XPost: alt.philosophy, sci.econ, alt.psychology   
   XPost: alt.politics.economics   
   From: 123@nospam.com   
      
   Giga" <"Giga wrote:   
   > "Woody"  wrote in message   
   > news:a5Pdm.489341$4p1.220435@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com...   
   >>   
   >> "Giga" <"Giga"    
   >> wrote in message   
   >> news:Bd2dnTc81Y34JurXnZ2dnVY3goSdnZ2d@giganews.com...   
   >>>   
   >>> "Immortalist"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:3156dd69-a328-4502-afaf-90345383d225@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...   
   >>>> (1) - Newer drugs, more social acceptance: It may be more socially   
   >>>> acceptable to be diagnosed with and treated for depression. The   
   >>>> availability of new drugs may also have been a factor.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> (2) - Cost may be deterrent to talk therapy: Therapy is as   
   >>>> effective as, if not more effective than, drug use alone,...   
   >>>> out-of-pocket costs for psychotherapy and lower insurance coverage   
   >>>> for such visits may have driven patients away from seeing   
   >>>> therapists in favor of an easy- to-prescribe pill.   
   >>>   
   >>> I was wonderring recently if the rise in recreational canabis use   
   >>> could to some extent explain this. Like the chemicals are permenent   
   >>> damaged by shaking then up like crazy with TCH.   
   >>   
   >> I just saw this thread. The main reason for the growth in   
   >> anti-depressant use traces back to a development in the 1990s, when   
   >> mental health research became almost exclusively funded by drug   
   >> companies. They, of course, funded only research that was likely to   
   >> make them a profit, which was drug therapy research. In order to get   
   >> funding, researchers were subtly compelled to publicly express a   
   >> preference for drug therapy over other therapies, and eventually the   
   >> government editors of the diagnostic and treatment manuals were   
   >> compelled by existing research to sanction only drug therapies for   
   >> mental illness. This was the origin of the famous 15-minute med   
   >> check. As psychiatric drug sales became a solid cash cow, the   
   >> pharmaceutical companies sought to grow their market by, among other   
   >> things, identifying new diagnoses and encouraging the broadening of   
   >> criteria under which psychoactive medications could be prescribed.   
   >> The result is 40% of the insured American population, or some other   
   >> insanely high number, being prescribed and taking psychiatric drugs.   
   >> It's all about the money, honey.   
      
   > Dosen't really explain why people want to take them. There is afterall very   
   little direct-to-the-public marketing of   
   > the pills. Why do they feel bad? Why do they think drugs will help?   
      
   For the same reason they 'think' that vitamins and illegal drugs are worth   
   trying.   
      
   > Why do they seem, to them, to help (very close to placebo effect for most of   
   them apparently).   
      
   That last is just plain wrong.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)