Depression

coolx · 28-11-2011 10:34pm

WalterMitty wrote: »

What are you trying to say? That there are no biological/genetic factors in mental illness?

To date, we haven't found any reliable genetic factors. The research to date however, proves that that chemical imbalances aren't the cause. This is not my opinion. It is scientific fact that the chemical imbalance theory of Depression is simply false.

The question simply boils down to this simple axiom: Given how little we know about the true causes of severe mental illness, why are we pumping billions into an unproven hypothesis?

We can recognise Depression by symptoms and distress. That is not enough proof to say that we understand the biological basis of Depression. We don't. There are no established biomarkers yet.

Chuck Stone · 28-11-2011 10:46pm

WalterMitty wrote: »

What are you trying to say? That there are no biological/genetic factors in mental illness?

Nope. I'm saying there is not one scintilla of evidence to support that a chemical imbalance in the brain causes depression.

That you can think/talk yourway out of any mental distress?

I didn't make that claim. I'm not really interested in discussing it here tbh because this is more of a support thread than a debate thread. If I get the references I've requested I'll start a thread elsewhere.

Lady Chatterton · 28-11-2011 10:51pm

WalterMitty wrote: »

Well Mary Harney's pension doesnt pay itself you know! She needs that 130k a year that could otherwise be used to employ several suicide counsellors.

Mary Harney's pension is the least of the issues. The HSE appointed Professor Drumm as CEO, they gave him a huge salary, bonus and pension, on top of that they paid €3 million to people to advise him in his role as CEO :eek:

In my opinion, anyone who is appointed to the position of CEO should be fully qualified for the role, they shouldn't need €3 million advisers to help them do their job :mad: There is a huge culture of waste within the HSE, that needs to change so that money goes into providing frontline services.

HSE spent €3m on extra advisers for chief Drumm

Thursday October 07 2010

THREE advisers to former health service boss Brendan Drumm were each paid around €1m by the Health Service Executive (HSE).

The revelation comes as Taoiseach Brian Cowen was yesterday forced to reject opposition claims that the Government was turning a blind eye to waste in spending public money.

Payment records obtained by the Irish Independent reveal huge sums paid to Prof Drumm's advisers, some of whom were earning €1,300-a-day.

Some received massive taxpayer-funded payments despite the fact other people were employed within the HSE to carry out similar functions.

The well-paid advisers included:

Communications consultant Karl Anderson, who earned €996,119 between 2005 and the end of 2009 despite the fact the HSE had fully staffed public relations offices around the country.
Human resources adviser Maura McGrath, who earned €994,334 in the same period even though a human resources boss was appointed internally in 2008.
Management consultant Maureen Lynott, who was paid €1,125,493 between 2005 and the end of last year.

Contracts for Mr Anderson and Ms Lynott, who were handpicked by Prof Drumm for his so-called kitchen cabinet, ran out earlier this month.

New HSE boss Cathal Magee will not be allowed hire his own advisers, such is the furore over the huge fees paid to those appointed to assist his predecessor. The revelations come amid mounting pressure on health chiefs to explain failings after a damning audit report revealed a catalogue of wasteful spending and serious breaches of corporate governance in a HSE-funded training programme.

Front-line

Questions have also been raised about the level of spending on costly external consultants, with opposition TDs claiming the money would be better spent on front-line services. Records seen by the Irish Independent reveal how €76.7m was spent by the HSE on outside consultants between 2005 and the end of last year.

The records also show how HSE bosses have failed to significantly rein in spending on outside advice. Some €15.1m was spent on outside consultants last year, compared to €15.6m in 2008 and €16.7m in 2007.

Many of the companies who benefitted from contracts had close links with the health services. They included Prospectus Consultants, whose managing director Vincent Barton is a former Department of Health official. The firm was paid €1.58m for contracts between 2005 and the end of 2009.

These included advice on adult critical care services, palliative care, obstetrics and gynaecology services, and hospital co-location.

SMG Healthcare Consultancy Ltd, run by another former Drumm adviser, Dr Sean McGuire, was paid €440,864 for primary care and healthcare strategy projects between 2005 and 2008.

Dr Joe Clarke, a GP adviser, was paid €284,915 for consultancy work on family doctor services in 2008 and 2009.

The sums paid included VAT.

Mr Anderson was paid €224,886 last year using the business name Anderson Editorial. At the same time the HSE employed 12 press officers in offices around the country.

Ms Lynott's company, Lynott Management Consultancy, was paid €224,568 in 2009 for advising Prof Drumm.

Ms Lynott is a former chairperson of the National Treatment Purchase Fund.

Both were appointed in 2005 on 60-month contracts, which have just run out.

The contracts required 135 days work per year, with up to 27 additional days if necessary.

Even though Prof Drumm left the HSE in August, their contracts continued to run until last week.

Fees paid for this year have yet to be disclosed, despite requests being lodged with the HSE under freedom of information rules two months ago.

Ms McGrath's company, McGrath Associates, was paid €92,663 last year and €294,785 the year before. Its contract with the HSE ended in February 2009.

It had involved €1,350-a-day, to be paid for three days' work per week for advice on organisational change and strategic human resource management.

"The figures are striking," Fine Gael health spokesman Dr James Reilly said.

"This is clearly further evidence, if it were needed, of the savings that can be made instead of hurting patients on the front line.

"It is only proper that Prof Drumm's successor is not being given the same army of highly-paid advisers."

- Shane Phelan Investigative Correspondent

WalterMitty · 28-11-2011 11:02pm

coolx wrote: »

To date, we haven't found any reliable genetic factors. The research to date however, proves that that chemical imbalances aren't the cause. This is not my opinion. It is scientific fact that the chemical imbalance theory of Depression is simply false.

The question simply boils down to this simple axiom: Given how little we know about the true causes of severe mental illness, why are we pumping billions into an unproven hypothesis?

We can recognise Depression by symptoms and distress. That is not enough proof to say that we understand the biological basis of Depression. We don't. There are no established biomarkers yet.

You're wrong, up to 50% of major depression is genetic according to twin studies.

You use the term "chemical imbalance" as if it is some scientific term. It is used mostly by anti psychiatry people in my experience. No psychiatrists, neurobiologists,neurologists, neuropsychologists etc would simplistically claim depression is a "chemical imbalance".

The brain is massively complex, and with all complex systems things can go wrong , too much or little of neurotransmitters/hormones, neuronal damage or atrophy,receptor sensitivities, neural connections etc. Thats just the hardware of the brain and of course there is then psychologcal and environmental factors.
Neurotransmitters are involved in mood just not in way the old "chemical imbalance" marketing story led the public and even doctors in past to beleive. Targeting these neurotransmitters and their receptors indirectly causes changes in the wider functioning of the brain leading to relief of symptoms.

Chuck Stone · 28-11-2011 11:18pm

You post is full of contradiction.

WalterMitty wrote: »

You use the term "chemical imbalance" as if it is some scientific term. It is used mostly by anti psychiatry people in my experience.

Why prescribe AD's which are thought to work on the chemicals in the brain then? Is that scientific or is it faith healing?

No psychiatrists, neurobiologists,neurologists, neuropsychologists etc would simplistically claim depression is a "chemical imbalance".

Yet psychiatrists and GP's routinely, I'm led to believe, prescribe psychoactive compounds? Why would they do this if they had no faith in the chemical imbalance theory?

Neurotransmitters are involved in mood just not in way the old "chemical imbalance" marketing story led the public and even doctors in past to beleive

So there is new research that has refuted or improved upon the chemical imbalance theory?
Source please.

Targeting these neurotransmitters and their receptors indirectly causes changes in the wider functioning of the brain leading to relief of symptoms.

Targeting them with what?

Warper · 28-11-2011 11:24pm

Amazing the amount of people that are unaware of depression and its effects? Talking to a good few people at work today and Gary Speed came up. Everyone was like, why did he do it, there must have something going on, how did he hide it if he was depressed. They thought he must have been in financial difficulty or something like that, no one even mentioned depression. They couldnt get their head around it?

philstar · 28-11-2011 11:28pm

fryup wrote: »

personally speaking...do i think gary speed suffered from depression....no

there's no way he could have played top flight football for the best part of 20 yrs if he did, there's no way he would have taken up an international high profile manager job if he did

look at his relaxed/happy demeanour on football focus just hours before he died

i honestly think there's more to this than depression..something or someone pushed him over the edge

i agree, we all know how draining both physically & mentally depression is...i find it hard believe a high energy pro-footballer like Gary Speed suffered from the illness..there most be more to this

K-9 · 28-11-2011 11:29pm

coolx wrote: »

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."

Interesting. I'll have a good read of that later.

Dudess wrote: »

My friend was diagnosed with depression/anxiety in August. He had no motivation to do anything, even wash a cup - and he's a neat freak. He wasn't taking care of his personal hygiene. He was awake all night and lying in bed all day - he's usually out like a light, sleeps like a log and gets up at a normal hour. He quit his job of six years - just walked out, despite how hard it is to get a job at the moment.
He was put on anti-depressants and Xanax. He felt worse initially. And then very slightly improved, but still felt sh1t for ages. The meds took two and a half months to kick in fully, but they did - and he is now back to his old self and thankfully got a job.

That is NOT the placebo effect - ffs! :mad::rolleyes:

Indeed. Many don't read the leaflets, you can feel worse initially.

WalterMitty · 28-11-2011 11:32pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You post is full of contradiction.

Why prescribe AD's which are thought to work on the chemicals in the brain then? Is that scientific or is it faith healing?

Yet psychiatrists and GP's routinely, I'm led to believe, prescribe psychoactive compounds? Why would they do this if they had no faith in the chemical imbalance theory?

So there is new research that has refuted or improved upon the chemical imbalance theory?
Source please.

Targeting them with what?

Doctors prescribe medications that target monamine systems as targeting these has shown to indirectly releive depression.
They target them with medications. An ssri increases serotonin in synapses but that alone doesnt releive depression quickly.
I dont know what you mean by "chemical imbalance " anyway . Everything in the brain is electrical and chemical.

Lady Chatterton · 28-11-2011 11:33pm

philstar wrote: »

i agree, we all know how draining both physically & mentally depression is...i find it hard believe a high energy pro-footballer like Gary Speed suffered from the illness..there most be more to this

You could argue that because of this that he may have had the strength to fight or conceal the condition for a prolonged period of time. Obviously, we are only speculating here.

Chuck Stone · 28-11-2011 11:48pm

WalterMitty wrote: »

Doctors prescribe medications that target monamine systems as targeting these has shown to indirectly releive depression.

This is another chemical imbalance theory! There is no evidence that a chemical imbalance causes depression. NONE! Also AD's have an almost identical efficacy when compared with placebo. There are scientific studies done on this.

They target them with medications. An ssri increases serotonin in synapses but that alone doesnt releive depression quickly.

This is yet another chemical imbalance theory!

I dont know what you mean by "chemical imbalance " anyway . Everything in the brain is electrical and chemical

From a peer reviewed Medical Journal.

Serotonin and Depression: A Disconnect between the Advertisements and the Scientific Literature

[Excerpt]

Contemporary neuroscience research has failed to confirm any serotonergic lesion in any mental disorder, and has in fact provided significant counterevidence to the explanation of a simple neurotransmitter deficiency. Modern neuroscience has instead shown that the brain is vastly complex and poorly understood [11].

While neuroscience is a rapidly advancing field, to propose that researchers can objectively identify a “chemical imbalance” at the molecular level is not compatible with the extant science. In fact, there is no scientifically established ideal “chemical balance” of serotonin, let alone an identifiable pathological imbalance. To equate the impressive recent achievements of neuroscience with support for the serotonin hypothesis is a mistake.

Source

K-9 · 28-11-2011 11:58pm

coolx wrote: »

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."

Just on that report;

Our findings have several limitations: they are restricted to antidepressants, to industry-sponsored trials registered with the FDA, and to issues of efficacy (as opposed to “real-world” effectiveness33). This study did not account for other factors that may distort the apparent risk–benefit ratio, such as selective publication of safety issues, as has been reported with rofecoxib (Vioxx, Merck)34 and with the use of selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors for depression in children.3 Because we excluded articles covering multiple studies, we probably counted some studies as unpublished that were — technically — published. The practice of bundling negative and positive studies in a single article has been found to be associated with duplicate or multiple publication,35 which may also influence the apparent risk–benefit ratio.
There can be many reasons why the results of a study are not published, and we do not know the reasons for nonpublication. Thus, we cannot determine whether the bias observed resulted from a failure to submit manuscripts on the part of authors and sponsors, decisions by journal editors and reviewers not to publish submitted manuscripts, or both.
We wish to clarify that nonsignificance in a single trial does not necessarily indicate lack of efficacy. Each drug, when subjected to meta-analysis, was shown to be superior to placebo. On the other hand, the true magnitude of each drug's superiority to placebo was less than a diligent literature review would indicate.
We do not mean to imply that the primary methods agreed on between sponsors and the FDA are necessarily preferable to alternative methods. Nevertheless, when multiple analyses are conducted, the principle of prespecification controls the rate of false positive findings (type I error), and it prevents HARKing,36 or hypothesizing after the results are known.
It might be argued that some trials did not merit publication because of methodologic flaws, including problems beyond the control of the investigator. However, since the protocols were written according to international guidelines for efficacy studies37 and were carried out by companies with ample financial and human resources, to be fair to the people who put themselves at risk to participate, a cogent public reason should be given for failure to publish.

I don't know if there is enough there to assume they don't work or that they definitely are biased.The stats don't look great but there could be good reasons for the non publication, which they admit.

WalterMitty · 29-11-2011 12:20am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is another chemical imbalance theory! There is no evidence that a chemical imbalance causes depression. NONE! Also AD's have an almost identical efficacy when compared with placebo. There are scientific studies done on this.

This is yet another chemical imbalance theory!

From a peer reviewed Medical Journal.

As you said earlier, this isnt place for such a debate but needless to say i dont accept your contention that antidepressants are equal to placebo in treatment of depression and the studies that claim that have been severely criticised for selective use of studies. Such studies also ignore the relapse prevention success of these medications.

There are a lot of so called antidepressants that have dubious antidepressant qualities and should probably never been approved but there are many that do work likes the MAOI medications.
We are getting close to a more fuller understanding of mental illness with advances in genetic studies,brain imaging ,biotechnology,psychopharmacology etc.

Im happy enough to accept the scientific consesus that biological and genetic factors contribute very significantly to depression and other mental health issues in most people .

Chuck Stone · 29-11-2011 12:30am

WalterMitty wrote: »

As you said earlier, this isnt place for such a debate

Yes. I think it's inappropriate in a support thread so I apologise to the users of this thread.

but needless to say i dont accept your contention that antidepressants are equal to placebo in treatment of depression and the studies that claim that have been severely criticised for selective use of studies. Such studies also ignore the relapse prevention success of these medications.

It's not my contention. There have been meta-analysis' done on their efficacy (or lack thereof).

We are getting close to a more fuller understanding of mental illness with advances in genetic studies,brain imaging,biotechnology,psychopharmacology etc.

I agree and I wish them well because depression is hurting far too many people and their families. The sooner we develop a fuller understanding the better.

Im happy enough to accept the scientific consesus that biological and genetic factors contribute very significantly to depression and other mental health issues in most people

I'm extremely skeptical of the biological aspect as you can tell by my posts, the genetic aspect I know little about, except it is thought to be a risk factor, so will avoid making a fool of myself there.

Anyway thanks for the debate.

Peace.

K-9 · 29-11-2011 12:31am

Oh that study seems to agree it is more than a placebo. I'm not scientifically minded to agree or disagree!;)

WalterMitty · 29-11-2011 12:56am

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/opinion/sunday/10antidepressants.html?pagewanted=all

coolx · 29-11-2011 1:00am

WalterMitty wrote: »

Im happy enough to accept the scientific consesus that biological and genetic factors contribute very significantly to depression and other mental health issues in most people .

Than why do they claim they can isolate and fix the problem by simply correcting the serotonin balance? Like it or not, this theory is the foundation for most(if not all) Psychiatric drug based research.

Why don't we measure each depressed person for a serotonic imbalance when they present? Would it be politically correct to prescribe opiates instead? The problem lies with the fact they claim to know how exactly how Depression can be cured through medication.

There is a big difference between saying Depression is relieved by taking drugs and actually knowing the mechanisms behind the chemical processes in the brain that cause Depression.

Compare the serotonic hypothesis to a brain disease like Dementia. Why can't you take a biopsy of the nervous system/brain following
the death of a depressed person and isolate depression, or even trace the Neuropahological or biochemical processes like in the case of Dementia?

Compare from a reputable medical source: "Depression: biochemical and neuropathological factors" and "Dementia: biochemical and neuropathological factors"

There is a world of difference between the two. Doctors don't know the actual genetic or chemical mechanisms that lead to Depression. You can't reduce depressive symptoms to say tau protein foldings like in the case of dementia. Any pathologist will tell you this.

This isn't the place for this discussion however.........

coolx · 29-11-2011 1:12am

WalterMitty wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/opinion/sunday/10antidepressants.html?pagewanted=all

Here is Whitaker's response to that article

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mad-in-america/201107/the-new-york-times-defense-antidepressants-0?page=2

The points raised mirror those raised in he NEJM article - the results are clinically insignificant. This is expected, since Psychiatrists are willing to admit they don't really even know how these drugs work:P

saintNsinnerr · 29-11-2011 1:45am

I had a REAL BAD one... related to BDD. it was so extreme I cudnt leave my room... I just wanted to end my life... but then I told my dad abt it.. he brought me to a psychiatric and started prozac.. but that was 30% of battle won.. I started doing Yoga... another astonishing 50% gone.. even ater the medication... I still practice it.. feel so much in harmony with my body temple and mind , nature and everything else..I feel like im a rock from within.. nothing can EVER take away that peace from me

I willl try to post some videos of some of the yoga exercises....
p.s. - its not that physical yoga , its body and mind yoga.. really powerful... everyone shud try it.
Peace.

K-9 · 29-11-2011 1:52am

coolx wrote: »

Here is Whitaker's response to that article

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mad-in-america/201107/the-new-york-times-defense-antidepressants-0?page=2

The points raised mirror those raised in he NEJM article - the results are clinically insignificant. This is expected, since Psychiatrists are willing to admit they don't really even know how these drugs work:P

The study you quoted accepts, with caveats, that there is more than a placebo going on. Don't selectively quote reports when that is a gripe you have please.

WalterMitty · 29-11-2011 1:53am

coolx wrote: »

Than why do they claim they can isolate and fix the problem by simply correcting the serotonin balance? Like it or not, this theory is the foundation for most(if not all) Psychiatric drug based research.

Why don't we measure each depressed person for a serotonic imbalance when they present? Would it be politically correct to prescribe opiates instead? The problem lies with the fact they claim to know how exactly how Depression can be cured through medication.

There is a big difference between saying Depression is relieved by taking drugs and actually knowing the mechanisms behind the chemical processes in the brain that cause Depression.

Compare the serotonic hypothesis to a brain disease like Dementia. Why can't you take a biopsy of the nervous system/brain following
the death of a depressed person and isolate depression, or even trace the Neuropahological or biochemical processes like in the case of Dementia?

Compare from a reputable medical source: "Depression: biochemical and neuropathological factors" and "Dementia: biochemical and neuropathological factors"

There is a world of difference between the two. Doctors don't know the actual genetic or chemical mechanisms that lead to Depression. You can't reduce depressive symptoms to say tau protein foldings like in the case of dementia. Any pathologist will tell you this.

This isn't the place for this discussion however.........

Who says they can isolate and fix problem? Most psychiatrists would admit ,in private at least, to only treating symptoms and not curing underlying causes be they genetic/biological ,environmental or both.
Knowing someones serotonin levels are meaningless as theres no normal amount. The serotonin based treatments just lash in a drug that increases levels of serotonin which in turn affects serotonin receptors/neurons which in turn affects myriad other things in brain. Its a rather crude way
of dealing with a problem. If crudely lashing serotonin doesnt work they try other neurotransmitters with idea of causing a positive cascade of affects in brain
Knowledge and technology hasnt advanced enough to be able to analyse living brains for pathology at a cellular level or smaller. Brain scan for chronically depressed people do show shrinkage in certain areas and brain imaging does show abnormal functioning of brain circuits in depressed people but its still only early stages. Brains of suicide victims also show differences at a cellular level.
http://www.myhealthnewsdaily.com/1546-brain-cells-astrocytes-depression-suicide-.html
Depressed brains less of certain peptides.
http://www.myhealthnewsdaily.com/931-genes-impact-stress-response-depression-risk.html
And theres lots more emerging evidence like that and a lot more work needs to be done, but i think in a decade or two there will be much better tests and treatments that target the exact underlying causes in cases where it is a primarily biologically based problem.

coolx · 29-11-2011 2:04am

K-9 wrote: »

The study you quoted accepts, with caveats, that there is more than a placebo going on. Don't selectively quote reports when that is a gripe you have please.

Yes, but even given limitations, the results are statistically insignificant. That is the primary conclusion to draw from the study, despite the limitations cited. We're not talking physics here, there are so many variables involved you will never get a perfectly true representation like they have said. The factors cited aren't the only ones that were left out.

However, the results as flawed as they may be, do indicate a lack of efficacy. I read through that summary and I cannot find any factors that would skew the data beyond a reasonable limit. Hiding studies sure does though:P

coolx · 29-11-2011 2:09am

WalterMitty wrote: »

Who says they can isolate and fix problem? Most psychiatrists would admit ,in private at least, to only treating symptoms and not curing underlying causes be they genetic/biological ,environmental or both.

You have answered my main points with this paragraph. If they don't have a clear pathological understanding of depression, why do we need medication? With that level of scientific understanding, we may as well just give these poor souls some weed or sedatives and send them on their way.

New idea - Compare these drugs agaisnt the dope(inclusive of placebo effect). Now that would be an interesting one to consider.

Chuck Stone · 29-11-2011 2:10am

K-9 wrote: »

The study you quoted accepts, with caveats, that there is more than a placebo going on. Don't selectively quote reports when that is a gripe you have please.

Yes because the drug is psychoactive it does alter brain chemistry unlike the placebo - however the effect may be simply substituting the feeling of depression for the feeling the drug produces. You might get the same results from an opiate or anphetamine or vigorous exercise.

We should really create a containment thread for this discussion.

coolx · 29-11-2011 2:18am

I support the merging of all the previous scientific content into a new thread:)

This stuff is pretty intereting to debate. Getting kicks off the mentally ill is not a pastime of mine. The scientific theories that people believe without question "because the doctor said so" however are not off my radar. Is rational skepticism really such an evil thing?

Insect Overlord · 29-11-2011 2:24am

coolx wrote: »

Is rational skepticism really such an evil thing?

It is when it takes the focus off the the discussion at hand, every single time the topic is brought up...

KeithAFC · 29-11-2011 2:49am

coolx wrote: »

I support the merging of all the previous scientific content into a new thread:)

This stuff is pretty intereting to debate. Getting kicks off the mentally ill is not a pastime of mine. The scientific theories that people believe without question "because the doctor said so" however are not off my radar. Is rational skepticism really such an evil thing?

The truth is it is an illness. No one just decides to hang themselves or throw themselves in front of a train or a bus. It is obviously an illness.

I think that is all that matters and anyone who is struggling should open up about it and talk to some one.

K-9 · 29-11-2011 2:54am

coolx wrote: »

I support the merging of all the previous scientific content into a new thread:)

This stuff is pretty intereting to debate. Getting kicks off the mentally ill is not a pastime of mine. The scientific theories that people believe without question "because the doctor said so" however are not off my radar. Is rational skepticism ourreally such an evil thing?

Not the biggest fan of doctors but its subjective. Some will persrcibe too easily, others see it as last resort.

The public counseling services are a disgrace. Money talks in health system, especially mental health. Private insurance wont cover it AFAIK.

K-9 · 29-11-2011 2:58am

coolx wrote: »

Yes, but even given limitations, the results are statistically insignificant. That is the primary conclusion to draw from the study, despite the limitations cited. We're not talking physics here, there are so many variables involved you will never get a perfectly true representation like they have said. The factors cited aren't the only ones that were left out.

However, the rebecausesults as flawed as they may be, do indicate a lack of efficacy. I read through that summary and I cannot find any factors that would skew the data beyond a reasonable limit. Hiding studies sure does though:P

Do you know why the results were hidden. Not what that reports thinks because it is just guessing?

I Like sceptism of everything on the internet!:D

starviewadams · 29-11-2011 3:02am

By public counselling services do you mean the HSE psychologists/OT's etc?

I've always found them to be excellent,once you finally manage to see them that is,was waiting 3 months to see a psychologist when the HSE psychiatrist referred me to one,he was excellent and helped me immensely.

But unfortunately he returned home to Oz at the start of the month and the HSE aren't replacing him.He gave me a few recommendations for private therapists before he left but I can't afford any of them.

Also am struggling to afford my meds these days too,the HSE stopped paying for them on November 1st and it's a struggle to stitch together the €90 or so a month they cost now.

K-9 · 29-11-2011 3:04am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes because the drug is psychoactive it does alter brain chemistry unlike the placebo - however the effect may be simply substituting the feeling of depression for the feeling the drug produces. You might get the same results from an opiate or anphetamine or vigorous exercise.

We should really create a containment thread for this discussion.

Yes but even the manufacturers advise there is a good chance the drug will have no or even ill effects initially, seems odd for a placebo.

coolx · 29-11-2011 3:14am

KeithAFC wrote: »

The truth is it is an illness. No one just decides to hang themselves or throw themselves in front of a train or a bus. It is obviously an illness.

I think that is all that matters and anyone who is struggling should open up about it and talk to some one.

I agree. I never said it was not. Very little is known about the true causes of Depression. No wonder stigma is so rampant. Doctors barely understand mental illness - how do you expect the masses to fare?

Two people I knew commited suicide. I still to this day do not understand why they did it. These illnesses really are the final frontier when it comes to medical research.

The day where depression is fully understood will come. Society could be decades away from isolating a gene responsible for depression though:(

coolx · 29-11-2011 3:22am

K-9 wrote: »

Do you know why the results were hidden. Not what that reports thinks because it is just guessing?

I Like sceptism of everything on the internet!:D

I should mention I was explicitly referring to the fact that most of the negative drug trials were suppressed. I am not oblivious to the fact that unaccounted factors may have questioned the integrity of the results published.

The figures I cited where lets just say....not great when you read over them.

K-9 · 29-11-2011 3:35am

coolx wrote: »

I should mention I was explicitly referring to the fact that most of the negative drug trials were suppressed. I am not oblivious to the fact that unaccounted factors may have questioned the integrity of the results published.

The figures I cited where lets just say....not great when you read over them.

I agreed with you, it's whythe stats are shocking. Me and you know the stats don't look good, did you delve into why so many were rejected?

Surely you didn't take the study at its word? You questioned it like they questioned studies?

TeddyTedson · 29-11-2011 4:09am

Does anxiety fall under depression or is that something else?

HalloweenJack · 29-11-2011 8:02am

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Does anxiety fall under depression or is that something else?

Anxiety can cause depression and vice versa. Also, a lot of people who have one, have the other.

Android 666 · 29-11-2011 11:46am

K-9 wrote: »

Private insurance wont cover it AFAIK.

You're wrong. If it's in your plan your stay will be covered in one of the semi-private hospital up to a maximum amount of days (i.e. 100 days).

Android 666 · 29-11-2011 1:21pm

Originally Posted by WalterMitty
Who says they can isolate and fix problem? Most psychiatrists would admit ,in private at least, to only treating symptoms and not curing underlying causes be they genetic/biological ,environmental or both.

coolx wrote: »

You have answered my main points with this paragraph. If they don't have a clear pathological understanding of depression, why do we need medication? With that level of scientific understanding, we may as well just give these poor souls some weed or sedatives and send them on their way.

But people suffering with the likes of crohn's will be prescribed medication to treat the symptoms of their disease without curing the disease itself. This is done to alleviate the person's suffering and help them to lead a normal life. Do we suggest to them that they stop taking their medication because it's only masking the symptoms and not really curing them? No because that logic can lead them to having relapses in their illness that could have devastating consequences. Instead we encourage them to manage their condition with medication.

Just because we don't have a definitive answer or cure doesn't mean we should forego the tools we have at our disposal. Medicine is evolving all the time and more will be understood about depression and the workings of the brain but for now we need to work with what we got. If you have depression, tell your family, get some support. Contact your GP and get a referral for counseling and a psychiatrist. It is an illness and if your sick, get the help you need to alleviate the symptoms you have to try and get your life back on track. But if you're suffering badly now, talk to someone close and start taking the steps you need. It's a daunting prospect but it will be worth it,

saa · 29-11-2011 2:30pm

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Does anxiety fall under depression or is that something else?

I'm pretty sure its something else, its always distinguished as two very different things yet they're associated with each other but anxiety is not a form of depression going by the definition of depression.
I'd see it as anxiety the far side of the worry spectrum and depression the far side of the sadness spectrum. Yeah I know its more complicated than that, you can have one without the other or both or different time periods of more anxiety or more depression.

coolx · 29-11-2011 2:44pm

Android 666 wrote: »

But people suffering with the likes of crohn's will be prescribed medication to treat the symptoms of their disease without curing the disease itself. This is done to alleviate the person's suffering and help them to lead a normal life. Do we suggest to them that they stop taking their medication because it's only masking the symptoms and not really curing them? No because that logic can lead them to having relapses in their illness that could have devastating consequences. Instead we encourage them to manage their condition with medication.

Just because we don't have a definitive answer or cure doesn't mean we should forego the tools we have at our disposal. Medicine is evolving all the time and more will be understood about depression and the workings of the brain but for now we need to work with what we got. If you have depression, tell your family, get some support. Contact your GP and get a referral for counseling and a psychiatrist. It is an illness and if your sick, get the help you need to alleviate the symptoms you have to try and get your life back on track. But if you're suffering badly now, talk to someone close and start taking the steps you need. It's a daunting prospect but it will be worth it,

Your points are quite valid. I am not suggesting people to stop going to a counsellor or to stop taking their medication. I would argue people only use drugs as a last resort so to speak.

Encouraging people to seek help and talk things over at first should be tried before the medication route. Not to mention the courageous work carried out by Pieta House and The Samaritans. These people don't get enough credit. Depression is by and large one of the most complex illnesses that the medical community has yet to fully understand at the biological and chemical level.

I think it's fair to say that these medications are the best we have got given the poor understanding of depression. Those articles cited did not dismiss Depression as a devestating illness, merely that some of the common theories used to sell drugs by the pharma companies are intentionally misleading. If they lied about tabacco, why not other products?

Exercise some caution. That is the end of this. Going way off topic now.

K-9 · 29-11-2011 3:35pm

Android 666 wrote: »

You're wrong. If it's in your plan your stay will be covered in one of the semi-private hospital up to a maximum amount of days (i.e. 100 days).

Was on about counseling, could be wrong though.

TeddyTedson · 29-11-2011 3:43pm

saa wrote: »

I'm pretty sure its something else, its always distinguished as two very different things yet they're associated with each other but anxiety is not a form of depression going by the definition of depression.
I'd see it as anxiety the far side of the worry spectrum and depression the far side of the sadness spectrum. Yeah I know its more complicated than that, you can have one without the other or both or different time periods of more anxiety or more depression.

I imagine major anxiety could push some one over the edge, possibly to the point of suicide, although the person may not be depressed. Is that a fair statement?

steddyeddy · 29-11-2011 11:56pm

I would say anxiety is definatly asociated with depression.

ILikeBananas · 30-11-2011 9:01pm

Came across this a few weeks ago. It's a very clever way of portraying a common problem that depression sufferers run into with friends and family.

paddythere · 01-12-2011 6:51am

im pretty sure i have it. i feel unbelievably sad some days for no reason and wont leave the house or talk to anyone. i am not overweight and am only 22 but i dont want my family to know about and im sure that they do not suspect it despite how it sounds

guitarzero · 01-12-2011 7:46am

http://www.foodforthebrain.org/content.asp?id_Content=1

A website about nutrition and depression I just came across.

One thing I find about depression is effort always seems like so much work. To stick to something whether it be diet, exercise or just looking for a job and doing shopping can be pretty tough at times.

I think if theres one thing that could be worth doing is stepping up on the diet aspect. I've started taking cod liver oil, Vit B and multi-vitamins and cutting back on other foods and hoping to stick at it.

I'm only coming around to the idea that there are perhaps a lot more folks who suffer of depression than I thought. It can seem like everyone else is having a good time or content with what they have, often peoples vitality and energy can contrast my low key mood which is something I've become quite sensitive to.

I havent really browsed through the thread but perhaps if folks who suffer of depression write what works for them, give suggestions, etc it would be great as judging by the pole, a lot of folks are simply enduring it without doing anything about it.

paddythere · 01-12-2011 8:05am

i eat really well pal i do mma and take the nutrition and diet very seriously. i take multivitamins and cod liver oil.thanks though brother

LeeHoffmann · 01-12-2011 10:34am

saa · 01-12-2011 11:07am

TeddyTedson wrote: »

I imagine major anxiety could push some one over the edge, possibly to the point of suicide, although the person may not be depressed. Is that a fair statement?

I wasn't trying to belittle anxiety they do feel very similar and I never incinuated sadness spectrum has worse effects than the worry anything that is out of balance or control in a persons life can put them in the river of suicide.
Anxiety is often an issue for someone with suicidal thoughts but also if someone appears to be exceedingly happy even manic they can be at the point of suicide. Different (related or not depending on individual everyons different) but just as serious.

WesternNight · 01-12-2011 4:05pm

guitarzero wrote: »

http://www.foodforthebrain.org/content.asp?id_Content=1

A website about nutrition and depression I just came across.

One thing I find about depression is effort always seems like so much work. To stick to something whether it be diet, exercise or just looking for a job and doing shopping can be pretty tough at times.

I think if theres one thing that could be worth doing is stepping up on the diet aspect. I've started taking cod liver oil, Vit B and multi-vitamins and cutting back on other foods and hoping to stick at it.

A healthy diet is very important for overall health, but I'm not aware of any conclusive evidence supporting the notion that depression is treatable/curable with a particular diet.

Just to clarify for anyone who may misinterpret that website.

Depression

Comments