Post-natal depression is a myth.

Millicent wrote: »

So you're accusing neuroscientists and biochemists of fraud now? Seems a bit of a weighty accusation to make, as well as a slur on a host of educated, inquisitive researchers. As I said in my last message, how do you propose they measure for serotonin in the brain of a living person, without killing the subject?

This is Barry Jacobs, a neuroscientist at Princeton. Do you believe his extensive research is "bunk" and "fraud"? Do you really think Princeton retains people who are defrauding the public?

Here's his CV by the way. Sure looks shady to me.

On that, he is not from the field of psychiatry, so will you be a s quick to dismiss his research and opinions as junk science or does he get a pass because he works in a "respectable" field?

He is only one of many conflicting authors on this subject. Would you mind cherrypicking a quote of his? Depression could very well be a neuroscientific issue. However, the "chemical imbalance" stuff as it stands has not been proven to be reliable.

Here is an interesting take on the matter: http://www.aarp.org/health/drugs-supplements/info-05-2010/do_antidepressantswork.html

Please read the outcomes of the JAMA study. What would you conclude from this report? This is a pretty compelling meta analysis of the findings throughout the years. It's all quite muddy, frankly.

impossible to have a coherent discussion in after hours, it's all rabble rabble rabble.

Millicent wrote: »

So there are conflicting views on the matter. That is, frankly, very different to the theory being "bunk". I'm sure you will agree that disagreement occurs frequently, and healthily, throughout the scientific communities on a broad number of issues. That's how scientific thought is advanced, through debate and research.

I'm not comfortable cherry-picking a quote, as there isn't really sound-byte material readily available, but section 3.2 of this paper goes through his theories and understanding of serotonin quite thoroughly. The paper is good reading too.

I read the link you provided, and had to laugh at the first question they asked and he answered. It cites the placebo effect as the reason anti-depressants work. That's kind of funny, because different scientists debate the cause of, and effect of, the placebo effect. Studies like this show no effect. Pretty funny that he aims to debunk one claim with another that hasn't been conclusively proven.

Besides all that, that is one study, with one more cited. Hardly conclusive proof either way.

Sorry man. But that paper does verry little to support the scientific theory of Depression as a result of serotonin imbalances in the brain. It's worrying how he mentions the words "theory" and "hypothesis" alongside "Serotonin".

Depression is something alright, but this chemical imbalance stuff isn't proven to be scientifically valid. It remains a hypothesis, not fact.

Wibbs wrote: »

I don't get all this ignore stuff with you at all. There are loads of people I don't agree with(the OP being one), but going out of ones way to delete them from any further threads? You can ignore in your own head you know. I dunno, seems a bit childish to me.

If it's blatant stirring it/winding up, ignore list seems reasonable IMO though.

Definitely agree anti depressants can be over-subscribed. In my opinion, they should be a last resort, and the lowest possible dosage administered. They don't cause a person to develop the skills to deal with pain - counselling is what does that. But they do help many people to get better - there is no question about it.
Yeah, lol at the "It's to make money for the pharmaceuticals" stuff - the simplistic bollocks some folks are so desperate to cling to...

TheyKnowMyIP wrote: »

Sombody please link to some credible evidence that anti d's cure a known chemical imbalance.

The chemical imbalance thing - yes, that is being disputed, and fair enough, but what's ****ing crass is when people put too much stock into it, to the point of dismissing the existence of depression at all. Usually people who lack empathy/don't like someone getting "special treatment" for something they don't understand/have never experienced depression - either themselves or a loved one going through it.
Why won't you admit anti depressants help a lot of people? It is a FACT that for many, they cause the feelings of sadness, anxiety, fear, apathy, emptiness and lethargy to disappear; that they alleviate the physical symptoms like exhaustion (yet not sleeping), a lack of energy so acute that brushing one's hair is an uphill struggle, a lack of appetite, aching joints. So it's not just for the big pharmas. I'm sure there's an element of that, but not everything has to be a big business conspiracy - it really depends on individual cases, doctors, patients etc.

I don't think the GP in Macroom in County Cork is exactly thinking about filling the coffers of Janssen when (s)he writes a prescription.

I was under the impression SSRIs can take up to 6 months to take effect.

It depends on the severity of the illness. With mild depression, it might only take two weeks.

One of the reasons for the increase in suicidal action is people who are extremely depressed lack the energy to attempt suicide but with SSRI therapy they got out of the apathy/low-energy state but not the depressive and go and attempt it.

And they are so ill initially that they barely feel anything, so when the drug starts to work, their feelings return and are initially very negative ones... but in time, the positive effects of the drug kicks in. So it's not as simple a case of the drug causing suicidal thoughts. Obviously such patients should be monitored constantly in the first six months, or however long it takes.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Addressing the original posters point, why exactly is there such an outpouring of rage against it?

Because the OP holds it up as fact rather than "I wonder whether..." and was obviously just trying to rile because it's not as if they've come back to defend their point. Yes, no doubt the trials of parenting an infant could cause depression - makes sense - but PND has its basis in hormones.

TheyKnowMyIP wrote: »

Nobody has the balls to comment on the links I have provided.

Yes they have. You don't have "the balls" to address reasonable points put to you, because they're inconvenient for you.

If you aren't willing to engage in a rational discussion about the problems with Psychiatric labelling, there is no point in responding.

But you're not either.

By definition, if the dianostic criteria is based on opinion and less so on scientific fact, it is not unreasonable to sugget that PND could simply be a state of mind and not an actual clinical illness/disease. The top brass in Psychiatry agree with this statement

But what about the scientific fact coming from the "other side"? People are prescribed anti depressants by responsible GP's and they get better - and that's all just down to opinion...?
And plenty of top brass in psychiatry wouldn't agree.

The reason alot of people are stigmatising those with mental illness in this country, is because the field is totally second rate in comparison to conventional medicine. It really is the black sheep in medicine.

Based on? And no, that isn't the reason for stigmatisation. You're just throwing out stuff you're guessing... yet ridiculing those who don't agree with you for not backing themselves up scientifically. My scientific evaulation of your analysis is: you're full of ****.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CHEMICAL IMBALANCE IN THE BRAIN:)

There MAY not be - how are you so sure it's fact? Because you like the idea of it, and it means you can dismiss mental illness as all in the head simply because you have difficulty understanding it?

Let the grown ups speak, please.

Somebody isn't a grown up simply by virtue of the fact that they disagree with you?

Dudess wrote: »

But what about the scientific fact coming from the "other side"? People are prescribed anti depressants by responsible GP's and they get better - and that's all just down to opinion...?
And plenty of top brass in psychiatry wouldn't agree.

One side is claiming that mental illness is the result of a chemical imbalance in the brain without a sufficient scientific basis for this claim. The other side takes a more natural stance - Should we believe this theory to be true without evidence? No. Seems reasonable to me.

Here is another worthwhile article. While not Academic in nature, it has some interesting links.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/27/diagnosing-in-the-dark

Dudess wrote: »

If it's blatant stirring it/winding up, ignore list seems reasonable IMO though.

Definitely agree anti depressants can be over-subscribed. In my opinion, they should be a last resort, and the lowest possible dosage administered. They don't cause a person to develop the skills to deal with pain - counselling is what does that. But they do help many people to get better - there is no question about it.
Yeah, lol at the "It's to make money for the pharmaceuticals" stuff - the simplistic bollocks some folks are so desperate to cling to...

The chemical imbalance thing - yes, that is being disputed, and fair enough, but what's ****ing crass is when people put too much stock into it, to the point of dismissing the existence of depression at all. Usually people who lack empathy/don't like someone getting "special treatment" for something they don't understand/have never experienced depression - either themselves or a loved one going through it.
Why won't you admit anti depressants help a lot of people? It is a FACT that for many, they cause the feelings of sadness, anxiety, fear, apathy, emptiness and lethargy to disappear; that they alleviate the physical symptoms like exhaustion (yet not sleeping), a lack of energy so acute that brushing one's hair is an uphill struggle, a lack of appetite, aching joints. So it's not just for the big pharmas. I'm sure there's an element of that, but not everything has to be a big business conspiracy - it really depends on individual cases, doctors, patients etc.

I don't think the GP in Macroom in County Cork is exactly thinking about filling the coffers of Janssen when (s)he writes a prescription.

It depends on the severity of the illness. With mild depression, it might only take two weeks.

And they are so ill initially that they barely feel anything, so when the drug starts to work, their feelings return and are initially very negative ones... but in time, the positive effects of the drug kicks in. So it's not as simple a case of the drug causing suicidal thoughts. Obviously such patients should be monitored constantly in the first six months, or however long it takes.

Because the OP holds it up as fact rather than "I wonder whether..." and was obviously just trying to rile because it's not as if they've come back to defend their point. Yes, no doubt the trials of parenting an infant could cause depression - makes sense - but PND has its basis in hormones.

Yes they have. You don't have "the balls" to address reasonable points put to you, because they're inconvenient for you.

But you're not either.

But what about the scientific fact coming from the "other side"? People are prescribed anti depressants by responsible GP's and they get better - and that's all just down to opinion...?
And plenty of top brass in psychiatry wouldn't agree.

Based on? And no, that isn't the reason for stigmatisation. You're just throwing out stuff you're guessing... yet ridiculing those who don't agree with you for not backing themselves up scientifically. My scientific evaulation of your analysis is: you're full of ****.

There MAY not be - how are you so sure it's fact? Because you like the idea of it, and it means you can dismiss mental illness as all in the head simply because you have difficulty understanding it?

Somebody isn't a grown up simply by virtue of the fact that they disagree with you?

You say anti depressants help alot of people. This may be the case, but it's not the result of rigourous scientific enquiry, you can be assured of that. As regards not disproving the theory, it's entirely reasonable to suggest it might be the case, but given the evidence so far, it's not reasonable to suggest this chemical imbalance stuff as proof. This is how most legitimate scientific theories are proven. This is standard practice.

I am not dismissing mental illness, I am dismissing the majority of the Psychiatric establishment along with it's unprovable claim that mental disorders are the result of a biochemical imbalance in the body.

Given the lack of concrete data available RIGHT NOW, it's not unreasonable to say that the chemical imbalance theory of depression is unproven. Nothing is proven until sufficient evidence exists to make that claim. So far, the basis on which these drugs are presribed is not based on rigouress science, but on theories of how mental illness is caused.

That Neuroscientist Millicent linked a while back, he constantly refers to the word "theory". Is that the best we should put up with? A mere theory? I don't accept this as a good use of taxpayer money. Neither should you.

up for anything wrote: »

When someone mentions taxpayers' money, in that tone of voice, in a debate, I give up listening/reading their views.

Did I hurt your ego? Here, have a tissue:(