Depression

Lone Stone wrote: »

Funny how it takes a high profile suicide to stir up a conversation about depression, some one jumped in front of the fast train at the dart station near my house the other week and wasnt even a peep on the radio.

Both equally sad and both have the same final ending .

I don't know if any of you were following another thread which was started last night, and subsequently closed, called "Depression - do you understand it?"

A couple of pages into the thread, someone made a post saying claiming the following:

It is not scientifically proven that a lack of serotonin is the cause of depression.

A couple of people responded, jumping down his throat, demanding that he explain what is the cause of depression then.

Why were they asking this person to provide proof of what causes depression? He never claimed to know what causes depression. I don't understand why anyone thought he did make that claim.

They were responses driven by emotion, and not by logic. I know that. But I just wanted to make the point - because I don't want to feel I can't say certain things without having my head bitten off.

I understand that some of the people who responded have been suffering from depression, but I myself have been on SSRI's for three years, and I'd like to work this all out logically, as I'm sure everyone else would.






That thread is here (now closed): http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056464877

whirlpool wrote: »

I don't know if any of you were following another thread which was started last night, and subsequently closed, called "Depression - do you understand it?"

A couple of pages into the thread, someone made a post saying claiming the following:

It is not scientifically proven that a lack of serotonin is the cause of depression.

A couple of people responded, jumping down his throat, demanding that he explain what is the cause of depression then.

Why were they asking this person to provide proof of what causes depression? He never claimed to know what causes depression. I don't understand why anyone thought he did make that claim.

They were responses driven by emotion, and not by logic. I know that. But I just wanted to make the point - because I don't want to feel I can't say certain things without having my head bitten off.

I understand that some of the people who responded have been suffering from depression, but I myself have been on SSRI's for three years, and I'd like to work this all out logically, as I'm sure everyone else would.






That thread is here (now closed): http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056464877

Well I basically got told off for mentioning it. It's scary that millions of these drugs are prescribed on the basis of an unproven hypothesis. I would never take a drug unless I had a reasonable level of proof that the drug actually worked. Who knows what these drugs are doing longterm. Prozac has only been around 20 odd years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/depression-medication-why_b_550098.html

coolx wrote: »

Well I basically got told off for mentioning it. It's scary that millions of these drugs are prescribed on the basis of an unproven hypothesis. I would never take a drug unless I had a reasonable level of proof that the drug actually worked. Who knows what these drugs are doing longterm. Prozac has only been around 20 odd years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/depression-medication-why_b_550098.html

To me, that article is one big facepalm.

He cites 2 journals. there are hundreds if not thousands of studies done on the efficacy of anti depressants, and you cannot say there is enough evidence to dismiss the use of medicinal treatment for depression. his solutions being Vitamin D, mercury level testing, exercise...? of course the serotonin theory hasn't been proven, can things that happen in the brain ever actually be proven?

I've been depressed a few times. Never diagnosed. The first time I was 14 and struggling to deal with a bundle of problems (even one of which would probably knock most adults for six) completely on my own. The turning point was when a friend asked what was up. I couldn't explain but knowing that somebody cared even if only for a moment gave me some foundation to stand on and I something I could use to push myself back up from.

I get depressed pretty much every single Winter but this winter is better than most. I think it's SAD. Lots of people don't seem to think it's real but I've got to the stage in the past where I crossed the road without even looking to see if a car was coming and the thought 'I don't care if I get knocked down' crossed my mind. I had no energy of any kind and just wanted to sleep all the time.

There are triggers for my depressions, and I think having quite a few massively traumatic events in my past pushes me into a spiral at times. I fight against that. I have dealt with these traumatic events but they're like little whispers that attack when I'm vulnerable. I'm grateful that there are triggers for my depressions - this says to me that I don't have a biological type of depression (clinical depression?). For some reason, I've never planned or seriously considered suicide - I've just wished I'd die.

I've only known one person who committed suicide: my Mum, though I've known a few people who've considered it. Depression has definitely blighted my life. It's like a member of the family that only comes around every so often but threatens to tear the place up when it does. I have no real advice to anybody suffering with it. This is a controversial opinion but some problems and some hurt is too much for people to bear. My only advice is: if you can, hold on. Keep going as long as you can - it's only a matter of time until it passes. Nothing lasts forever. "This too will pass" my Dad used to say. It's helped me in hard times.

stupidusername wrote: »

it doesn't matter how reputable a journal is, the Lancet were the ones that published the MMR as the cause of autism remember? that's still considered reputable. anyway, to me, as a lay person, diagnosed with depression, articles or studies don't matter. I don't like how drugs seem to be the first solution, but then that's not the fault of the people in the medical profession, it's the fault of the health system.

but if you're going to dispute the realism of depression and the need for anti depressants, you have to be prepared for questions from those who have suffered from it.

I'm not disputing Depression as an affliction. Merely the lack of evidence to support the chemical imbalance theory and the poor treatment rates with these drugs.

Came across this article in the Health Science section. Please read it. You don't have to agree with it, I accept that. But it should at least raise some reasonable questions about drug treatments. The issue isn't that depresion is not real, merely that drugs may not be the answer.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/aug/18/illusions-psychiatry-exchange/?pagination=false

These people are at the forefront of their medical fields. I would take what they say at least somewhat seriously. The NEJM and JAMA studies produced recently are frankly shocking.

Companies hiding data among other shannagans.

stupidusername wrote: »

I've read part of it, but I don't have the concentration to read all of it.

What I'd be interested in actually is any theories for why humans have mental disorders like this, and if they're on the increase or decrease.

It's a long article in fairness. Depression is a devestating condition. That isn't open for debate. It's even mentioned in the article. I think the main point they are reaching is that it's the companies are using false theories to sell medication. They don't agree with chemical imbalances. These people are way smarter than myself, so I will take their word.

The truth is, we don't really know what the hell causes depression, just that it cripples people. There is alot of ongoing research into this area, but it could take a number of years before a doctor can say with absolute certainty that your symptoms match a genetic disease called "depression".

It's a silent killer:( I feel badly for depressed people, because they really don't deserve the level of ignorance presened. The lack of understanding about the real causes fuels this.

Make no mistake, this is probably the most complex poorly understood illness you can get. A bit more research into the real causes of depression would go a long way to help people suffering from it.

K-9 wrote: »

There would need to be more evidence that it isn't helped by drugs. As others said, MMR was disputed.

Science isn't necessarily fact either, just the most accepted theory at any given time. It's interesting that some people don't seem to need drugs and others find them a hindrance. That doesn't necessarily mean that drugs don't work.

You have to factor in the placebo effect. That accounts for most of the "improvement", not the drug itself. Read the meta analysis and this is littered throughout the results.

The drugs may or may not work very well. I understand where you are coming from. However, should we really be pumping billions into drugs which are proven time and time again to be little better than an inert placebo?

Not to mention the chemical imbalance theory was disproven a long long time ago. The NIMH will agree with this fact. This is an interesting video. Go onto zoloft website.

It states depression results from a chemical imbalance despite no evidence. Why are they selling drugs on the basis of an unproven hypotheis. Go onto the zoloft website and look at the disclaimer. Looks scary.

The chemical imbalance theory fails the Falsafiability test, therefore it is not proven.

K-9 wrote: »

My internet connection isn't great. I think it could well be partly placebo effect. Any links handy on that?

Here is the NEJM meta analysis I was referring to: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa065779

Compared to the placebo group for each study, the results are pretty grim.

"Among 74 FDA-registered studies, 31%, accounting for 3449 study participants, were not published. Whether and how the studies were published were associated with the study outcome. A total of 37 studies viewed by the FDA as having positive results were published; 1 study viewed as positive was not published. Studies viewed by the FDA as having negative or questionable results were, with 3 exceptions, either not published (22 studies) or published in a way that, in our opinion, conveyed a positive outcome (11 studies). According to the published literature, it appeared that 94% of the trials conducted were positive. By contrast, the FDA analysis showed that 51% were positive. Separate meta-analyses of the FDA and journal data sets showed that the increase in effect size ranged from 11 to 69% for individual drugs and was 32% overall."

Pieta House and the Samaritans deserve alot more support than they recieve. Seriously, these places should be getting grants to cover their expansion into more urban areas and beyond.