patrick.net

Spending lifetime on SSRIs is really no solution. Honestly, the best way to address some of the issues that SSRIs try to remedy is to have a monthly "binge drinking" session - but it has to be on upper tier hard liquor and it has to be in solitude. It will reboot your "system" like nothing else can. There's a reason why hard liquor is referred to as "spirits" because it really is a conduit to your second soul.

edvard2 says

So far, the only "dangerous" issue that has come up with my particular drug is if you were to have serious heart issues and also take a large dosage of the medication. Its been around for over 40 years so far and not even remotely close to being shown as either toxic or dangerous.

If that's the case, then it isn't an SSRI, it's probably a tricyclic, and those are less harmful and more likely beneficial than the SSRIs. The issue is, when the patents on tricyclics expired, the manufacturers began advertising SSRIs on TV, and the SSRIs are much worse, but much more lucrative. If you found a doctor who recommended a tricyclic instead of an SSRI, score one point for that doctor, at least (s)he isn't prescribing whatever the drug companies are promoting this week.

BTW, since you mentioned a family history, beware any doctor who prescribes SSRIs to a female who is or may become pregnant. Some SSRIs are teratogens, and formerly "not habit forming" paroxetine ("As Seen on TV!") in particular is notorious for causing neonatal withdrawal syndrome including convulsions.

edvard2 says

curious2 says

In the case of SSRIs, the clearly proven effects are toxic.

Total nonsense. Ridiculous because if you look on the back of a bottle of aspirin, if you abuse it you can also suffer some serious health issues.

The benefits of aspirin, and the risks, are both well documented. Aspirin confers clearly observable benefits in more than 90% of users; the same cannot be said of SSRIs. Aspirin can also kill you, which can also be said of SSRIs. That's the difference. All drugs have risks, but some (e.g. aspirin) have benefits that justify the risks. Others don't.

Veterans are at particular risk of being prescribed whatever is most profitable. PhRMA has got its hooks deep into the VA. These days, that would mean SSRIs, not tricyclics.

edvard2 says

BTW,

I just read that study. The study had nothing to do with SSRI's. The Study was for covering the use of MDMA's, which is a totally different type of drug.

Yes. RS said this:

Robert Sproul says

These poor suckers need psychedelics not toxic SSRIs.

Psilocybin, DMT, and MDMA regimens can effectively treat PTSD.

And then Jazz Music said:

jazz music says

Robert Sproul says

These poor suckers need psychedelics

So what's your message here? That death is too good for them?

To which I responded:

humanity says

I've read the studies RS is referring to. Look it up.

An example, one of many: http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/mdma_ptsd_u.s._study_veterans_of_war/

I'm sure SSRIs sometimes work well, but it does seem that some less conventional therapies have been successful in treating PTSD. There has been a lot written about this.

There's a whole lot of lack of knowledge in regards to these medications in this thread. For the first time maybe ever I actually agree with Edvard.

Fwiw, I also agree that a suitable treatment for PTSD has not yet been discovered.

curious2 says

If that's the case, then it isn't an SSRI, it's probably a tricyclic, and those are less harmful and more likely beneficial than the SSRIs.

Uh... no its not. Its an SSRi, and if you want to read more about this, it might help enlighten your knowledge so that the next time you decide to generically spout off "facts" that aren't based in reality, maybe you'll have a valid point. According to Wikipedia, and also according to the data sheets that come with my medication, Celexa and others in its class is an SSRi.

"Citalopram (/sɪˈtælɵpræm/ or /saɪˈtælɵpræm/; brand names: Celexa, Cipramil) is an antidepressant drug of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) class"

curious2 says

The benefits of aspirin, and the risks, are both well documented. Aspirin confers clearly observable benefits in more than 90% of users; the same cannot be said of SSRIs. Aspirin can also kill you, which can also be said of SSRIs. That's the difference. All drugs have risks, but some (e.g. aspirin) have benefits that justify the risks. Others don't.

Celexa ( Citalopram ) as I previously mentioned before has been around for decades and yes- it has proven to have a level of success- just like aspirin. The remainder of your comment is basically reiterating what I just said above.

edvard2 says

( Citalopram )

was invented in 1989, and received FDA clearance (reluctantly) in 1998. It has not been around 40 years as you claimed. It is less bad than paroxetine, because it has a longer serum half-life and is therefore less likely to cause withdrawal syndrome. That doesn't make it good, only less bad.

Either the drug you are taking is more recent than you claimed, or it is a different drug from what you claimed. You can check the label and clarify if you want. It's your life, or at least it used to be until Obamneycare.

Beware of Wikipedia though, it is heavily edited by PhRMA employees and prescribers, and compulsive addicts. Quoting Wikipedia is midway between quoting a TV advertisement and quoting a manufacturer-sponsored study: all three illustrate that misleading information ("We know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction") can be terribly dangerous. By its own admission, Wikipedia is not a source; if you insist on reading it, at least balance it with some actual sources that are subject to fact-checking:

Newsweek: "Why Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong"

Vanity Fair: "Deadly Medicine"

curious2 says

was invented in 1989, and received FDA clearance (reluctantly) in 1998. It has not been around 40 years as you claimed. It is less bad than paroxetine, because it has a longer serum half-life and is therefore less likely to cause withdrawal syndrome. That doesn't make it good, only less bad.

Either the drug you are taking is more recent than you claimed, or it is a different drug from what you claimed. You can check the label and clarify if you want. It's your life, or at least it used to be until Obamneycare.

Ok... so its been around for 25 years. So you should feel proud of yourself for correcting me on the one point of my post that made no difference otherwise to the overall lack of fact you previously presented. The rest of your response to me looks like a lot of stumbling around trying to prove this strange theory of yours in regards to "SSRI's", which BTW, covers a large class of drugs and their collective dangers, of which in almost all cases are not any different from any other drug on the market. as

And nice little hook, throwin' in some of classic right-winger crap at the end. Not sure how some of you always manage to pin politics to everything. My response had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with medical facts. So if you want to throw that in there at the end- fine. Still doesn't make your previous statements anymore true in the end.

edvard2 says

that made no difference

To the contrary, it makes a huge difference, because older drugs are off patent and PhRMA doesn't pay doctors to prescribe them. As the old practitioners' adage says, "Always prescribe a drug in its first two years on the market, while it still works." The minute it goes off patent, a "new and improved" drug will be contrasted with the "old and lousy" drug that was previously hailed as a (financial) miracle. Sometimes, you can even look up how much your doctor was paid to prescribe PhRMA's latest and greatest moneymaker, although the reported numbers are only the tip of the iceberg; there is also the MCME treadmill etc.

edvard2 says

pin politics to everything.

Obamneycare was specifically brought to you by PhRMA in a secret deal that the White House initially denied but then admitted after Billy Tauzin bragged publicly about it. Pointing out that widely reported fact isn't a partisan effort to pin something where it doesn't belong, but your partisan reaction shows your superficiality. If you or the people you rely on watch the national commercial news on TV, count the ads to see who's paying the piper and calling the tune, then consider how that has shaped your worldview.

curious2 says

To the contrary, it makes a huge difference, because older drugs are off patent and PhRMA doesn't pay doctors to prescribe them.

Stay on subject. I don't care about whatever dealings go on between pharma companies and doctors. My responses were directed at your previous comments regarding the effectiveness and dangers of SSRI's, none of which are true, and in the case of the study you used as an example, the study wasn't even about the same family or group of medications. The debate ended a long time ago.curious2 says

Obamneycare was specifically brought to you by PhRMA in a secret deal that the White House initially denied but then admitted after Billy Tauzin bragged publicly about it. Pointing out that widely reported fact isn't a partisan effort to pin something where it doesn't belong, but your partisan reaction shows your superficiality.

The fact that you're using a negative term for the ACA tells me it would be worthless to debate you about anything related to ACA... IF THIS WAS ACTUALLY THE DEBATE. Like I said before- my comments had nothing to do- zilch- nada- zero to do with ACA and everything to do with drugs that have been around a lot longer than the ACA or even the Obama administration.

curious2 says

The plural of anecdote is not data.

You just insulted the entire anti-BenghaziCare contingent on this forum.

(14 horror stories, plus projections of higher costs from right-wing think tanks, does equal data!)

Iosef V HydroCabron says

(14 horror stories, plus projections of higher costs from right-wing think tanks, does equal data!

Even the federal government's own projections showed Obamneycare would increase spending even above prior law. That's why the lobbyists wrote it: to maximize revenue. In the country that was already spending more than any other in the history of the world, they found a way to increase spending even further. And by all accounts spending has indeed increased, even above what we were spending before. Literally nobody disputes that, the Obamanauts only claim (falsely) that the cost increase curve has been bent downward, contrary to federal projections showing it has been bent upward. If you insist on seeing all opposition to that legislation as a vast right-wing conspiracy, then get together with bgamall and post about wonky arms in Sandy Hook.

edvard2 says

The fact that you're using a negative term for the ACA tells me it would be worthless to debate you about anything related to ACA.

The only part of the official title that was actually true was the last A. It was an Act. (Actual partisans insisted on calling it a bill, even after it became an Act. You call me a partisan, because that's the binary prism through which you see the world, you can't really consider issues on a case-by-case basis, and you certainly don't consider that in this case your team is wrong.) All else in the title was patently false. The fact that you would parrot a clearly false title, because you don't get past the headline, says it would be worthless to debate you.

... and once again this post has fallen off the deep end into a bunch of rambling nonsense.

curious2 says

The only part of the official title that was actually true was the last A. It was an Act. All else in the title was patently false. The fact that you would parrot a clearly false title, because you don't get past the headline, says it would be worthless to debate you.

I find it befuddling that you seem to not understand what I just said. You're the one getting all giddy ramping up the anti-obamacare crap. If I wanted to talk about Obamacare, then I would have taken part in an actual ACA-related post, which this one was not. Do you understand the concept of simple debate? A subject is started and people who have something to contribute to it simply state their opinions about that particular subject. I'm not going to repeat myself. I already stated my points against the ones you made before.

So fuck that. Lets talk about Robocop instead.

edvard2 says

... and once again this post has fallen off the deep end into a bunch of rambling nonsense.

Remain calm,,,deep breaths. Now crush up a pill and insuffocate it.

Now you are cured!

God bless heritagefoundationcare!

I just love how McDonald's is TOLERATING this political trespassing.

While you are free to protest out on Public property, provided you have the proper permits, you are not allowed to go inside and disrupt businesses.

errc says

Remain calm,,,deep breaths. Now crush up a pill and insuffocate it.

Now you are cured!

God bless heritagefoundationcare!

Clearly our education system is failing us when above statements show such voids in intelligence.

Those people only have a job because Ben Bernanke printed up billions and gave it to McDonald's just minutes before Obama did one of his dictator press banned political monologues, where he announced out of the blue that McDonald's would be hiring 80,000 people in a time, when McDonald's was being killed by the "Say no to food" campaign that Michelle Obama was promoting across the country.

We all suck so what's the point.
The Liberals tried to convince that everyone was a winner, but losers realized that if they are a winner too for not even trying, then we all must suck. I mean if there is no benchmark to go by.

I refuse to work with the losers they suck, they know it, I know it, the top execs who needs action knows it. Their stupidity allows me to work at home in a bathrobe nursing a pot of coffee.

curious2 says

Even the federal government's own projections showed Obamneycare would increase spending even above prior law.

Congressional Budget Office says

Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

deficits

reflect the gap between taxes and spending. Obamneycare raised both taxes and spending. Also, most [updated - see below] of the federally mandated spending is unfunded, i.e. off budget, and not counted in the deficits. And, the accounting gimmick about double-counting the same $ as deficit reduction and Medicare extension has been acknowledged even by HHS, i.e. you can't spend the same money twice, despite the appearance of that result in the deficit and Medicare projections; the legislation was drafted to manipulate CBO scoring into producing a result that even HHS acknowledged was not possible. The fact remains that even the federal projections show the legislation increases spending even above prior law. That was the point of enacting it.

If you want to look at houses that are unoccupied (ex: foreclosure, corporate sale, etc) that's where you need a real estate agent.

curious2 says

Iosef V HydroCabron says

deficits

reflect the gap between taxes and spending. Obamneycare raised both taxes and spending. Also, most of the federally mandated spending is unfunded, i.e. off budget, and not counted in the deficits. The fact remains that even the federal projections show the legislation increases spending even above prior law. That was the point of enacting it.

I missed the meaning of your remark, because the objection seems so minor to me.

Sure, government spending can be bad, but we're talking of spending on fixing busted human beings that is going to happen one way or another, whether through private or public methods.

If the public way is less efficient - this has been proven manifestly untrue in several foreign health-care systems - then that's bad. (I have an idea that ACA will be less efficient, FWIW, because the ACA is to some degree a welfare system for health insurance companies, but that question has yet to be settled.)

But why object, per se, to government handling dollars that will be spent anyway? The issue is whether the total efficiency of the system will get worse or better.

So, yes, "even the federal government's own projections showed Obamacare would increase spending" is not something that anyone outside a coma would deny. Why use that statement to argue against the law?

It's like saying that "Even the Pentagon admits its budget will be spent on armaments and troop training."

If you can reduce the cost of selling from 6% to 4%, that is still 2% in your pocket for some extra work.

Research who sells homes in your area using Redfin which shows you the listing agent and the buying agent.

Open houses: the one that matters is the one for brokers, have a buffett with drinks and appear open to change. You want to identify agents who have buyers for your area.

Offer 3.5 % to 4% to the selling agent. If your area has 5% rather than 6% because of high prices, 3% should be enough. 3% is what agents get to show you a new home development, sometimes less.

Lawyers depend on your area. In many cases not needed in California, but select a good title company you can work with.

Know the local splits on closing costs. It varries with location. For example, in Sacramento the seller pays almost all while elsewhere there is a split.

See if you can find someone who has done it to find out how they did.

You are going to do a lot of research. It will take much of your time. But a lot of the time spent, you end up doing even with an agent.

curious2 says

most of the federally mandated spending is unfunded, i.e. off budget, and not counted in the deficits

this is wrong.

but what is making the deficits smaller than they should be is the ongoing QE.

Green is the actual YOY deficit with QE factored in/out

Purple is YOY Fed bond holding increase (aka QE)

Blue is total YOY deficit -- including trust fund growth, largely interest (printed bonds) at this point.

Red is YOY debt held by the public, (and the Fed is part of the 'public' here).

Since the Fed pays the interest it gets back to the Treasury, it's OK to ignore their holdings for now.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

spending on fixing busted human beings

No, you've missed the larger point, we're talking about maximizing power (including revenue) for the patronage networks that wrote the legislation, which everyone else calls spending. Any effect on health is incidental, and often negative. If they can break you or otherwise make you worse off and then make more money treating the problem they created or worsened, then that's "creating jobs" (and revenue) from their POV. That is the debate on this thread, i.e. the OP presents one party as evil because it doesn't want to spend more on stuff that is often harmful, and implies the other party is wonderful because they always want to spend more on stuff that is often harmful. It's a bit sad how when they put "health" in the title, the partisans run with that like cheerleaders, Rah-Rah spell H-E-L-L (oops), damn the numbers full speed ahead. If they want to play their partisan games I wish they would stick to issues that people's lives don't depend on, e.g. bridges to nowhere.

Bellingham Bill says

curious2 says

most of the federally mandated spending is unfunded, i.e. off budget, and not counted in the deficits

this is wrong.

Actually you have a point there, "most" depends on whether Medicare is included in the general budget. So, if we count Medicare in the budget, as we should, then I should replace "most" with "much." The employer and individual mandates are obviously off budget. If I may make an observation, this is a basic difference between thinking persons and partisan drones. When someone points out an actual error, I acknowledge and correct it. The partisans just keep parroting their party lines, without learning anything.

CaptainShuddup says

The Liberals tried to convince that everyone was a winner

Dude.

I'm a total liberal, and I think you are not a winner. You deserve to lose because of your intellectual and character deficits. You do not deserve to have your self-esteem boosted, nor do you deserve a helping hand from the government.

Now how do you spin that as Kumbaya feel-goodism?

curious2 says

Any effect on health is incidental, and often negative.

Why didn't you put it that way, then?

If you're arguing that most hospitals should be closed, and that most doctors should be in other professions, then go with god.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that the medical profession is completely overrated to the point of worship, and that many doctors should be out of business, but there are plenty of statistics correlating longer, not shorter, lifespans, as well as lower infant mortality, with greater availability of medical care.

I can't believe I'm arguing this point.

How do you feel about the Enlightenment, or the germ theory of disease? Scams?

Iosef V HydroCabron says

How do you feel about the Enlightenment, or the germ theory of disease? Scams?

I'm a big fan of the Enlightenment, especially the part where people are allowed to live their own lives according to what they believe instead of being conscripted into the latest fad religion e.g. Obamneycare. Remember the first five Presidents, all products of the Enlightenment, lived a median 82 years with no access to modern medicine, which didn't exist at the time. It would probably amaze them to consider that the government they created might punish them for not buying insurance and prepaying for injurious "preventive" diagnostic radiation which also didn't exist at the time. Sadly, the Enlightenment seems to have dimmed in both major parties.

Likewise the germ theory of disease was a major breakthrough. Alas most of Obamneycare spending has little if anything to do with it, unless you're saying that SSRIs (the major topic of the thread) have antibacterial or antiviral effects, which would be a novel theory. Antibiotics and vaccines did help in reducing infant mortality, potable water helped even more, but SSRIs are teratogens and double the risk of suicidality, which was the subject of the OP.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

I can't believe I'm arguing this point.

How do you feel about the Enlightenment, or the germ theory of disease? Scams?

Then just stop. A bunch of people on this forum are clueless. No sense wasting time and electrical power otherwise.

curious2 says

Remember the first five Presidents, all products of the Enlightenment, lived a median 82 years with no access to modern medicine, which didn't exist at the time.

Uh-oh. IIRC, "The plural of anecdote is not data."

Would you be so kind as to favor us with another condescending lecture on the difference between anecdotes and data?

Pathetic.

edvard2 says

clueless

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Pathetic.

ooh - name-calling, that's really winning for your party, isn't it? Gee it's great that you're so concerned about my health then, that you would sacrifice everything ("no lifetime caps") to keep me around. If you dislike me so much, why not simply leave me alone instead of insisting on conscripting me into your Act supposedly for my own good (really for the corporate sponsors who have you hooked on their pills and deluded by their commercial news, "brought to you by" - and interrupted by "a word from our sponsors" - PhRMA)?

curious2 says

I'm a big fan of the Enlightenment, especially the part where people are allowed to live their own lives according to what they believe instead of being conscripted into the latest fad religion e.g. Obamneycare. Remember the first five Presidents, all products of the Enlightenment, lived a median 82 years with no access to modern medicine, which didn't exist at the time.

LOL! You can't seriously be using the first five Presidents as 'proof' of longevity, or in this case the average longevity of the average American during that time... right? Oh- but you are.
Big problem with that theory, which is just as bad as the others you've presented today: The men you're talking about were well-off. Naturally if you're well-off, you can afford better living standards, more access to modern medicine, and better food.

In the 1776 the average life expectency was 35 years. In other words, I'd be well past old age myself and and actually be beating the standard of the time. Yisereee... I'm the ripe ole' age of 38. Wow.

Do you want to know why people live longer today? Well an awful lot of it has to do with improvements in modern medicine. So now we have the potential to increase access to healthcare in general. So I find it amusing that there are those out there who probably bought hook, line, and sinker from the various billionaire-funded, fake grass roots organizations like the Tea Party the lie that access to more healthcare is taking away... from... their... FREEEEEDOM!!!!

Well it don't count if the people KNOW you're full of shit.

curious2 says

ooh - name-calling, that's really winning for your party, isn't it?

Nuttin' said about party. Those comments were in regards to general conversational observation. I don't care if a person is a Democrat, Republican, Liberal, or Conservative. When I read nonsense I call it out for what it is.

edvard2 says

average

LOL - I didn't even use the word "average" I said median, learn the difference. I chose those five because their lifespans are undisputed, most of them were well off but all their money couldn't buy any modern medicine because it did not exist. More importantly, they were all educated; education remains the best predictor of longevity, while money and insurance "pale in comparison." The major increases in life expectancy are almost entirely due to reducing infant mortality, and that is due mainly to potable water, vaccines, and antibiotics, all of which are cheap in countries where you can actually buy them yourself without needing to buy permission first. You're the one deluded by fraudulent billionaires, e.g. Bill McGuire.

curious2 says

LOL - I didn't even use the word "average" I said median, learn the difference. I chose those five because their lifespans are undisputed, most of them were well off but all their money couldn't buy any modern medicine because it did not exist.

Same fucking difference. Median means the "middle number". These men had access to things the majority of the populace didn't. Hence they lived longer, and yes- they did in fact have access to healthcare then, which despite the differences between today's medicine and that of that period, having access to that healthcare meant they could receive treatments for ailments that most otherwise did not. So my point still stands.

Just spit it out: Are you trying to tell us all here that healthcare isn't necessary? Some are rather curious because this conversation grows more amusing by the minute.

edvard2 says

Are you trying to tell us all here that healthcare isn't necessary?

No. But most of the spending is either useless or injurious, driven by political patronage networks for their own power. Just because legislation has "health" in the title doesn't make it good for your health.

edvard2 says

Some are rather curious

I am curious. You are a partisan parrot. Notice how almost all my comments have links to actual sources and real data, while you merely taunt and call me names like a schoolyard bully. SURPRISE: I'm not afraid of bullies, so your tactics only cost you what respect I had for you.

edvard2 says

In the 1776 the average life expectency was 35 years.

This is 1850, but interesting. Life expectancy for white Massuchessets men by age:

0 38.3
10 58.0
20 60.1
30 64.0
40 67.9
50 71.6
60 75.6
70 80.2
80 85.9

Read more: Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2011 | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html#ixzz2xlLnYLcx

So people old enough to live to be President are already in the elite 70+ age survivorship. Add in that they get the best living conditions available and it's not surprising to see another 10 years of longevity.

Bellingham Bill says

Read more: Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2011 | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html#ixzz2xlLnYLcx

Thanks - btw it shows the females lived even longer. The main difference between the Presidents and other males was, the Presidents were all educated, and education remains the best predictor of longevity.

curious2 says

No. But most of the spending is either useless or injurious, driven by political patronage networks for their own power. Just because legislation has "health" in the title doesn't make it good for your health.

Exactly! So you just correctly pinpointed one of the main reasons the ACA was passed in the first place.curious2 says

I am curious. You are a partisan parrot. Notice how almost all my comments have links to actual sources and real data, while you merely taunt and call me names like a schoolyard bully. SURPRISE: I'm not afraid of bullies, so your tactics only cost you what respect I had for you.

Am I? No. I simply think for myself. I have an opinion and when I see something that doesn't make sense I make a comment. For example, seeing the parts mentioned about SSRI's being toxic and harmful combined with a link to a study which has nothing to do with SSRI's means I feel compelled to call that out and make corrections. Secondly, I don't call people names. The verbiage I used had nothing to do with you and everything to do with the comments. Understand the difference. Calling people names on a forum is lame. Open debate is not "Bullying". Additionally, don't act like you are totally guilt-free of the exact same type of behavior, so don't act all innocent.