b345000d   
   XPost: alt.philosophy, sci.econ, alt.psychology   
   XPost: alt.politics.economics   
   From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com   
      
   sarge wrote:   
   > On 7 Aug, 06:09, "Rod Speed"  wrote:   
   >> Giga" <"Giga wrote:   
   >>> "Jim Jones" <1...@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.goo   
   legroups.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.   
   >   
   > That would depend on how the placebo is described to the 'patient'.   
   > Placebos can have pretty much any effect a medicine has.   
      
   But its just a tad unlikely that it was ever described like that to him as   
   part of a drug trial.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)