I heard today that Professor Adrian Angold will report on a study showing that children as young as 2 - 5 years show high incidences of psychiatric disorder. He recommends much earlier intervention than is currently usual, I understand.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4478428.stm
Another of his studies appears to show that the interventions which are currently undertaken are not as good as they should be and that inappropriate use of medication can lead to iatrogenic problems
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000729/fob2.asp
I am not disputing that many children would benefit from early therapeutic intervention by skilled professionals. But in my experience in the UK the services are wholly inadequate to meet the exisiting demand and I have seen several examples of inappropriate prescription through the general practitioner, without, it seems to me, proper diagnosis.
Professor Angold himself said today that he did not know what forms of intervention would be effective. He acknowledged that some children who display the problems he studied do " grow out of it" but he considers that is no reason for denying treatment, on the analogy of childhood asthma.
Is anyone else disturbed by what appears to be a trend towards defining more and more young children as mentally ill? And for recommending an approach which seems to me to be likely to increase the use of powerful psychoactive drugs which may not be tested on children and whose long term effects are not certain?
Do people know whether psychiatric illness in young children is on the increase. Was it present but not diagnosed in the past? I read one other paper a while ago which suggested that the culture we live in is not child friendly and that medication is being used to help children to conform to the demands made on them (sorry I could not find that paper today) Is this what is happening?
Child Psychiatry
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
I'm in no position to comment on this from any sort of medical standpoint. However, I find it extremely disturbing that the prescribing of drugs like Ritalin has skyrocketed.. I also find it disturbing that so many children are diagnosed as apparently suffering from some kind of mental problem.....
I do not have access to hardcore scientific data, but I have read that the side effects of Ritalin, for example, can far outweigh any kind of benefits.. such as making a child dull and sluggish. I also once read a report that a child had actually died from overuse of the drug. But, I am well aware of how entrenched the camps and agendas are in this area, and thus I'm cautious about wholly believing the story.
Also worrying is when this sort of stuff is given to children who have been wrongly diagnosed.
But, I'll be upfront. I am inherently biased when it comes to conventional medicine. I will always first try to deal with a problem by seeing an "alternative" health practitioner. Not to say I won't see a regular medical doctor, but I tend to try other avenues (i.e a chiropractor, acupuncturist or naturopath) first, and I've usually found them successful.
I do not have access to hardcore scientific data, but I have read that the side effects of Ritalin, for example, can far outweigh any kind of benefits.. such as making a child dull and sluggish. I also once read a report that a child had actually died from overuse of the drug. But, I am well aware of how entrenched the camps and agendas are in this area, and thus I'm cautious about wholly believing the story.
Also worrying is when this sort of stuff is given to children who have been wrongly diagnosed.
But, I'll be upfront. I am inherently biased when it comes to conventional medicine. I will always first try to deal with a problem by seeing an "alternative" health practitioner. Not to say I won't see a regular medical doctor, but I tend to try other avenues (i.e a chiropractor, acupuncturist or naturopath) first, and I've usually found them successful.
Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12
-
Chimaera182
- Posts: 2723
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 11:00 am
- Contact:
I think I share in the worry Fiona and DW express. You can't just give an overly-energetic child Ritalin and claim s/he has ADD. I see a lot of misdiagonsises (is that even a word?) and possible lawsuits in future when those doped up children grow up into doped up adults who find out they were put on an unnecessary drug that ruined their lives. It's just another attempt to bulldoze over the problem of adults with mental problems by blanketing children with drugs and labels like schizophrenia or ADD or MPD. It's just going to do more harm than good.
And DW, I watched a chiropracter do work on a 4 year old girl and who claimed to do it to a newborn. I would never see a chriopracter after that; someone who's supposed to be a doctor and licensed to help but is readjusting the unformed bones of a baby doesn't deserve to be paid but to be thrown in jail.
And DW, I watched a chiropracter do work on a 4 year old girl and who claimed to do it to a newborn. I would never see a chriopracter after that; someone who's supposed to be a doctor and licensed to help but is readjusting the unformed bones of a baby doesn't deserve to be paid but to be thrown in jail.
General: "Those aren't ideas; those are special effects."
Michael Bay: "I don't understand the difference."
Michael Bay: "I don't understand the difference."
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
@Chim,
Not to detour this thread, but I totally agree with you re: the chiro. Unfortunately, every profession has its charletans and incompetants who should never have received licenses in the first place.
Not to detour this thread, but I totally agree with you re: the chiro. Unfortunately, every profession has its charletans and incompetants who should never have received licenses in the first place.
Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12
Overmedication and overdiagnosis of syndromes due to lack of proper diagnostic procedures and clinical assement, is a huge problem in some countries, especially in the US but for some diagnosis, also in Japan. The UK I don't know about.
In the US, diagnosis of ADHD/ADD and other childhood/youth developmental neuropsychiatric disorders are often made by unqualified persons like school assistents. Furthermore, in the US diagnosis is often made without using the international diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV (which is strange considering it's the APA (American Psychological Association) that publish the DSM). This in turn leads to overmedication, since the use of prescription drugs is also much more common in the US than in Europe.
Sweden, where I live, is a country with very strict regulation of prescription drugs. Sweden also has the world's strictest regulations for drug trials and introduction of new drugs. Central stimulants (amphetamine-like drugs, among them Concerta and Ritanlin) can only be used here by a special licence. Two indepenent specialists in child neuropsychiatry must see the child and make independent clinical assessments that both conclude methylphenidate is the treatment of choice. Then they must write a special application to the Swedish FDA, which in turn will be assessed by their experts and approved, before a methylphenidate treatment can start.
The care program set by the Swedish FDA is that pharmacotherapy is a last resort for children in general. Social, behavioural and pedagogic treatment possibilities shall be tried first. Medicines are only used in if these means do not help and the child has a severe functional handicap. This means that out of a 9 million people and an ADHD prevalence of 3-5%, only a few hundred children (200-300) take Ritanlin. In the US, it seems like the kids get Ritalin as soon as the parents and teachers complain a little about their conduction. The problem here is rather that of underdiagnosis and undertreatment - many children who would benefit from diagnosis and treatment for neuropsychiatric conditions such as ADHD and autism/Aspergers, don't get proper support due to the misinformed "they will grow out of it"- and "children must be allowed to be natural"-culture in Sweden. It is correct that neuropsychiatric symptoms may decline after puberty when increased myelinisation has occurred, but it is also well known that all patients with neuropsychiatric disorders benefit from early intervention, as early as possible. Years of painful school experiences, psychosocial problems and cognitive underdevelopment could have been avoided with a proper diagnosis and treatment.
Regardning the increasing diagnosing of children as having neuropsychiatric conditions, in Sweden it's certainly a good thing since this has been a neglected group for a far too long time. Here, I think the diagnostic prevalence is now close to the real prevalence although there is still some underdiagnosis. I don't think the real prevalence has changed, ADHD has been described and researched in the medical literature for 100 years now.
In the US, overdiagnosis is a huge problem, and often covers underlying problems such as social problems, school problems, parental problems and what have you. This however goes for all almost all diseases in the US. A majority of the big multinational pharmaceutical companies are American, and they have an influence on the health care system, the FDA and the behaviour of individual physicians, that is unheard of here due to differencies in the system.
In the US, diagnosis of ADHD/ADD and other childhood/youth developmental neuropsychiatric disorders are often made by unqualified persons like school assistents. Furthermore, in the US diagnosis is often made without using the international diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV (which is strange considering it's the APA (American Psychological Association) that publish the DSM). This in turn leads to overmedication, since the use of prescription drugs is also much more common in the US than in Europe.
Sweden, where I live, is a country with very strict regulation of prescription drugs. Sweden also has the world's strictest regulations for drug trials and introduction of new drugs. Central stimulants (amphetamine-like drugs, among them Concerta and Ritanlin) can only be used here by a special licence. Two indepenent specialists in child neuropsychiatry must see the child and make independent clinical assessments that both conclude methylphenidate is the treatment of choice. Then they must write a special application to the Swedish FDA, which in turn will be assessed by their experts and approved, before a methylphenidate treatment can start.
The care program set by the Swedish FDA is that pharmacotherapy is a last resort for children in general. Social, behavioural and pedagogic treatment possibilities shall be tried first. Medicines are only used in if these means do not help and the child has a severe functional handicap. This means that out of a 9 million people and an ADHD prevalence of 3-5%, only a few hundred children (200-300) take Ritanlin. In the US, it seems like the kids get Ritalin as soon as the parents and teachers complain a little about their conduction. The problem here is rather that of underdiagnosis and undertreatment - many children who would benefit from diagnosis and treatment for neuropsychiatric conditions such as ADHD and autism/Aspergers, don't get proper support due to the misinformed "they will grow out of it"- and "children must be allowed to be natural"-culture in Sweden. It is correct that neuropsychiatric symptoms may decline after puberty when increased myelinisation has occurred, but it is also well known that all patients with neuropsychiatric disorders benefit from early intervention, as early as possible. Years of painful school experiences, psychosocial problems and cognitive underdevelopment could have been avoided with a proper diagnosis and treatment.
Regardning the increasing diagnosing of children as having neuropsychiatric conditions, in Sweden it's certainly a good thing since this has been a neglected group for a far too long time. Here, I think the diagnostic prevalence is now close to the real prevalence although there is still some underdiagnosis. I don't think the real prevalence has changed, ADHD has been described and researched in the medical literature for 100 years now.
In the US, overdiagnosis is a huge problem, and often covers underlying problems such as social problems, school problems, parental problems and what have you. This however goes for all almost all diseases in the US. A majority of the big multinational pharmaceutical companies are American, and they have an influence on the health care system, the FDA and the behaviour of individual physicians, that is unheard of here due to differencies in the system.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
What CE tells confirms what I thought having read elsewhere: the tendency in the US to medicalise mental health.
But I wonder if there is not also another tendency in play here: the increasing intolerance in Western society and especially the US towards anything that is less than perfect.
In this case that children have to be model children and if they even slightly deviate from the norm there must be something wrong with them. And it must be cured.
But I wonder if there is not also another tendency in play here: the increasing intolerance in Western society and especially the US towards anything that is less than perfect.
In this case that children have to be model children and if they even slightly deviate from the norm there must be something wrong with them. And it must be cured.
I think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated his ability.
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
- Oscar Wilde
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I'll walk carefully.
- Russian proverb
[QUOTE=Lestat]But I wonder if there is not also another tendency in play here: the increasing intolerance in Western society and especially the US towards anything that is less than perfect.
In this case that children have to be model children and if they even slightly deviate from the norm there must be something wrong with them. And it must be cured. [/QUOTE]
I actually don't know if this is the case, Western soceity seems to strive for perfection according to a superficial norm, but at the same time, at least in Sweden, the school system and the general norms in society has become significantly more individualised in recent years than previously, so there seems to be two parallell lines of development here.
Increase in use of pharmaceutics is certainly a trend that Europe will follow. This is for a variety of reasons. One reason is valid health care reason, and that is the development of better drugs, for more conditions. Previously, a child with ADHD needed to have a very severe and disruptive form to get any medication at all. Now, with the new types of drugs that are not central stimulants but norephinedrine-reuptake inhibitors, also children with severe but not that severe problems, have access to medication. Other reasons are not health care considerations: funding for medical research is going down in the entire Western world, with the exception for Japan. Medical science have become more and more dependent on private funding, and that includes funding from the pharmaceutical industry. In many fields, the choice is now to stop the activity, or accept affiliation with the drug companies. This leads to overfocus on farmacological research and underemphasis on other treatment methods, which in turn leads to overfocus on pharmacological treatment.
A sad thing is also that people who protest against the overemphasis on pharmacological treatment, usually do so for all the wrong reasons. Some people (I talk about laymen now, the general public) oppose pharmacological treatment because they believe it's dangerous and not efficient (not true in most cases), some people have an inherent dislike of medical science and believe in "alternative medicine" which is mostly uncontrolled and in many cases has led to worse side effects than controlled drugs, and some people oppose it for political or religious reasons. For instance, the Scientology church is currently engaged in a worldwide lobby campaign against use of psychopharmaca. They have propaganda websides under many different names and it's not always obvious that they are Scientology organisations. They use weblogs, they write petitions, the write in newspapers etc, in order to reach people with their message. So one has to control the information one gets about all the errors with psychopharmacology.
In this case that children have to be model children and if they even slightly deviate from the norm there must be something wrong with them. And it must be cured. [/QUOTE]
I actually don't know if this is the case, Western soceity seems to strive for perfection according to a superficial norm, but at the same time, at least in Sweden, the school system and the general norms in society has become significantly more individualised in recent years than previously, so there seems to be two parallell lines of development here.
Increase in use of pharmaceutics is certainly a trend that Europe will follow. This is for a variety of reasons. One reason is valid health care reason, and that is the development of better drugs, for more conditions. Previously, a child with ADHD needed to have a very severe and disruptive form to get any medication at all. Now, with the new types of drugs that are not central stimulants but norephinedrine-reuptake inhibitors, also children with severe but not that severe problems, have access to medication. Other reasons are not health care considerations: funding for medical research is going down in the entire Western world, with the exception for Japan. Medical science have become more and more dependent on private funding, and that includes funding from the pharmaceutical industry. In many fields, the choice is now to stop the activity, or accept affiliation with the drug companies. This leads to overfocus on farmacological research and underemphasis on other treatment methods, which in turn leads to overfocus on pharmacological treatment.
A sad thing is also that people who protest against the overemphasis on pharmacological treatment, usually do so for all the wrong reasons. Some people (I talk about laymen now, the general public) oppose pharmacological treatment because they believe it's dangerous and not efficient (not true in most cases), some people have an inherent dislike of medical science and believe in "alternative medicine" which is mostly uncontrolled and in many cases has led to worse side effects than controlled drugs, and some people oppose it for political or religious reasons. For instance, the Scientology church is currently engaged in a worldwide lobby campaign against use of psychopharmaca. They have propaganda websides under many different names and it's not always obvious that they are Scientology organisations. They use weblogs, they write petitions, the write in newspapers etc, in order to reach people with their message. So one has to control the information one gets about all the errors with psychopharmacology.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
I think the problem is always the same in all of the medicine world. We (i'm a medicine doctor) have a person in front of us, not a diagnosis, not a DSMIV code. A person that needs help and we must give him/her all the assistance we can. I always think that the real problem in medicine is communication. Too many problems rise because only a few (if any) time is spent listening. And after listening, explaining. We're talking about the life of a man/woman. If i need a drug, i need to know why i have to take it, what it will do to me, when to take it, for how long....And if the doctor knows what he's doing he'll have answers.
I think that the only way to make sure that "we" doctors really "take care" is to let the "patient" know what we have in mind.
You could be the best doctor of the wolrd, but if the person you have in front of you do not trust what you're doing, you will fail...and unfortunately he/she will also suffer from your failure.
I think that the only way to make sure that "we" doctors really "take care" is to let the "patient" know what we have in mind.
You could be the best doctor of the wolrd, but if the person you have in front of you do not trust what you're doing, you will fail...and unfortunately he/she will also suffer from your failure.
Edwin, mighty founder of the Council of Mages; Co-founder of the Shadow Mages
Sorcery and Shadow together as one, the arcane and the dark united. Through our knowledge and skill none can stand against us. We are as one, infallible and invincible. The Shadow Mages.
Sorcery and Shadow together as one, the arcane and the dark united. Through our knowledge and skill none can stand against us. We are as one, infallible and invincible. The Shadow Mages.
-
Fiona
In the UK GP's have a very high work load and they have very little time to talk to patients. So long as that is the case then I think that the communication will be poor. Unfortunately doctors report that the new computer systems etc which are being introduced are making this worse rather than better and I don't think this is likely to improve any time soon.
-
Vicsun
- Posts: 4547
- Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2000 12:00 pm
- Location: liberally sprinkled in the film's opening scene
- Contact:
This was originally posted on another forum, and later submitted to Erowid I believe.Since it's relevant and a fascinating read (to me at least) I'd like to share.
Drugs Have Ruined Me
I find most of the experiences posted on this site very intriguing . I often spend hours reading this site, and I am very appreciative of it’s existence. Though I have never used drugs recreationally (only once actually, when I was in a very bad mood) I feel compelled to give something back by reviewing my horrendous experience with prescription drugs. First off I have been on the following drugs; Adderall, Ritalin, Focalin,provigll,Staterra, Paxil , Lexapro , prozac , abilify and ambien, I’d also like to note, that I am only 18. I am most likely going to break up each experience on each drug in individual sections, Paxil being my sole focus, since the problem lies mostly within that drug. As you can tell by the long list of drugs I’ve been on , I have quite an extensive experience with many of the effects of various meds. My difficult experiences on these drugs have led me to almost obsessively learn about drugs and their effects, I do this in hopes of maybe reversing the permanent damage I seem to have inflicted due to these drugs. Now onto the review.
(As I look into it now, I am going to tie my experience with adder all in with paxil since they are directly related to each other, you’ll see what I mean)
Sometime in the middle of 8th grade I was prescribed the drug adderall,. My mom was attempting to correct my problems in school. I was forgetful, disorganized, spacey, and it was extremely difficult for me to sit down and do my homework. I was not the stereotypical *off the wall* ADHD child, I had self control in that respect, I just had the general focus problems I listed.
So with me being essentially indifferent about the situation, I callously took that blue pill for the first time and went off to school. I started noticing that I was feeling really *good* during my first period class, for whatever reason, I never correlated it to the drug though. I thought the drug was just suppose to make me concentrate better and that’s it, I really didn’t expect euphoria. I was really ignorant of the drugs effects , I just figured I really liked my 1st period class, since I was intensely interested in every word that tall, long necked man was saying, nope I never attributed the *happy feeling* to the drug.
So I was on ten milligrams of adderall and everything was going fine. The only side effect I seemed to exhibit ( I didn‘t even think this was the drug either I just thought I was crazy) was this vocal tick, where I would feel forced to make this weird noise, it was almost like an Obsessive Compulsive thing. People thought I was weird, they thought I was nuts, but oh will. , I was focused, and more productive, and really didn’t even notice being on the drug.
This successful trial of the drug, was quickly ended. What was about to happen was going to set a horrible chain reaction resulting in me going through the trial of 8 other psychotropic drugs, it was in direct relation to the psychiatrists next move.
The psychiatrist thought it’d be a good idea to raise the dose from 10-20 mg, this apparently changed everything. My body had a limit, 10 mg was sufficient, it just couldn’t tolerate 20. With 20, of course came noticeable side effects such as the *crash* which is one of the most unpleasant things I have ever experienced, but the main problem was my ability to tolerate problems and stress.
The adderall would amplify every situation 1000 times, it would make the most minor issue seem like a catastrophe, it would result in me ruminating endlessly about many things that just made me feel crappy. It was soon enough that I got myself in a significant enough quandary, to make my mood just flip out. I got in a fight with a good friend, and felt terrible afterwards. I felt that we’d never talk again, and since he was one of the few friends I had, that’d be a pretty big blow. After this happened I was over analyzing everything, and looking at things from the worst possible point of view, I was irrational, the drug was making me over emotional, and this resulted in me going into a depression.
I waited a few days after the incident, made amends with my friend, but I was still sad. I eventually told my mom about my low mood and even she thought it was related to the adderall increase, since I became depressed about 4 days after the dose was increased. I stopped the adderall, but the depression was still there, it had already been triggered, and I needed a way out. It was then, I was prescribed Paxil..
( I would like to note, that I believe if I had been prescribed any other stimulant BESIDES adderall… all of this could have possibly been averted, I have never had any problem of this sort with other stimulants on increased doses)
With Paxil, I had pretty much the same attitude that I had with the adderall. I just thought “this will make me feel better” and took it, I didn’t study up on it, I trusted doctors, they knew what they were doing, I felt I had support from my family, and that I could get through this. After about being on 10 mg’s of Paxil for a couple weeks I saw no change in mood. Then came the increase, it was increased to 20 mg. On 20 mg of paxil I started noticing effects. I was elated, I was always smiling, my mood was high, I laughed at everything, I joked around and talked more then I ever had, I was no longer this shy, humble, person that kept to himself, my personality underwent a glowing transformation. I was doing things I never did before like, speaking out in class. I am going to list the effects I initially had on paxil.
Fast speech
I was more articulate then ever
More creative, witty
More talkative
Became interested in more sophisticated topics.
Amused easier, smiled a lot.
The paxil seemed to induce a borderline hypomania, it was no problem though, no one really noticed, not even my closest friends. They just noticed I was telling more jokes, more talkative, and much more fun to be around, I started getting invited out more, everything was cool.
Then all the life was sucked out of me.
I can’t pin-point when this happened, I just remember I was concerned what the drug was doing to me. The hypomania stuff seemed to be going away, and I felt as though my identity was being sucked out of me.. I was deathly scared that I’d be like this forever. Here were my side effects.
Slow Thinking- I would often talk to a person, and my thoughts seem to be going in slow motion. They’d often ask me something or say something and I’d think of what I wanted to say back minutes later, when it was to late, this happens constantly today. ( never happened before the meds, I’d like to STRESS)
No personality- I can't seem to relate to people anymore. I don’t seem to have anything to say anymore, or when I do it’s to late. Me and my best friend use to talk for hours on the phone, . Now were lucky to draw out a 15 minute conversation. I don’t know if this is because of slow thinking or what. .. One thing I notice, is that we can have longer conversations online, because I have more time to think.. But even with that, it’s just not the same
Typical side effects….
No motivation - I use to have many passions, these have all been stricken from me. I use to play basketball for hours and hours and hours, now I play maybe once a week, I use to work out daily also, I never do that either….
No emotion - no emotion, I think that ties into no motivation as well.
Horrible memory- I am lucky to have a normal conversation these days, you know how you sometimes forget what you say, this happens constantly for me, it’s a daily obstacle.. My head is scrambled. I can’t even remember other stuff.
. .
Of course when experiencing this, I tried to get off the meds, but I had the following problems. When I came off the SSRI’S my personality became even duller I couldn’t articulate my thoughts, I’d often phrase sentences the wrong way, like for * I have gum on my shoe* I’d say I have * Gum have I on my shoe* ( that’s a terrible example actually) I felt so slow, and incoherent.
( I’d like to note, that upon coming off the paxil,, I felt a period of normalcy.. It was when the drug was depleting from my system, I thought my old self was returning.. But that just lasted briefly)
So, trying to rationalize this situations and steer it * away * from the possibility of brain damage, I convinced myself that, the paxil just stopped working ( which it can) and I just became depressed again, ( even though, I really didn’t feel depressed) I looked endlessly over the internet trying to validate my theory, looking to see if depression can be the cause of what I was experiencing, I talked to my psychiatrist, and he pretty much laughed when I floated the possibility of brain damage, that’s it, it’s depression again..I decided I’ll just go on another SSRI, and I’ll be fine..
This started my trial of lexapro. When the Lexapro climbed in my system I felt like the old me again.. But when the dose stabilized, I felt unmotivated, emotionless, all the side effects returned. The only time when I feel any sense of normalcy is when I increase or decrease the dose suddenly. I feel somewhat normal, but only briefly… but it really isn’t a sure fire thing… I just play around with the dosage and I’ll get a few ok days..
In this space is years of me complaining about the drugs, talking to the psych, my therapist.. None of this resolved anything
/ unexpected rant mode to ensue soon (continued in next post)
Drugs Have Ruined Me
I find most of the experiences posted on this site very intriguing . I often spend hours reading this site, and I am very appreciative of it’s existence. Though I have never used drugs recreationally (only once actually, when I was in a very bad mood) I feel compelled to give something back by reviewing my horrendous experience with prescription drugs. First off I have been on the following drugs; Adderall, Ritalin, Focalin,provigll,Staterra, Paxil , Lexapro , prozac , abilify and ambien, I’d also like to note, that I am only 18. I am most likely going to break up each experience on each drug in individual sections, Paxil being my sole focus, since the problem lies mostly within that drug. As you can tell by the long list of drugs I’ve been on , I have quite an extensive experience with many of the effects of various meds. My difficult experiences on these drugs have led me to almost obsessively learn about drugs and their effects, I do this in hopes of maybe reversing the permanent damage I seem to have inflicted due to these drugs. Now onto the review.
(As I look into it now, I am going to tie my experience with adder all in with paxil since they are directly related to each other, you’ll see what I mean)
Sometime in the middle of 8th grade I was prescribed the drug adderall,. My mom was attempting to correct my problems in school. I was forgetful, disorganized, spacey, and it was extremely difficult for me to sit down and do my homework. I was not the stereotypical *off the wall* ADHD child, I had self control in that respect, I just had the general focus problems I listed.
So with me being essentially indifferent about the situation, I callously took that blue pill for the first time and went off to school. I started noticing that I was feeling really *good* during my first period class, for whatever reason, I never correlated it to the drug though. I thought the drug was just suppose to make me concentrate better and that’s it, I really didn’t expect euphoria. I was really ignorant of the drugs effects , I just figured I really liked my 1st period class, since I was intensely interested in every word that tall, long necked man was saying, nope I never attributed the *happy feeling* to the drug.
So I was on ten milligrams of adderall and everything was going fine. The only side effect I seemed to exhibit ( I didn‘t even think this was the drug either I just thought I was crazy) was this vocal tick, where I would feel forced to make this weird noise, it was almost like an Obsessive Compulsive thing. People thought I was weird, they thought I was nuts, but oh will. , I was focused, and more productive, and really didn’t even notice being on the drug.
This successful trial of the drug, was quickly ended. What was about to happen was going to set a horrible chain reaction resulting in me going through the trial of 8 other psychotropic drugs, it was in direct relation to the psychiatrists next move.
The psychiatrist thought it’d be a good idea to raise the dose from 10-20 mg, this apparently changed everything. My body had a limit, 10 mg was sufficient, it just couldn’t tolerate 20. With 20, of course came noticeable side effects such as the *crash* which is one of the most unpleasant things I have ever experienced, but the main problem was my ability to tolerate problems and stress.
The adderall would amplify every situation 1000 times, it would make the most minor issue seem like a catastrophe, it would result in me ruminating endlessly about many things that just made me feel crappy. It was soon enough that I got myself in a significant enough quandary, to make my mood just flip out. I got in a fight with a good friend, and felt terrible afterwards. I felt that we’d never talk again, and since he was one of the few friends I had, that’d be a pretty big blow. After this happened I was over analyzing everything, and looking at things from the worst possible point of view, I was irrational, the drug was making me over emotional, and this resulted in me going into a depression.
I waited a few days after the incident, made amends with my friend, but I was still sad. I eventually told my mom about my low mood and even she thought it was related to the adderall increase, since I became depressed about 4 days after the dose was increased. I stopped the adderall, but the depression was still there, it had already been triggered, and I needed a way out. It was then, I was prescribed Paxil..
( I would like to note, that I believe if I had been prescribed any other stimulant BESIDES adderall… all of this could have possibly been averted, I have never had any problem of this sort with other stimulants on increased doses)
With Paxil, I had pretty much the same attitude that I had with the adderall. I just thought “this will make me feel better” and took it, I didn’t study up on it, I trusted doctors, they knew what they were doing, I felt I had support from my family, and that I could get through this. After about being on 10 mg’s of Paxil for a couple weeks I saw no change in mood. Then came the increase, it was increased to 20 mg. On 20 mg of paxil I started noticing effects. I was elated, I was always smiling, my mood was high, I laughed at everything, I joked around and talked more then I ever had, I was no longer this shy, humble, person that kept to himself, my personality underwent a glowing transformation. I was doing things I never did before like, speaking out in class. I am going to list the effects I initially had on paxil.
Fast speech
I was more articulate then ever
More creative, witty
More talkative
Became interested in more sophisticated topics.
Amused easier, smiled a lot.
The paxil seemed to induce a borderline hypomania, it was no problem though, no one really noticed, not even my closest friends. They just noticed I was telling more jokes, more talkative, and much more fun to be around, I started getting invited out more, everything was cool.
Then all the life was sucked out of me.
I can’t pin-point when this happened, I just remember I was concerned what the drug was doing to me. The hypomania stuff seemed to be going away, and I felt as though my identity was being sucked out of me.. I was deathly scared that I’d be like this forever. Here were my side effects.
Slow Thinking- I would often talk to a person, and my thoughts seem to be going in slow motion. They’d often ask me something or say something and I’d think of what I wanted to say back minutes later, when it was to late, this happens constantly today. ( never happened before the meds, I’d like to STRESS)
No personality- I can't seem to relate to people anymore. I don’t seem to have anything to say anymore, or when I do it’s to late. Me and my best friend use to talk for hours on the phone, . Now were lucky to draw out a 15 minute conversation. I don’t know if this is because of slow thinking or what. .. One thing I notice, is that we can have longer conversations online, because I have more time to think.. But even with that, it’s just not the same
Typical side effects….
No motivation - I use to have many passions, these have all been stricken from me. I use to play basketball for hours and hours and hours, now I play maybe once a week, I use to work out daily also, I never do that either….
No emotion - no emotion, I think that ties into no motivation as well.
Horrible memory- I am lucky to have a normal conversation these days, you know how you sometimes forget what you say, this happens constantly for me, it’s a daily obstacle.. My head is scrambled. I can’t even remember other stuff.
. .
Of course when experiencing this, I tried to get off the meds, but I had the following problems. When I came off the SSRI’S my personality became even duller I couldn’t articulate my thoughts, I’d often phrase sentences the wrong way, like for * I have gum on my shoe* I’d say I have * Gum have I on my shoe* ( that’s a terrible example actually) I felt so slow, and incoherent.
( I’d like to note, that upon coming off the paxil,, I felt a period of normalcy.. It was when the drug was depleting from my system, I thought my old self was returning.. But that just lasted briefly)
So, trying to rationalize this situations and steer it * away * from the possibility of brain damage, I convinced myself that, the paxil just stopped working ( which it can) and I just became depressed again, ( even though, I really didn’t feel depressed) I looked endlessly over the internet trying to validate my theory, looking to see if depression can be the cause of what I was experiencing, I talked to my psychiatrist, and he pretty much laughed when I floated the possibility of brain damage, that’s it, it’s depression again..I decided I’ll just go on another SSRI, and I’ll be fine..
This started my trial of lexapro. When the Lexapro climbed in my system I felt like the old me again.. But when the dose stabilized, I felt unmotivated, emotionless, all the side effects returned. The only time when I feel any sense of normalcy is when I increase or decrease the dose suddenly. I feel somewhat normal, but only briefly… but it really isn’t a sure fire thing… I just play around with the dosage and I’ll get a few ok days..
In this space is years of me complaining about the drugs, talking to the psych, my therapist.. None of this resolved anything
/ unexpected rant mode to ensue soon (continued in next post)
Vicsun, I certainly agree with your assertion that you are an unpleasant person. ~Chanak
-
Vicsun
- Posts: 4547
- Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2000 12:00 pm
- Location: liberally sprinkled in the film's opening scene
- Contact:
.. Since then a lot has happened, I’ve been put on about 2 more antidepressants,and about a gizillion stimulants none of this works/ I am not myself anymore. I have been twisted, I just want to be myself again, I miss who I was,, I can’t even remember who I was.. I want to be natural, I want to live without this pain.. I want to wake up normal one day, I can’t tolerate this any longer.. My identity has been viciously stolen from me. People on here do drugs daily and have no problem, I am prescribed a drug by a doctor, and end up worse then all of you, I have done nothing to deserve this… I don’t know how I’d beable to take this all my life.
Conclusion of this is, read up on what you're putting in your body.
Conclusion of this is, read up on what you're putting in your body.
Vicsun, I certainly agree with your assertion that you are an unpleasant person. ~Chanak
First off, I've had a nasty experience with psychiatrists and their "medicines", and I'll second just about everything mentioned in the text posted by Vicsun. I'm fairly certain I've covered that somewhere on the forum before. I'd be happy to expand on that if someone has questions, but that doesn't quite get to the main point of the article.
More children being diagnosed with mental disorders is an intriguing thought. A former friend of mine happens to have been diagnosed at a very early age with a rare type of schizophrenia. Now, in his case, without that diagnosis, he most definately would have been in a far worse situation with his family than he ended up with. People who are in any way "different" tend to take crap from just about anyone around them. However, with a doctor saying "he's sick", you tend to get more leeway with those who are more intelligent and mature for being "different". Someone who can't sit still and curses all the time is considered a nuisence and is terribly irritating to most of the world. Someone diagnosed with ADHD and Tuerette's may garner the same response from some people, yet if some know of this person being diagnosed they may be treated in a much gentler manner for doing those things.
Children act out in ways which can be viewed as stupid, cute, crazy or cruel due to ignorance of the world around them. The first time a child sees fire, it doesn't know what it is and therefore may do something we would consider to be stupid with it. The child trying to grab the fire is a perfectly natural reaction. Yet, I was in a hospital with a young boy, somewhere around 5 years old who had seen a little red man inside of a fire who told him to burn his house down, which he then attempted to do. He was locked up for it, and diagnosed as schizophrenic. That is quite a difference in a childs reaction, with a clearly defined reason for attempting to provide treatment for the situation.
However, there are "grey areas" for everything. A child that doesn't pay attention to everything his/her parents say isn't automatically a prime candidate for ADD. They are developing and attempting to discover everything around them. They don't process information in the same manner as an adult would because they are still learning about nearly everything around them. A little boy constantly dropping everything it picks up to be amazed and intrigued by something new that comes along isn't necessarily crazy. He happens to just be curious and wondering what that new thing is, wanting to know the how, what, why, and so on about it. Feeding the child pills could have serious, long-term, negative side effects regardless of whether the child is "normal" or "sick".
For a idea of what I mean by "serious, long-term, negative side effects", I'll refer to the chiropractor treating young children mentioned above. You don't play with a young creatures body in that way, which may cause serious malformation of it's skeletal structure. I was forced to take "medication" from the ages of 16-19. I wasn't an adult at the start, yet, I wasn't by far a "young child". I did go from having the choice of striving with extra classes to graduate school early, or attempt to go through all my years of school and be the valedictorian. I was a brilliant, creative and organized student who breezed through everything put in front of me. After I took myself off of those pills, it took me more than a year to be able to read at all again. My memory is shot, creativity has dropped to near to nothing compared to what it once was. I process nearly everything in the opposite way of which I once did.
I cannot fathom what those drugs I was forced to take may do to a child just starting school if they were to take them as well. If it happens to leave adults as mindless people incapable of feeding themselves or walking, how could any doctor concieve of giving them to children? The people in charge of figuring out whether or not a medication will work effectively have this view of "work effectively" not accounting for "possible side effects" within the "effectively" part. They consider fixing depression is worth the risk of memory loss, alteration of metabilism, damage to the nervous system, digestive system and loss of coordination. That mix tends to be viewed as a "functional medication".
A person with a child who happens to have some sort of problem should provide help for the child. I most definately believe that some people are born with "problems", while other people are just plain different. Parents should educate themselves and find a much better way to help their children with problems than relying on heading off to a psychiatrist to find help, at least in my country. If I'm not totally off-base here, I do believe the majority of those prescribed anti-psychotics in the U.S. for more than a few weeks end up with serious and debilitating addictions or disabilities from them which adds to the number of people relying on government assistance to survive. Personally, I would rather spend the time to work through my childs problems through talking and therapy with a decent therapist before resorting to even considering a chemical overhaul of their body.
First, you have the lower end, filled with blatent abuse, alcoholism, poverty and drug abuse.
Second, you have the middle ground, where those problems tend to show up, but are hidden and the child is forced to put on a front, do good in school, and make their parents "proud".
Third, you have the "better" area, which tends to happen with those who are better off than the others. Those who are wealthy tend to isolate, spoil, and fill their childs heads with nonsense. This leads to arrogance, incompetance and no true knowledge of how reality is until they are forced to move out on their own.
Given that alone, yeah, I could say that children are likely to develop mental disorders. Now bring in chemicals being used in daily life for whatever it is you want to bring in. I've lived my whole life within a 20 mile radius of a nuclear power plant aside from the few months I moved to a college town. Now, "tests" show that shouldn't have a negative side effect on me, and I've seen no patterns to show that it has. However, the first plant for the Kodak company happens to be sitting in the city about 20 miles west of me called Rochester. This plant spews chemicals in the air and there has been a large boom in cancer patients in the area around the plant. It's probably why the local hospital is considered one of the top hospitals for treating cancer in the state, if not the country. It wouldn't in the least bit surprise me if there happens to be something we are eating, or breathing in that leads to a mental problem in a majority of the children nowadays.
More children being diagnosed with mental disorders is an intriguing thought. A former friend of mine happens to have been diagnosed at a very early age with a rare type of schizophrenia. Now, in his case, without that diagnosis, he most definately would have been in a far worse situation with his family than he ended up with. People who are in any way "different" tend to take crap from just about anyone around them. However, with a doctor saying "he's sick", you tend to get more leeway with those who are more intelligent and mature for being "different". Someone who can't sit still and curses all the time is considered a nuisence and is terribly irritating to most of the world. Someone diagnosed with ADHD and Tuerette's may garner the same response from some people, yet if some know of this person being diagnosed they may be treated in a much gentler manner for doing those things.
Children act out in ways which can be viewed as stupid, cute, crazy or cruel due to ignorance of the world around them. The first time a child sees fire, it doesn't know what it is and therefore may do something we would consider to be stupid with it. The child trying to grab the fire is a perfectly natural reaction. Yet, I was in a hospital with a young boy, somewhere around 5 years old who had seen a little red man inside of a fire who told him to burn his house down, which he then attempted to do. He was locked up for it, and diagnosed as schizophrenic. That is quite a difference in a childs reaction, with a clearly defined reason for attempting to provide treatment for the situation.
However, there are "grey areas" for everything. A child that doesn't pay attention to everything his/her parents say isn't automatically a prime candidate for ADD. They are developing and attempting to discover everything around them. They don't process information in the same manner as an adult would because they are still learning about nearly everything around them. A little boy constantly dropping everything it picks up to be amazed and intrigued by something new that comes along isn't necessarily crazy. He happens to just be curious and wondering what that new thing is, wanting to know the how, what, why, and so on about it. Feeding the child pills could have serious, long-term, negative side effects regardless of whether the child is "normal" or "sick".
For a idea of what I mean by "serious, long-term, negative side effects", I'll refer to the chiropractor treating young children mentioned above. You don't play with a young creatures body in that way, which may cause serious malformation of it's skeletal structure. I was forced to take "medication" from the ages of 16-19. I wasn't an adult at the start, yet, I wasn't by far a "young child". I did go from having the choice of striving with extra classes to graduate school early, or attempt to go through all my years of school and be the valedictorian. I was a brilliant, creative and organized student who breezed through everything put in front of me. After I took myself off of those pills, it took me more than a year to be able to read at all again. My memory is shot, creativity has dropped to near to nothing compared to what it once was. I process nearly everything in the opposite way of which I once did.
I cannot fathom what those drugs I was forced to take may do to a child just starting school if they were to take them as well. If it happens to leave adults as mindless people incapable of feeding themselves or walking, how could any doctor concieve of giving them to children? The people in charge of figuring out whether or not a medication will work effectively have this view of "work effectively" not accounting for "possible side effects" within the "effectively" part. They consider fixing depression is worth the risk of memory loss, alteration of metabilism, damage to the nervous system, digestive system and loss of coordination. That mix tends to be viewed as a "functional medication".
A person with a child who happens to have some sort of problem should provide help for the child. I most definately believe that some people are born with "problems", while other people are just plain different. Parents should educate themselves and find a much better way to help their children with problems than relying on heading off to a psychiatrist to find help, at least in my country. If I'm not totally off-base here, I do believe the majority of those prescribed anti-psychotics in the U.S. for more than a few weeks end up with serious and debilitating addictions or disabilities from them which adds to the number of people relying on government assistance to survive. Personally, I would rather spend the time to work through my childs problems through talking and therapy with a decent therapist before resorting to even considering a chemical overhaul of their body.
Sorry, I can't resist, but...duh. There tends to be a few patterns that occur within the family unit, school system, and work force, at least in my region of the world. Many, many people are unable to handle affording children, and aren't ready to handle raising and treating them right. I've tended to see essentially three areas with child raising.I read one other paper a while ago which suggested that the culture we live in is not child friendly and that medication is being used to help children to conform to the demands made on them (sorry I could not find that paper today) Is this what is happening?
First, you have the lower end, filled with blatent abuse, alcoholism, poverty and drug abuse.
Second, you have the middle ground, where those problems tend to show up, but are hidden and the child is forced to put on a front, do good in school, and make their parents "proud".
Third, you have the "better" area, which tends to happen with those who are better off than the others. Those who are wealthy tend to isolate, spoil, and fill their childs heads with nonsense. This leads to arrogance, incompetance and no true knowledge of how reality is until they are forced to move out on their own.
Given that alone, yeah, I could say that children are likely to develop mental disorders. Now bring in chemicals being used in daily life for whatever it is you want to bring in. I've lived my whole life within a 20 mile radius of a nuclear power plant aside from the few months I moved to a college town. Now, "tests" show that shouldn't have a negative side effect on me, and I've seen no patterns to show that it has. However, the first plant for the Kodak company happens to be sitting in the city about 20 miles west of me called Rochester. This plant spews chemicals in the air and there has been a large boom in cancer patients in the area around the plant. It's probably why the local hospital is considered one of the top hospitals for treating cancer in the state, if not the country. It wouldn't in the least bit surprise me if there happens to be something we are eating, or breathing in that leads to a mental problem in a majority of the children nowadays.
"You can do whatever you want to me."
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
[QUOTE=C Elegans] A sad thing is also that people who protest against the overemphasis on pharmacological treatment, usually do so for all the wrong reasons. Some people (I talk about laymen now, the general public) oppose pharmacological treatment because they believe it's dangerous and not efficient (not true in most cases), some people have an inherent dislike of medical science and believe in "alternative medicine" which is mostly uncontrolled and in many cases has led to worse side effects than controlled drugs, and some people oppose it for political or religious reasons. For instance, the Scientology church is currently engaged in a worldwide lobby campaign against use of psychopharmaca. They have propaganda websides under many different names and it's not always obvious that they are Scientology organisations. They use weblogs, they write petitions, the write in newspapers etc, in order to reach people with their message. So one has to control the information one gets about all the errors with psychopharmacology.[/QUOTE]
It would be interesting to hear an accounting of what “all the wrong reasons” are, CE. As you correctly pointed out earlier, overdiagnosis and overmedication of mental health issues are a huge problem – a problem, by definition, that is dangerous (causes harm) and inefficient (the medication is not indicated for the prescribed condition). But let’s not stop there. Could there be any other reasons for the perception that pharmacological treatment is dangerous and ineffective? Let’s see:
1961: thalidomide is taken off the market. Despite claims by manufacturer Chemie Gruenenthal that thalidomide was a non-toxic medication, having no side effects and “completely safe for pregnant women,” thousands of babies were born with birth defects included deafness, blindness, cleft palate, malformed internal organs and severe deformity of the limbs. Numerous class action lawsuits were initiated.
1997: Fen-phen, an anti-obesity medication which consisted of two drugs: fenfluramine and phentermine, was withdrawn from the market after reports of heart valve disease and pulmonary hypertension primarily in women who had been undergoing treatment. Numerous class-action lawsuits have been initiated due to the drug company’s failure to disclose information that could have prevented the health risks and complications of hundreds and possibly thousands of patients.
2002: a study via the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), established that Prempro, a combination of the drug, Premarin, and synthetic progestin (medroxyprogesterone acetate) that was prescribed to enhance the health of perimenopausal and menopausal females actually did the opposite. The study was halted in its 5th year due to findings that, in the control group using Prempro, blood clots increased 100%, stroke increased 41%, heart attacks increased 29%, heart disease increased 22%, and the risk of invasive breast cancer increased 26%. To be clear: a prescription drug prescribed by thousands of doctors to millions of women to address the symptomology and risks associated with menopause actually contributed to their demise, increasing all the major causes of death in older women.
2004: Merck was forced to withdraw its COX-2 inhibitor anti-inflammatory drug, Vioxx, when it was shown to have been aware of the health risks associated with the drug but continued to market it. According to Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, "the licensing of Vioxx and its continued use in the face of unambiguous evidence of harm have been public health catastrophes. This controversy will not end with the drug's withdrawal. Merck's likely litigation bill is put at between $10bn and $15bn."
2004: The Food and Drug Administration releases a long-awaited analysis of the possible risks posed by antidepressants to children and teens. The study comes on the heels of a report published earlier this week that showed Prozac can raise the risk of suicidal behaviors.
We could go on, but I do have a life. I do not argue that pharmacology has its place in the health care delivery system. I worked in psychiatric medicine for 15 years and would be the first to validate the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions, especially for psychiatric emergencies. I do not believe most thinking people oppose pharmacological treatment because they think it is inefficient. I think they oppose it because they have been lied to, because they have suffered from sometimes severe side effects, or because they or a loved one have been maligned, sometimes to the point of death, by an arrogant, poorly informed clinician with a prescription pad. Perhaps if more professionals considered that medications, like all medical interventions, carry a certain level of risk (i.e. are dangerous), they wouldn’t be whipping them out like little blue breath mints.
It would be interesting to hear an accounting of what “all the wrong reasons” are, CE. As you correctly pointed out earlier, overdiagnosis and overmedication of mental health issues are a huge problem – a problem, by definition, that is dangerous (causes harm) and inefficient (the medication is not indicated for the prescribed condition). But let’s not stop there. Could there be any other reasons for the perception that pharmacological treatment is dangerous and ineffective? Let’s see:
1961: thalidomide is taken off the market. Despite claims by manufacturer Chemie Gruenenthal that thalidomide was a non-toxic medication, having no side effects and “completely safe for pregnant women,” thousands of babies were born with birth defects included deafness, blindness, cleft palate, malformed internal organs and severe deformity of the limbs. Numerous class action lawsuits were initiated.
1997: Fen-phen, an anti-obesity medication which consisted of two drugs: fenfluramine and phentermine, was withdrawn from the market after reports of heart valve disease and pulmonary hypertension primarily in women who had been undergoing treatment. Numerous class-action lawsuits have been initiated due to the drug company’s failure to disclose information that could have prevented the health risks and complications of hundreds and possibly thousands of patients.
2002: a study via the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), established that Prempro, a combination of the drug, Premarin, and synthetic progestin (medroxyprogesterone acetate) that was prescribed to enhance the health of perimenopausal and menopausal females actually did the opposite. The study was halted in its 5th year due to findings that, in the control group using Prempro, blood clots increased 100%, stroke increased 41%, heart attacks increased 29%, heart disease increased 22%, and the risk of invasive breast cancer increased 26%. To be clear: a prescription drug prescribed by thousands of doctors to millions of women to address the symptomology and risks associated with menopause actually contributed to their demise, increasing all the major causes of death in older women.
2004: Merck was forced to withdraw its COX-2 inhibitor anti-inflammatory drug, Vioxx, when it was shown to have been aware of the health risks associated with the drug but continued to market it. According to Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, "the licensing of Vioxx and its continued use in the face of unambiguous evidence of harm have been public health catastrophes. This controversy will not end with the drug's withdrawal. Merck's likely litigation bill is put at between $10bn and $15bn."
2004: The Food and Drug Administration releases a long-awaited analysis of the possible risks posed by antidepressants to children and teens. The study comes on the heels of a report published earlier this week that showed Prozac can raise the risk of suicidal behaviors.
We could go on, but I do have a life. I do not argue that pharmacology has its place in the health care delivery system. I worked in psychiatric medicine for 15 years and would be the first to validate the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions, especially for psychiatric emergencies. I do not believe most thinking people oppose pharmacological treatment because they think it is inefficient. I think they oppose it because they have been lied to, because they have suffered from sometimes severe side effects, or because they or a loved one have been maligned, sometimes to the point of death, by an arrogant, poorly informed clinician with a prescription pad. Perhaps if more professionals considered that medications, like all medical interventions, carry a certain level of risk (i.e. are dangerous), they wouldn’t be whipping them out like little blue breath mints.
Those who will play with kitties must expect to be scratched.
Many are cold; few are frozen.
Absence is to love what wind is to fire... it extinguishes the small, it enkindles the great.
Many are cold; few are frozen.
Absence is to love what wind is to fire... it extinguishes the small, it enkindles the great.
Content edited by official request of the Department of Homeland Informational Security (HIS) and the pharmaceutical industry.
Alternative medicine is evil and bad. It is evil because it is bad and it is bad because it is evil. In addition, it is unpatriotic because there are parts of it (really, really terrible parts) that cannot be patented and therefore that do not generate profit for... for the people of the world, who badly need to have profits so that they can participate in the world economy and pay their cell phone bills.
Instead, we are requesting that all of you continue to participate our highly scientific model of medicine, take all of your medications at the doses prescribed, and to completely abnegate all responsibility for your health to us, who know best and will completely take care of you in every way.
For those of you who desire more instruction on rational, scientific thought so you can better understand academic medicine, we suggest spending time at the following website: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
For those of you who truly desire to understand how things really are in the world, and what is really important, we suggest you make a pilgrimage to the following site: http://disneyland.disney.go.com/disneyl ... age&bhcp=1
Finally, some of you may have experienced some anxieties about the dark forces of alternative medicine and the future of the world. Some of the best scientific minds in academic medicine have been brought together to produce an informative series that will prepare you, your family, and your loved ones for the coming future: http://www.leftbehind.com/
Alternative medicine is evil and bad. It is evil because it is bad and it is bad because it is evil. In addition, it is unpatriotic because there are parts of it (really, really terrible parts) that cannot be patented and therefore that do not generate profit for... for the people of the world, who badly need to have profits so that they can participate in the world economy and pay their cell phone bills.
Instead, we are requesting that all of you continue to participate our highly scientific model of medicine, take all of your medications at the doses prescribed, and to completely abnegate all responsibility for your health to us, who know best and will completely take care of you in every way.
For those of you who desire more instruction on rational, scientific thought so you can better understand academic medicine, we suggest spending time at the following website: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
For those of you who truly desire to understand how things really are in the world, and what is really important, we suggest you make a pilgrimage to the following site: http://disneyland.disney.go.com/disneyl ... age&bhcp=1
Finally, some of you may have experienced some anxieties about the dark forces of alternative medicine and the future of the world. Some of the best scientific minds in academic medicine have been brought together to produce an informative series that will prepare you, your family, and your loved ones for the coming future: http://www.leftbehind.com/
Those who will play with kitties must expect to be scratched.
Many are cold; few are frozen.
Absence is to love what wind is to fire... it extinguishes the small, it enkindles the great.
Many are cold; few are frozen.
Absence is to love what wind is to fire... it extinguishes the small, it enkindles the great.
Thantor, it is sad to see that you have spent time and energy on typing up two long posts that effectively argue for a complete strawman. I have no idea what you read into my post, but I ask you to take a deep breath and relax, re-read my post and read the actual words, not your own interpretation, and also to stop posting personal attacks on me. Just because you yourself are a natural medicine practisioner and apparantly got very upset about my post, it is personal attacks to claim that I am an undercover lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry, that my role model is Paris Hilton and that I sound like Scientology.
I will help you to clarify my post:
In your post, you seems to have connected "alternative medicine" and "Scientology" since you write "Natural medicine is not a cult, as you imply". Perhaps you have some information I don't, but to my knowledge there is no association between any form of alternative medicine and the Scientology church, on the contrary it is my impression that the Scientology are against all types of drugs, natural or synthesised. The Scientologists are however currently campaigning a lot against psychopharmaca, and they do it under many different neutral names that often include words like "freedom", "human rights" and "citizen's rights", so that's why I encourage people to check where information comes from.
Regarding my list of various causes:
There has been thousands of controlled, double blind efficacy studies on most pharmacological treatment that is used today. In Sweden, of all because we have much stricter control or pharmaceutics than you have in the US. Still, some people believe that those drugs do not work. Other people have an exagreggated idea about how dangereous pharmaceutical drugs are. If 1 out of 10000 patients get a severe side-effect of a drug, media will often blow this up as "XX drug causes YY". Yes it does in 1/10000. Not in all cases. This leads to some people worrying too much about medicines the media choose to report about, but not to worry about for instance the long term negative effects of using too much antibiotics or paracetamol.
Regarding "alternative medicine", some people believe a remedy is better, safer and/or more efficient just because it can be found in nature and is not synthesised. This is not the case, this depends completly on what substances the remedy contains, in what doses. Cyanid can be found in nature, but it's certainly good for you because of this. Other people have a dislike for academic medicine because they have been maltreated. A bad and unpleasant doctor does however not necessarily mean that a drug for a certain disease does not work, or is dangerous.
Regarding religion and ideologies that are inherently against use of pharmaceutics, there are several religions and ideologies that are against this, and some, like Scientology and factions of Jehova's witnesses, have a policy against all drugs. Antroposophy, at least in Sweden, has a policy against synthesised drugs but not natural ones, and there are many other examples.
Regarding the point that appears to be most sensitive to you, namely the lack of controlled studies for most of the methods and remedies in "alternative medicine", I here refer to randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Any substance, whether it be a natural remedy or a synthesised drug, must in my opinion be throughly tested to confirm the effect and exclude the possibility of adverse side-effects. Failure to perform proper testing, result in horror stories for the patients both with alternative and conventional medicine. You have listed some horror events from conventional medicine, events that would not have happened had not the drug industry had the power position they have in the US. This does not however mean "alternative medicine" cannot be dangerous.
You and I have previously discussed the previously unknown interaction between Johannes wort and HIV-proteas inhibitors, that in Sweden led to hundreds of HIV-positive patients on inhibitor drugs taking Johannes' wort against depression believing it was safe (it's a natural rememdy!) and they got decreased effect of their antiviral medication and consequantly developed AIDS. The dangerous interactions between Johannes' wort and several other drugs, can be studied in a series of articles in The Lancet, 2000:355.
In Sweden we recently had a wave of suicides among young people in a certain area, and these suicides followed sudden cease of SSRI-treatment. It turned out these youngsters' families had all gone to the same natural practitioner who had adviced them to immediately stop their SSRI-treatment. As you know, SSRI:s must be titrated out successively, sudden stops may cause severe side effects.
Selen was a popular substance to take in Sweden during the 80's and 90's, but due to lack of knowledge about dosing, many cases of selen-toxication appeared. This was however later adjusted, and today it is unusal with selen-toxication.
The reason why I mention the above, is that it points to a need for controlled studies of all substances that people take as medicine. Contrary to the US, we have a good system for controlling conventional medicine in Sweden, but no system at all to control "alternative medicine".
Thalidomide was an international tragedy, but Fen-phen was never licensed in Sweden, and neither medroxyprogesterone-drugs nor rofecoxib (vioxx) were used much in Sweden since they were viewed as associated with higher risk for side-effects than similar medicines.
Regarding SSRI:s, a recent total population study of everybody who committed suicide between 1992-2000, showed that of the 52 people under age 15 who committed suicide during this period, none had been treated with SSRI:s. In the group between 15-19, as in the adult group, there were significantly more suicides in the group who was not treated with SSRI:s than in the group that was treated. So what does this tell us? Maybe suicide thoughts increase in young people but actual suicide decrease. Or maybe there are population differences between Sweden and the UK, since SSRI:s are very rarely prescribed to people under 18 here, due to lack of controlled trials for that age group.
In any case, I can well understand your fierce defense of "alternative medicine" based on your dislike for academic medicine. However, dislike of academic medicine does not per se provide evidence that alternative medicine is actually working. You should also be aware that the situation with overmedication and extremly over-liberal prescription of all sorts of medicines that you have in the US, is not the same all over the world, so the situation in the US should not be generalised to conventional pharmacology in general.
I will help you to clarify my post:
Here I list a variety of reasons for why people may dislike conventional medicine for the wrong reasons. I simply mention some reasons, one after one, that have turned out to be of importance to so me people, according to polls and surveys.C Elegans] A sad thing is also that people who protest against the overemphasis on pharmacological treatment wrote:Thantor] It would be interesting to hear an accounting of what “all the wrong reasons”[/quote] The wrong reasons are reasons that are [b]unfounded[/b] wrote: Some people (I talk about laymen now, the general public) oppose pharmacological treatment because they believe it's dangerous and not efficient (not true in most cases), some people have an inherent dislike of medical science and believe in "alternative medicine" which is mostly uncontrolled and in many cases has led to worse side effects than controlled drugs, and some people oppose it for political or religious reasons. For instance, the Scientology church is currently engaged in a worldwide lobby campaign against use of psychopharmaca.
<snip>
So one has to control the information one gets about all the errors with psychopharmacology.
In your post, you seems to have connected "alternative medicine" and "Scientology" since you write "Natural medicine is not a cult, as you imply". Perhaps you have some information I don't, but to my knowledge there is no association between any form of alternative medicine and the Scientology church, on the contrary it is my impression that the Scientology are against all types of drugs, natural or synthesised. The Scientologists are however currently campaigning a lot against psychopharmaca, and they do it under many different neutral names that often include words like "freedom", "human rights" and "citizen's rights", so that's why I encourage people to check where information comes from.
Regarding my list of various causes:
There has been thousands of controlled, double blind efficacy studies on most pharmacological treatment that is used today. In Sweden, of all because we have much stricter control or pharmaceutics than you have in the US. Still, some people believe that those drugs do not work. Other people have an exagreggated idea about how dangereous pharmaceutical drugs are. If 1 out of 10000 patients get a severe side-effect of a drug, media will often blow this up as "XX drug causes YY". Yes it does in 1/10000. Not in all cases. This leads to some people worrying too much about medicines the media choose to report about, but not to worry about for instance the long term negative effects of using too much antibiotics or paracetamol.
Regarding "alternative medicine", some people believe a remedy is better, safer and/or more efficient just because it can be found in nature and is not synthesised. This is not the case, this depends completly on what substances the remedy contains, in what doses. Cyanid can be found in nature, but it's certainly good for you because of this. Other people have a dislike for academic medicine because they have been maltreated. A bad and unpleasant doctor does however not necessarily mean that a drug for a certain disease does not work, or is dangerous.
Regarding religion and ideologies that are inherently against use of pharmaceutics, there are several religions and ideologies that are against this, and some, like Scientology and factions of Jehova's witnesses, have a policy against all drugs. Antroposophy, at least in Sweden, has a policy against synthesised drugs but not natural ones, and there are many other examples.
Regarding the point that appears to be most sensitive to you, namely the lack of controlled studies for most of the methods and remedies in "alternative medicine", I here refer to randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Any substance, whether it be a natural remedy or a synthesised drug, must in my opinion be throughly tested to confirm the effect and exclude the possibility of adverse side-effects. Failure to perform proper testing, result in horror stories for the patients both with alternative and conventional medicine. You have listed some horror events from conventional medicine, events that would not have happened had not the drug industry had the power position they have in the US. This does not however mean "alternative medicine" cannot be dangerous.
You and I have previously discussed the previously unknown interaction between Johannes wort and HIV-proteas inhibitors, that in Sweden led to hundreds of HIV-positive patients on inhibitor drugs taking Johannes' wort against depression believing it was safe (it's a natural rememdy!) and they got decreased effect of their antiviral medication and consequantly developed AIDS. The dangerous interactions between Johannes' wort and several other drugs, can be studied in a series of articles in The Lancet, 2000:355.
In Sweden we recently had a wave of suicides among young people in a certain area, and these suicides followed sudden cease of SSRI-treatment. It turned out these youngsters' families had all gone to the same natural practitioner who had adviced them to immediately stop their SSRI-treatment. As you know, SSRI:s must be titrated out successively, sudden stops may cause severe side effects.
Selen was a popular substance to take in Sweden during the 80's and 90's, but due to lack of knowledge about dosing, many cases of selen-toxication appeared. This was however later adjusted, and today it is unusal with selen-toxication.
The reason why I mention the above, is that it points to a need for controlled studies of all substances that people take as medicine. Contrary to the US, we have a good system for controlling conventional medicine in Sweden, but no system at all to control "alternative medicine".
Thalidomide was an international tragedy, but Fen-phen was never licensed in Sweden, and neither medroxyprogesterone-drugs nor rofecoxib (vioxx) were used much in Sweden since they were viewed as associated with higher risk for side-effects than similar medicines.
Regarding SSRI:s, a recent total population study of everybody who committed suicide between 1992-2000, showed that of the 52 people under age 15 who committed suicide during this period, none had been treated with SSRI:s. In the group between 15-19, as in the adult group, there were significantly more suicides in the group who was not treated with SSRI:s than in the group that was treated. So what does this tell us? Maybe suicide thoughts increase in young people but actual suicide decrease. Or maybe there are population differences between Sweden and the UK, since SSRI:s are very rarely prescribed to people under 18 here, due to lack of controlled trials for that age group.
In any case, I can well understand your fierce defense of "alternative medicine" based on your dislike for academic medicine. However, dislike of academic medicine does not per se provide evidence that alternative medicine is actually working. You should also be aware that the situation with overmedication and extremly over-liberal prescription of all sorts of medicines that you have in the US, is not the same all over the world, so the situation in the US should not be generalised to conventional pharmacology in general.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
The US News and World report is an ordinary, popular newspaper. I don't view it as a reliable source for evaluation of medicines.thantor3 wrote:*A similar statement is made in a recent article in the U.S News and World Report: “An ever growing body of knowledge..."
Not fully understanding the mechanism of action is not the same as not having an effect that can be demonstrated in controlled clinical trials. Neither is it the same as not being tested for safety. The difference between academic and alternative medicine is not that all mechanisms of actions are understood in academic medicine - it's again the lack of controlled studies for effect and safety in alternative medicine that makes the difference.*Further evidence of the empirical nature of biomedicine can be found simply by opening a Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR). One finds innumerable examples of prescription drugs which are regularly dispensed yet whose mechanism of action is either unknown or poorly understood.
You may think there is little basis for academic being a scientific form of evidence, but the medical literature and the regulations for evidence based medicine we have in Sweden, point in another direction. Please read this recent meta-analysis published in the Lancet:To review our discussion to this point, there seems to be little basis for the claim that biomedicine is a scientific form of medicine. As Dr. Preston concludes, “Scientific method plays a limited role in the actual practice of clinical medicine...<snip>"
Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy
The results show that a comparison of 110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials, resulted in the conclusion that "Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects. (my bold)
I also recommend that you read this editorial article and the references in that article, in New England Journal of Medicine. I could post more references if I had time, but I assume you can find them yourself in Pubmed.
I don't know which Dr Preston you are quoting, if it's the female doctor from the 19th century, the one who funded a hypnosis institute, or somebody else. In any case, Dr Preston's word is anecdotal, so it provides no evidence for anything specific at all.
The rest of your list includes various shortcomings of academic medicine, spiced up with quotes from specific person. I don't have time to comment on all of them, but the fact remains:
Where is the evidence for the treatment efficacy of "alternative medicine"? Homeopathy, herbal drugs, healing?
If you instead of assuming what I am preoccupied with and not, and making personal attacks on me, post references to controlled studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, I will read them and I never said I would not. However, regardless of your self-proclaimed interest in scientific studies, there is still a lack of studies that are not due to lack of funding. I quote from the article I linked to in NEJM (the numbers are references, you will find them if you follow the link):If there are not more scientific studies available to guide me in the use of generally non-toxic, non-invasive, lifestyle intensive natural medical interventions, perhaps that has less to do with my profession or the field of natural medicine as it does with control of funding that rests with large corporate conglomerates (who influence large government bureaucracies) who only profit when a patient is medicated, irradiated, surgicated, or financially castrated. Despite this, there are a plethora of double blinded, placebo controlled, large group studies that validate many of the interventions done in natural medicine. You may have had the opportunity to be review these if you weren't preoccupied with blathering on about things you obvious do not have a clue about.
"In 1992, Congress established within the National Institutes of Health an Office of Alternative Medicine to evaluate alternative remedies. So far, the results have been disappointing. For example, of the 30 research grants the office awarded in 1993, 28 have resulted in "final reports" (abstracts) that are listed in the office's public on-line data base.5 But a Medline search almost six years after the grants were awarded revealed that only 9 of the 28 resulted in published papers. Five were in 2 journals not included among the 3500 journal titles in the Countway Library of Medicine's collection.6,7,8,9,10 Of the other four studies, none was a controlled clinical trial that would allow any conclusions to be drawn about the efficacy of an alternative treatment.11,12,13,14"
I do not understand your argument. That 34% of the US population have used alternative medicine does not mean it provides efficient treatment for disease.people do not “believe in it” because they have an axe to grind with medical science. They access it because it works, as was amply demonstrated in a quantitative study published in 1993 in The New England Journal of Medicine by David Eisenberg, M.D., and colleagues at Harvard. Their large national survey found that 34% of those surveyed at that time used alternative medicine, and those with more education and higher income were most likely to use it.
According to surveys, about 40% of Americans go to church at least 1 time/week. Does that mean god exists? Is it more likely that god exists if the church goers have a higher education level and higher income than the average in the population?
That may be your personal opinion, but thousands of clinical and preclinical medical scientists worldwide may disagree with you.The term “medical science” is an oxymoron, by the way. Medicine is, by its very nature, empirical and not scientific.
Again, you choose to argue with name-calling of me instead of actual evidence. If we are ever to have any serious discussion about the treatment effects of "alternative medicine" (which we have never had, maybe that's why you found my posts more engaging and less "small-minded" and less full of "condescending drivel") you should try to calm down, read the words I write and not your own subjective interpretation of my words, and also get rid of the sarcasm and name-calling.Whereas at one point your posts were engaging, intellectually-stimulating, and nuanced, they have become little more than dogmatic pronouncements, often abrasively positioned, and frequently utilized to bludgeon others into either exhaustion or submission. Frankly, I could really care less about your uninformed, small-minded perspective on “alternative medicine.” What is upsetting, however, is that some unsuspecting reader would be dazzled by the spread of prodigious words and the seeming “scientific” objectivity of your information and believe that what is in fact subjective, condescending drivel is actual some sort of fact. Forgive me for mentioning it, but doesn’t that sound exactly like Scientology? Nah…. must be some undiagnosed neuropsychiatric herbal remedy that is causing bad side effects.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
I saw a good programme on homeopathy a while back (BBC's Horizon). They made a test to determine the benefits of homeopathy (prove they even existed).
They failed to find conclusive proof. However, the tests they performed and information gathered are still interesting. They brought in a variety of people, some eminent scientists and homeopaths to test for evidence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... html#links
Take a look at the Transcript in the links on that page (next to Randi's photograph), that provides some interesting information on the actual testing.
They failed to find conclusive proof. However, the tests they performed and information gathered are still interesting. They brought in a variety of people, some eminent scientists and homeopaths to test for evidence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... html#links
Take a look at the Transcript in the links on that page (next to Randi's photograph), that provides some interesting information on the actual testing.
-
Hill-Shatar
- Posts: 7724
- Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:41 am
- Location: Hell Freezing Over
- Contact:
I am posting this now, then going back up and reading CE's replies... so this will most likely be editted some time soon.
As some of you may know, my brother was diagnosed for Asprger's at a young age. It was fairly obvious that he was different. He was set aside, extremely emotional, and quick to take anything as a personal shot. He didn't like anything foreign interrupting with hsi day, nor did he like changes in his schedule. If he was going to school, he was going to school. If it was a day off, he would become confused quite easily.
Originally, a doctor thought to ask my mother (also a microbiologist) about giving my brother anti-anxiety drugs. My mother promptly said no, to which the doctor took no offence, and decided to switch us over to another professional.
That lady was a godsend. She immediately diagnosed my brother with a light form of Autism (at the time, Asperger's had not been discovered/widely reconized) and decided to send him to a program called onward, which teaches basic social skills to him.
He released stress by running... he became quite the athlete. In High School, he won several medals, and he also enjoyed bouncing and playing with basketballs and soccer balls. Today, he is married, his wife is pregnant, they live in nice area and work in the tourist industry... he has lead a successful life without drugs.
I have read stories of parents who have their children drugged for much less. Frankly, if I had a brother on these types of drugs, he would not be the brother I love today.
Drugs are a crutch, they only mask the problem. People with these types of disorders have a much easier time learning to deal with things without drugs, naturally. If my children are autistic, I will not give them any form of drug. I will noyl give them a drug if I think that they could possibly harm themselves or others... and on the mildest dosage as possible.
If you really think they ahve no basis, check if they site any names or studies. They always do and you can follow up on the study.
Mmm... and on this topic... you also used an editorial in your first post. Editorials are based around a person's opinion, not fact.
Either way, whether there is an all powerful being or series of patron gods are above us or not is not really debatable, considering that all evidence msut come after one has passed. I'm am not religious in any way, nor do I want to start an argument here, but to all, there is no evidence either way. Same with your post above. In fact, sometimes just the thought that you are getting better by some form of medicine, can give you the strength to go on.
Let me state one final time no offence to anyone (I'm sorry, I'm just worried) and that I have decided to keep my opinions on that topic, to myself.
Anyways, let us remember, CE, that consistently posting another's job in quotations and considering some parts are unimportant, may be found offensive by the said person.
As some of you may know, my brother was diagnosed for Asprger's at a young age. It was fairly obvious that he was different. He was set aside, extremely emotional, and quick to take anything as a personal shot. He didn't like anything foreign interrupting with hsi day, nor did he like changes in his schedule. If he was going to school, he was going to school. If it was a day off, he would become confused quite easily.
Originally, a doctor thought to ask my mother (also a microbiologist) about giving my brother anti-anxiety drugs. My mother promptly said no, to which the doctor took no offence, and decided to switch us over to another professional.
That lady was a godsend. She immediately diagnosed my brother with a light form of Autism (at the time, Asperger's had not been discovered/widely reconized) and decided to send him to a program called onward, which teaches basic social skills to him.
He released stress by running... he became quite the athlete. In High School, he won several medals, and he also enjoyed bouncing and playing with basketballs and soccer balls. Today, he is married, his wife is pregnant, they live in nice area and work in the tourist industry... he has lead a successful life without drugs.
I have read stories of parents who have their children drugged for much less. Frankly, if I had a brother on these types of drugs, he would not be the brother I love today.
Drugs are a crutch, they only mask the problem. People with these types of disorders have a much easier time learning to deal with things without drugs, naturally. If my children are autistic, I will not give them any form of drug. I will noyl give them a drug if I think that they could possibly harm themselves or others... and on the mildest dosage as possible.
No. However, said newspapers tend to have links to said studies. News also can report on some topics of interest for the general public from a source that is reviewed.The US News and World report is an ordinary, popular newspaper. I don't view it as a reliable source for evaluation of medicines.
If you really think they ahve no basis, check if they site any names or studies. They always do and you can follow up on the study.
Mmm... and on this topic... you also used an editorial in your first post. Editorials are based around a person's opinion, not fact.
Several other trained medical professionals may disagree with you, CE. That is a rather irrational statement made to pass along the illusion of support which is truly unknown. No offence intended.That may be your personal opinion, but thousands of clinical and preclinical medical scientists worldwide may disagree with you.
No offence, once again, but the logic of your statement is lost to me. I think that psychiatric problems with the amount of people using alternative medicine has no bearing in relgion, as no one has evidence to disprove effects made by unconventional medicine are beneficial for the people.I do not understand your argument. That 34% of the US population have used alternative medicine does not mean it provides efficient treatment for disease.
According to surveys, about 40% of Americans go to church at least 1 time/week. Does that mean god exists? Is it more likely that god exists if the church goers have a higher education level and higher income than the average in the population?
Either way, whether there is an all powerful being or series of patron gods are above us or not is not really debatable, considering that all evidence msut come after one has passed. I'm am not religious in any way, nor do I want to start an argument here, but to all, there is no evidence either way.
Same with your post above. In fact, sometimes just the thought that you are getting better by some form of medicine, can give you the strength to go on. Let me state one final time no offence to anyone (I'm sorry, I'm just worried) and that I have decided to keep my opinions on that topic, to myself.
I think it would be a good idea for both parties at this moment to take a rest before considering posting in this topic again, just so that unpleasantness is removed, aye? Calm down a bit, read back through the posts, and restructure our thoughts.Again, you choose to argue with name-calling of me instead of actual evidence.
Anyways, let us remember, CE, that consistently posting another's job in quotations and considering some parts are unimportant, may be found offensive by the said person.
Buy a GameBanshee T-Shirt [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68975"]HERE[/url]! Sabre's [url="http://www.users.bigpond.com/qtnt/index.htm"]site[/url] for Baldur's Gate series' patches and items. This has been a Drive-by Hilling.
I'm sorry, the studies done in psychiatric fields dealing with the success of drugs on patients are broken. Doctors who don't take the medication doing observations on patients too drugged to be coherant and voice their opinions isn't a study, it's a doctors opinion on a patient. Nothing more, nothing less. Unless you've dealt with the effects of those chemicals yourself, you cannot possibly grasp the true extent of the effects they have on a person.
Personally, if your looking to see what the success rates are of those treated, ask those treated, not their doctors. There is quite a number of groups striving to provoke drastic changes in the situation with mental health care, and the problem with this is they are simply dismissed as delusional by the doctors they are railing against. A cancer patient can sue for malpractice and win easily. A mental patient is tossed back into a padded room and sedated.
Some of these drugs being prescribed to patients willy-nilly have side effects along the same lines of, if not worse than crack-cocaine or heroin abuse and addiction. Do you really think doctors who force their patients to take them and are being paid to do so will admit to this? The studies handed to the public are whack, and so are the doctors performing them.
Personally, if your looking to see what the success rates are of those treated, ask those treated, not their doctors. There is quite a number of groups striving to provoke drastic changes in the situation with mental health care, and the problem with this is they are simply dismissed as delusional by the doctors they are railing against. A cancer patient can sue for malpractice and win easily. A mental patient is tossed back into a padded room and sedated.
Some of these drugs being prescribed to patients willy-nilly have side effects along the same lines of, if not worse than crack-cocaine or heroin abuse and addiction. Do you really think doctors who force their patients to take them and are being paid to do so will admit to this?
The studies handed to the public are whack, and so are the doctors performing them."You can do whatever you want to me."
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
Antibiotics for infectious disease, surgery for injuries or cancer, chemotherapy and radiation treatment for cancer and proton pump inhibitors for ulcer, do you view them as "crutches that only mask the problem"? Conventional medicine includes all of the above. Conventional medicine however, lack a cure for many diseases and disorders. That's why we do medical research.Hill-Shatar wrote:Drugs are a crutch, they only mask the problem. People with these types of disorders have a much easier time learning to deal with things without drugs, naturally. If my children are autistic, I will not give them any form of drug.
There is no drug that cures autism-Asperger. There is no treatment at all that cures autism-Aspergers. Thus, it should not be medicated. (Here, it ususally isn't. None of my patients with Aspergers have been medicated.) There are many diseases and disorders that have no cure. But I fail understand how this related to the question what evidence there is for alternative medicine. I also see no reason why lack of cure in conventional medicine should lower the demans for controlled clinical trials of alternative treatment. Healing or homeopathics do not work better because there is no pharmaceutical cure for Aspergers, there are two disparate questions.
I don't say they have no basis, I say a newspaper is not a reliable source for information. You should also note that the editorial I posted from NJEM isIf you really think they ahve no basis, check if they site any names or studies. They always do and you can follow up on the study.
Mmm... and on this topic... you also used an editorial in your first post. Editorials are based around a person's opinion, not fact.
1. as I pointed out: full of references to original sources, studies published in peer-reviewed journals and official health care and grant's information. That's the reason I posted this editorial. Did you even read it?
2. An editorial from NJEM is not the editors personal opinion, it's the stance of the journal, and NJEM together with the Lancet is the most reowned and highest-quality scientific journals for all clinical medicine. They are expert journals, not to be compared to popular newspapers. The editors of these journals are medical professionals and experts on medical science, they are not ordinary journalists.
Thantor argued that he viewed "medical science" as an oxymoron. I argue that it's his personal opinion and not a fact. Others may have different opinions and I am sure there are thousands of people who share his opinions and thousands who do not share it. Questions not based on fact but on opinion, are bound to vary a lot.Several other trained medical professionals may disagree with you, CE. That is a rather irrational statement made to pass along the illusion of support which is truly unknown.
[/quote]No offence, once again, but the logic of your statement is lost to me. I think that psychiatric problems with the amount of people using alternative medicine has no bearing in relgion, as no one has evidence to disprove effects made by unconventional medicine are beneficial for the people.
<snip>
I'm am not religious in any way, nor do I want to start an argument here, but to all, there is no evidence either way.
First, I don't know why you are talking about psychiatric problems. I talk about evidence for conventional and alternative medicine, two large areas covering a variety of disease and disorder, from malaria to leukemia, from myocardiac arrests to Huntington's disease. Second, you misunderstand my post, I have not said alternative medicine has a bearing in religion. Please reread Thantor's as well as my post.
Thantor claimed that people use alternative medicine "because it works", and argued that it was "amply demonstrated" by a poll that showed 34% used alternative medicine. Thus, he is using the poll data as evidence that alternative medicine works. I am saying that that people do something, is not evidence of anything. Thus my example with church going - it's no evidence of anything at all except that people go to church. Lots of people use anti-wrinkle cream - does that mean it works? I am simply saying that the argument "34% use alternative medicine" is not evidence of anything.
Yes, but this is placebo-effect, and placebo-effect must be distinguished from effect of the actual substance. People pay large amounts of money for medicine. Should they not have the right to know if they pay for and put in their bodies, a substance that has no effect besides the placebo effect, or a substance that has both placebo effect and a clinical effect?In fact, sometimes just the thought that you are getting better by some form of medicine, can give you the strength to go on.
First, where did I say someone's job was unimportant? Please point that out to me. Also, if I had said that parts of someone's job were unimportant, how does that give the other person right to make personal attacks on me?Anyways, let us remember, CE, that consistently posting another's job in quotations and considering some parts are unimportant, may be found offensive by the said person.
Second, the reason why I put "alternative medicine" in quotation marks, is because I view it as a simplifying "slang" expression covering many different treatment methods, some of which are totally unrelated to each other. It would be the same as if I posted people who suffer from "mental disorder" instead of posting "people with a psychatric, neuropsychiatric or some specific neurological disorders and conditions. The term "Alternative medicine" covers everything that is not conventional, or academic medicine (and these I don't put into quotes because I view it as established terms that always denote the same thing: Western academic medicine). Alternative medicine includes acupuncture, Chinese medicine, Indian medicine, healing, herbal medicine, homeopathy and many, many more types. Some rememdies may work, some not. Some methods may have an effect, some not. But most of these methods are not tested in controlled studies and that is my point - there is a lack of evidence. Just to take an example, between 1968-1998 there were about 30 miljon articles published on Medline about convential medical treatment against disease. About 200 of these was about homeopathy as treatment against disease.
I however ask you to please not try to "thought-read" my posts. If it is common knowledge that quotation marks in English means that the word is offensive, I am happy to have gained that knowledge but as far as I know, it is often used to mean "so called". "Alternative medicine" should then be equal to "what people usually call alternative medicine", "so called alternative medicine". If this is improper use I apologise (this is how you use quotation marks in my language) but I certainly think you should try not to read in any specific message in these quotation marks or other punctuation marks, but instead read the words.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums