XPost: alt.philosophy, sci.econ, alt.psychology   
   XPost: alt.politics.economics   
   From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com   
      
   Giga" <"Giga wrote:   
   > "Jim Jones" <123@nospam.com> wrote in message   
   > news:7du00aF2bh46qU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Vitamins def placebo only, if on a normal diet and healthy, and the   
   > point about illegal drugs is exactly what I was getting at.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> Why do they seem, to them, to help (very close to placebo effect   
   >>> for most of them apparently).   
   >>   
   >> That last is just plain wrong.   
      
   > I meant on average, from drugs trials. I know for some indivduals   
   > they work very well, and genuinely, especially if lucky enough to   
   > find the right pill and dose. But I heard about a meta-study (study   
   > of studies many unpublished before) and the difference (I emphasise   
   > on average across the population) was slight between SSRI (such as   
   > Prozac etc) and sugar pills (AKA placebo).   
      
   Easy to claim. Bet you cant actually cite a meta study in any of   
   the peer reviewed medical literature that says anything like that.   
      
   > Also some ADs work by enhancing seratonin production or presence in the   
   brain, others work by supressing it (yes weird   
   > isn't it)   
      
   Nope.   
      
   > and others on dopamine. I know that SSRIs are an psycho-active drug as took   
   part in trail of them (for cash) and   
   > nearly lost my temper big time (really big big time) with my girlfreind at   
   that time. Nearly attacked her actually and   
   > really for nothing at all. Scary.   
      
   Clearly nothing like a placebo.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)