the same problems and risks you see. They're not blind, deluded or stupid. They really see it all and can describe it articulately. Yet it does not plunge them into depths of depression. Some of them take an activist position and try to do something about it, yet many just live normal lives doing nothing more to ensure the survival of civilization than the rest of us.

What causes the difference?

If it really just is chemistry, internal wiring, or attitudes you developed before you were even old enough to talk; if it were possible to buffer the chemicals, reroute the wiring, or put the attitudes in a more balanced perspective; if you could become one of those other people who sees the same world and responds rationally yet differently, wouldn't you want to at least try it and see if you like it?Psychotherapy and antidepressants can help people cope with reality, but they can’t take away a person’s depression.One good definition of depression is: inability to cope with reality.

I think they are, but I have no experience with them nor do I know anyone that uses/used them..

You just have to change your perception of the world. It's all in your head, we don't perceive objective reality any way.

I believe that my current perception of the world is more objective than the average person's perception of reality. Life is a struggle for everyone, but a happy person would probably tell you that it is a beautiful struggle. Depressed people are unable to see the beauty in the struggle. They only see the overabundance of misery and pain in the world. My state of mind usually fluctuates between moderate depression to something that I would describe as neutrality. The neutrality is neither nether happiness nor sadness. I think it is the closest thing to perceiving an objective reality.

I believe that my current perception of the world is more objective than the average person's perception of reality. Life is a struggle for everyone, but a happy person would probably tell you that it is a beautiful struggle. Depressed people are unable to see the beauty in the struggle. They only see the overabundance of misery and pain in the world. My state of mind usually fluctuates between moderate depression to something that I would describe as neutrality. The neutrality is neither nether happiness nor sadness. I think it is the closest thing to perceiving an objective reality.

:confused:
There is no such thing as observing objective reality..

In my fair opinion, SSRIs do have a benefit for those people who truly are clinically depressed -- not just a depressed mood or general melancholy. For those who are truly depressed, the SSRIs do help alleviate feelings of complete loss, worthlessness, and the obsequious and difficult to handle crying spells.

I have a distant cousin who is being treated with SSRIs after a couple of suicide attempts. She is now functioning normally with little to no risk taking behavior.

Of course, ongoing therapy is essential. They are not "wonder drugs," but do work wonders compared to the older and more dangerous tricyclics.

Learned

I believe that my current perception of the world is more objective than the average person's perception of reality. Life is a struggle for everyone, but a happy person would probably tell you that it is a beautiful struggle. Depressed people are unable to see the beauty in the struggle.It's not that it's a beautiful struggle. The point is that There's more to life than that struggle. Even people who struggle have happy moments. Some of them have happy hours, happy days, or happy weeks.

Some of the people who are living the struggle you observe are not as depressed about it as you are!

What gives you the right to trash your precious life emotionally as a reaction to something that someone else does not perceive to be as dismal as you see it? Someone who would look at your life and say you've got every reason to be one of the happiest people on earth?

You are making those people responsible for the misery in your life. Is that fair??? Could you, with your 28 teeth and your full belly and your inoculations and your education and your wallet full of photos of still-living children and the pink slip to your car, go to some beleaguered place in Africa, walk into some family's hovel during a moment when they happen to be enjoying themselves despite their condition, and tell them that because of them, you feel like shit? Do they deserve that?They only see the overabundance of misery and pain in the world.Indeed. What's wrong with learning to see the positive stuff like so many of the "miserable" people who depress you do?

If those people can overcome the first-order effects of "the abundance of misery and pain in the world," don't you OWE it to them to try to learn how to overcome the second-order effects?

:confused:
There is no such thing as observing objective reality..

Exactly.

I think that the majority of the time therapy is a much better alternative to pills.

I think that the majority of the time therapy is a much better alternative to pills.

I think that pills combined with therapy will yield the best results. I agree that when viewed on their own, therapy would be better than pills alone.

That's a common argument. But the issue is clearly far more complicated than that. Millions of people face the same crappy reality without being depressed and lots of them are downright happy.

They've done studies of concentration camp survivors, people who in some cases watched their entire family and all their friends get murdered and spent weeks or months expecting the same to happen to them. Some of them came out with hopeless lifelong depression. Yet others bounced back in an unbelievably short time, went on to do great things, and by every objective and subjective measure ended up happy.

So what causes the difference?

There are people right now who look at the world and see exactly the same problems and risks you see. They're not blind, deluded or stupid. They really see it all and can describe it articulately. Yet it does not plunge them into depths of depression. Some of them take an activist position and try to do something about it, yet many just live normal lives doing nothing more to ensure the survival of civilization than the rest of us.

What causes the difference?

What causes the difference? It is probably genetic predispositions. Some people are just naturally happier than other people.

If it really just is chemistry, internal wiring, or attitudes you developed before you were even old enough to talk; if it were possible to buffer the chemicals, reroute the wiring, or put the attitudes in a more balanced perspective; if you could become one of those other people who sees the same world and responds rationally yet differently, wouldn't you want to at least try it and see if you like it?

There was a time in my life when I was extremely depressed. I tried antidepressants and psychotherapy during this time. The antidepressant did help me, but I also experienced some bad side effects while I was taking them. And the idea of paying over $100 an hour to talk to someone about my problems made me even more depressed. I could have got more relief if I hired a masseuse to give me some happy endings. I would definitely be interested in some kind of new experimental treatment (something like gene therapy) that could help me cope with reality. I would love to have the genetic traits of the few people that seem to be able to cope with any amount of stress. I am also interested in things like TMS.

If these psychotropics were herbal medicines being sold in alternative stores, the side effects of these drugs would have long ago raised a public outcry for their banning. Articles would have appeared, the most strident about teenagers who abused them, and the FDA would rush in and ban them. Along with electroshock therapy. But because these drugs were made by the mainstream and big business the problematic side effects - which have included death, early death, murder and a host of minor to major problems - are considered exceptions, however common.

Imagine if Echinacea had the history of side effects of Prozac. Church groups and legislators would be climbing over each other to condemn its distribution.

So what causes the difference?

Let's take an extreme counter example. Afro-american slaves. Some of them, I am sure, managed to keep their spirits up better than others. Does this mean the ones who were depressed as slaves had an illness. There are problematic assumptions at the root of the current drug distribution mania. According to pharamceutical companies the majority of us are diagnosible and should be on some medication or other. What we have is a societal short cut, where we pathologize individuals immediately. We diagnose them, rather than seeing if the causes of their problems are in the family, in the school, part of a societal problem. We have cut out a powerful feedback mechanism - our own experience of living in these families, communities, society. And even if it turns out, after a little patience, that it is the best short term solution to medicate someone, telling them that they are having a normal reaction to a situation that is unhealthy is a significant context shift from the current 'your brain has a problem' analysis.

:confused:
There is no such thing as observing objective reality..

True, but people can make an attempt to not be influenced by their emotions when they’re making important decisions. Scientists do it all the time.

True, but people can make an attempt to not be influenced by their emotions when they’re making important decisions. Scientists do it all the time.

If you are making a decision where there are a lot of variables you need to use emotions or you can come up with reasons for a number of possible right actions or interpretations.

If these psychotropics were herbal medicines being sold in alternative stores, the side effects of these drugs would have long ago raised a public outcry for their banning. But because these drugs were made by the mainstream and big business the problematic side effects - which have included death, early death, murder and a host of minor to major problems - are considered exceptions, however common.Indeed. Alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous than most illegal drugs.Let's take an extreme counter example. Afro-american slaves. Some of them, I am sure, managed to keep their spirits up better than others. Does this mean the ones who were depressed as slaves had an illness."Illness" seems like a harsh word but there was certainly some important difference between them, wasn't there? You don't seem to have coined an alternative word for it yet.There are problematic assumptions at the root of the current drug distribution mania.Well hey just because I think depression is a "problem" that people should not simply accept and plan to live with for the rest of their life, doesn't mean I recommend treating it with drugs. I know that's the title of this thread but many non-pharmaceutical treatments have good potential without dumping recently-invented chemicals into your body. Meditation, acupuncture, all kinds of Eastern approaches are worth trying, as well as some of the new Western ones like EFT. Hell, the first thing you should do is get a dog! They've been making humans happier for fifteen thousand years.According to pharamceutical companies the majority of us are diagnosible and should be on some medication or other.Yeah yeah. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Especially if you're the hammersmith, eh?What we have is a societal short cut, where we pathologize individuals immediately. We diagnose them, rather than seeing if the causes of their problems are in the family, in the school, part of a societal problem. We have cut out a powerful feedback mechanism - our own experience of living in these families, communities, society.Wait a minute. You already admitted there was a control group. Other people live through these exact same experiences without becoming depressed. So we've pretty much ruled out external causes and it really is time to look inside the patient. If you're talking about an abusive family, then of course that's different. But you keep talking about how painful it is to live in a world where you have to observe the struggle of Everyman against the injustice of Civilization.And even if it turns out, after a little patience, that it is the best short term solution to medicate someone, telling them that they are having a normal reaction to a situation that is unhealthy is a significant context shift from the current 'your brain has a problem' analysis.It's not generally your brain per se, at least not anything fundamental like its structure. It's your emotions, which are not down at such a deep level. Changing your emotions with drugs isn't nearly as drastic as rewiring your brain with them. Lots of people go out on Friday night with the express purpose of changing their emotions with drugs.

"Mental illness" is real but relatively rare in the context of this discussion. Most of the people we're talking about here have an emotional illness.

Indeed. Alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous than most illegal drugs.

And with the internet and TV as gateway drugs.
Other people live through these exact same experiences without becoming depressed. So we've pretty much ruled out external causes and it really is time to look inside the patient.

In a sense, yes. And as you suggested at the family. But I still have an issue with your position. Let's take someone growing up in Stalin's Russia. he is depressed. He finds life in that society depressing. Across the hall his neighbor thrives. He likes being told what to do. He likes being understimulated. He likes....you get the idea.

Which one has an emotional problem and needs medication?

I want, and I think many people want, a diverse society with many people who have different strengths and interests. Stick all the children, for example, in rooms for six hours where they have to sit still and be passive and learn passively, and suddenly you will find excuses to diagnose some of them. If however we, as a society, were more flexible, children who, for example learn best when they are physically engaged are less likely to be seen as having a brain problem.

The fact that so many children are getting Ritalin and other drugs rather then we consider much more seriously the effects of
the stress of the parents today
the speed of society today
the overflow of media and stimulation in general
tired pedagogical techniques
TV as babysitter
Computers as social life center

as possible causes.

To give the individual kid who cannot sit still a drug is a short cut and it pathologizes that child.

I do not think it is so easy to 'rule out external causes'. The ones who do not thrive may have skills and needs that are different but are not problems. Now they are pathologized.

"Mental illness" is real but relatively rare in the context of this discussion. Most of the people we're talking about here have an emotional illness.

I find it amazing how harsh people judge self-medication and how easily they accept mass medication based on studies done by people who make money off the distribution of these drugs.

I am biased. I had a family member diagnosed and medicated and it caused a lot of damage. It was PTSD and me, the child, was the one who had to explain this to everyone. I had to almost literally kick the asses of a bunch of adults who see pills as magic bullets and do not see the irony in that metaphor.

The adult who was PTSD, once it was seen as this, went off the meds, and in that instant, no longer had an emotional illnes, but rather the normal emotional aftermath to trauma. No pathology. No problematic brain.

SAM i would have to say yes, actually im about to be put back on anti depressents probably for the rest of the time im at uni (i got told i have to take them for 6months before i even TRY to come off them). I guess i get to be a guinnie pig for the efficasy because i have a whole list to try. If one doesnt work (or effects my sex life:p) i am surposed to change to the next

We will see

.And with the internet and TV as gateway drugs.I'm always mystified when someone like you who is sitting here using the internet as a tool for communication and education makes a derogatory comment about it.But I still have an issue with your position. Let's take someone growing up in Stalin's Russia. he is depressed. He finds life in that society depressing. Across the hall his neighbor thrives. He likes being told what to do. He likes being understimulated. He likes....you get the idea.I never visited the USSR but I spent some time in the satellite countries. I met people who had found peace and happiness, yet no one could accuse them of preferring to be "understimulated." They read books, went to the theater, played music, carried on correspondence with vast numbers of people in many countries (including the USA which is how I ended up there) and spent their evenings in passionate intellectual discussions with a room full of friends.

So their jobs sucked and their homes were crowded and their politicians were selfish oafs. A lot of Americans feel the same way.Which one has an emotional problem and needs medication?As I said I'm not a strong proponent of medication. But like most people I think happiness is a natural state that we should all be able to attain during a large portion of our life. People who can't do that are the ones with the problem. It may not always be soluble, but nobody is going to convince Fraggle Rocker that being bummed out by the world one lives in should be adopted as a reference standard for a "normal" human existence and everybody else has a problem!The fact that so many children are getting Ritalin and other drugs. . . . Well you're rambling on about drugs and that is after all the subject of the thread. Nonetheless I think we can recognize that people have unpleasant feelings and it's possible to try to make them feel more pleasant without giving them drugs.Computers as social life center. . . .That's a paradigm shift. Civilization is changing into a new format and virtual communication is becoming the norm. The upside is that we don't have to limit our friends and associates to people in the same country, but the downside is that we may never be able to meet them in person. As far as I'm concerned that's an exchange I'll make happily since I've always had more in common with foreigners than other Americans.

Eventually video and audio will become ubiquitous so we won't be limited to the emotional bandwidth of typing, but we will get used to dealing with electronic avatars of people and it will become just as easy as telephony, despite the fact that my grandfather said people would never feel comfortable talking to somebody they can't see.

Prozac is great... for a little while. When it was working for me, I remember wondering if that was how normal people feel all of the time. But after a while, you gradually go back to normal (but still find it nearly impossible to have an orgasm). I suppose many people will up their dose, but I just quit taking it. I repeated the cycle once, but I don't know that I ever will again.

I think for some it can help them over a rough period. But it won't make structural unhappiness go away.

As I said I'm not a strong proponent of medication. But like most people I think happiness is a natural state that we should all be able to attain during a large portion of our life. People who can't do that are the ones with the problem. It may not always be soluble, but nobody is going to convince Fraggle Rocker that being bummed out by the world one lives in should be adopted as a reference standard for a "normal" human existence and everybody else has a problem!

That sounds like something that you would hear from motivational speakers like Deepak Chopra or Wayne Dyer. I don’t believe that human beings have a natural state, and I think it is unrealistic to believe that everyone should be able attain happiness during a large portion of their life. It would be possible in a better world, but not in the world that we live in. This world isn’t for everyone. We can’t all be winners in the game of life. Some people have a high probability of growing up to be happy individuals from the moment they are born, and other people are destined to live a life of misery. There are so many things in our lives that we can’t control. (Your genetics, the socioeconomic level that you are born into, who your parents are, the people that you met during your childhood) All of these things play a role in determining if a person will be happy or bummed out by the world that they live in.

I think they are, but I have no experience with them nor do I know anyone that uses/used them..

You know me and I have told you that I take them and they work for me. That doesn't mean they will work for everyone but if the doctor can find the right type of medication perhaps that might be the way to help those who aren't being helped yet.

You know me and I have told you that I take them and they work for me. That doesn't mean they will work for everyone but if the doctor can find the right type of medication perhaps that might be the way to help those who aren't being helped yet.

I didn't know you used them :p
Anyway, it's all hearsay and since I haven't seen any medical reports on this first hand.. :shrug:
Don't worry I believe you though.. ;)

I agree with cosmic, thats why the shrink gave me a whole list of different ones to try.

I agree with cosmic, thats why the shrink gave me a whole list of different ones to try.

That's a very weird doctor you have because most doctors will only give you one medication for 30 days to see how it helps or not then starts to change the amounts first before changing the types of medications.

Thats because he isnt my doctor, hes the shrink the GP sent me to to be assesed. The GP will write the script as he and i see fit

Thats because he isnt my doctor, hes the shrink the GP sent me to to be assesed. The GP will write the script as he and i see fit

Good luck. My psychiatrist is the one who writes my prescriptions not my GP. My GP doesn't even know what I take if I don't tell him, but I do.

This is slightly different, it was a mental health assesment by a hospital (i would prefer not to say which). I was assessed for bi pola and it turned out to be cyclic depression so thats why he gave me the list (as well as infomation on them) of the anti depressents i should try

He only wants me to stay on one if it both helps my mood and doesnt effect my relationship and sex life

Is Wellbutrin or Lithium on that list and if so what dosages? Just curious.

no only antidepressents

SSRI - prosac
nor-adrenilen inhibitor
Combination one
and im not sure of the last

I'm always mystified when someone like you who is sitting here using the internet as a tool for communication and education makes a derogatory comment about it.

1) it was an ironic jab at the anti-drug crowd who never seem to care much about psychotropics. They always wanted to condemn pot because it 'leads to other drugs', not wanting to take up the obvious that TV, ciggarretes, alcohol, etc. all have addictive properties and you can damn well bet nearly every heroin addict tried these first.
2) I could be a glass of wine with dinner internet user acknowledging the potential for addiction.

I never visited the USSR but I spent some time in the satellite countries. I met people who had found peace and happiness, yet no one could accuse them of preferring to be "understimulated." They read books, went to the theater, played music, carried on correspondence with vast numbers of people in many countries (including the USA which is how I ended up there) and spent their evenings in passionate intellectual discussions with a room full of friends.
You're splitting hairs. Some people thrive in environments that are pathological. Are they the healthy ones? The kid who likes a boarding school run by fascist leaning teachers who distust children. Is that the kid we should think of as the norm and the children who become restless or depressed in an environment of disrespect and over control are the ones who have an emotional illness. We cannot rule out external factors because some do not have problematic emotional reactions. In fact these reactions may be useful information about the problems in the environment, at the very least its rigidity, its inability to allow a variety of types to thrive. Especially when the majority is now diagnosible. Most of us should be on some sort of drug according to the pharmaceutical companies. The norm is sick.

People who can't do that are the ones with the problem.

I am glad you put it so clearly. We disagree and will probably be soon repeating ourselves.

It may not always be soluble, but nobody is going to convince Fraggle Rocker that being bummed out by the world one lives in should be adopted as a reference standard for a "normal" human existence and everybody else has a problem!

I can see how you may have taken my extreme examples as flipping the coin to the other side. That is not my intention. My point is more to show that in certain environments not thriving may be normal. In less extreme cases, like our society, there may be no reason to pathologize either side. Please stress that last sentence. You're holding up the not reactors as the norm. What if the norm is made up of a diversity but now we have whittle this down unnecessarily to fewer versions of that norm?


Also there is a canary in the coal mine aspect to this. Some people are more sensitive. Right now we are drugging their feedback out. We do not listen to it. If you shift the issue to a political one I think you might see the flaws. This 1 percent of afro americans managed to get good jobs - say in 1915 - therefore there is not a societal problem. The other AAs are just whiners - and now they would be diagnosed. Or a trend towards fascism...the ones who are 'sensitive' to state power being centralized and privacy and freedom of speech being comprimised can be seen as less successful organisms in need of chemical adjustment, rather than as people whose 'sensitivity' to compromised freedom may be greater than others but is not pathological. And those others may have problems down the line when they shut off the feedback. The Soviet Union is a good example of where psychiatry and politics did in fact literally mix. I think also the ways in which women's reactions to society - the heavy drugging, for example, by the medical community of white, middle class women in the 50s and early 60s, who 'should have been satisfied' with their successful lives as homemakers with all the right appliances - have been pathologized by psychiatry should also be a warning that current medication trends and use of certain kinds of people as norms - passive children, men, whites - may skew the norm and miss societal problems.

But I think I have made my position as clear as I can. I'll read your response if you make one, but I'll leave my contribution as what it is so far.

Well you're rambling on about drugs and that is after all the subject of the thread.
Rambling!? I take umbrage. I shall follow your stricter essay standards from now on.;)

You're splitting hairs. Some people thrive in environments that are pathological. Are they the healthy ones? The kid who likes a boarding school run by fascist leaning teachers who distrust children. Is that the kid we should think of as the norm and the children who become restless or depressed in an environment of disrespect and over control are the ones who have an emotional illness.I'm not talking about "healthy." I'm talking about "happy." According to our contemporary enlightened philosophy, everyone has a right to be happy--or at least to pursue happiness, as stated in my country's founding statement. It doesn't matter whether you're sick or healthy, it's generally taken for granted that you should be provided with reasonable means to be as happy as your condition allows.

We don't necessarily want to "cure" the condition that's making you unhappy, much less rewire your brain so you no longer see it as a defect in your environment. We just don't believe you should be doomed to being unhappy when we have all these spiffy self-help techniques, traditional and modern therapies, and yes even drugs, the more well-established of which don't pose much danger of rewiring your brain and depriving you of your awareness that the world needs to change.

Happy people are more productive citizens, better problem solvers, less likely to cause problems for others (and themselves), and even statistically more likely to enjoy better physical health--the effect of endorphins and all that. Happiness is a positive force for the maintenance and advance of civilization, and it could be argued that the responsible citizen would choose it if it were simply a matter of ordering it from Amazon.com.

It's not quite that easy, but some people seem to choose unhappiness and would in fact not order happiness from Amazon.

Is Wellbutrin or Lithium on that list and if so what dosages? Just curious.


My oldest child takes Lithium! he has to take 4 tablets a day, 2 in the morning and 2 at nihgt!

i feel for you LA and for him, bi polar is a terrible condition. My ex had it and in the end it made her cheat on me (well thats the only reason i can think of for her actions, when i was already sucidly depressed).

My oldest child takes Lithium! he has to take 4 tablets a day, 2 in the morning and 2 at nihgt!

Geez, that's allot! I only take 2 pills a day, what dosages are those pills?

Geez, that's allot! I only take 2 pills a day, what dosages are those pills?



let me look!! he takes 2 x 400mg tablets morning and night

Zoloft works, the medication will work but the question is whether its enough to offset the regular mental illness that occurs daily.

i feel for you LA and for him, bi polar is a terrible condition. My ex had it and in the end it made her cheat on me (well thats the only reason i can think of for her actions, when i was already sucidly depressed).

You could consider that your depression would be panic inducing for someone who cycles between agitated mania and depression. She would want to 'get away' from that depression, because part of the manics rush is that deep fear of being dragged back down again. Unfortunately that 'getting away' was acted out in a way that must have been hell for you. I don't know that we need to look at her as having an illness or that this illness is causal.

There are patterns in the emotions of some people. And there are interpersonal dynamics. I am not saying there are no 'ill' people out there, but a presumption of health and sanity and a working with these patterns seems better to me than labeling as fast as we do in this society.

Zoloft works, the medication will work but the question is whether its enough to offset the regular mental illness that occurs daily.

I don't think it is clear at all that these medications work.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...d=networkfront

link originally provided by Syzygy.