« First « Previous Comments 44 - 66 of 66 Search these comments
If studies had shown that 1 of every 2 people had symptoms "10 times worse" than they did before taking the drug, it would NEVER have been approved. You know perfectly well you're spreading a bald-faced lie.
http://www.sparkpeople.com/myspark/team_messageboard_thread.asp?board=971x6162x16694070
Here's a good 10 hour read.
Homeboy, look at the actual numbers. When they say "effective," they are referring to 10% of test subjects compared to placebo. If you go with their advertising conclusions, while ignoring the actual numbers, you're kidding yourself with advertising not science.
No, but I studied a fair amount of medicine as part of my degree and - more important - continued to keep up with latest research which takes quite a bit of time. And that is the problem with todays physicians, their knowledge is around 20 years old and there is no requirement whatsoever for them to freshen up. It is sad but these days researches (microbiologists, chemists, electro-physiologists etc.) know more about relevant latest data than your standard MD/GP. There are highly trained specialists which are really good and also highly skilled surgeons, but chances are you never meet them unless you would die otherwise and you are lucky enough to get properly diagnosed by your GP. For all the chronic stuff that eventually may lead to a severe enough condition where you will be seen/treated by one of the specialists you are left on your own, often ridiculed and quickly dismissed with anti-depressants in your pocket during the 15 minute (!) consultations.
Here's the problem - too many armchair physicians. You read a couple of fringe websites and you imagine yourself to know more than doctors who went to med school and had the extensive training that doctors get in this country. I call bullshit. You've already shown that you have some pretty ridiculous non-scientific ideas. Anyone who thinks that a rise in suicide rate between 1950 and now is proof that SSRIs kill as many people than they save, is just not thinking rationally. You don't seem to even grasp the difference between correlation and causation, yet you believe you know more than all the experts in the medical field. I just don't buy it. Sorry.
todays physicians, their knowledge is around 20 years old and there is no requirement whatsoever for them to freshen up.
Many are required to endure "Continuing Medical Education," basically PhRMA infomercials, which tend to be worse than useless. PhRMA is forever touting the "new & improved" (patented) drugs, until the patent expires, then you see new studies showing how the "new new super-improved" pill is much better and the old one was lousy. It gives rise to the practitioners' adage, "Always prescribe a new drug in its first two years on the market, while it still works."
If studies had shown that 1 of every 2 people had symptoms "10 times worse" than they did before taking the drug, it would NEVER have been approved. You know perfectly well you're spreading a bald-faced lie.
http://www.sparkpeople.com/myspark/team_messageboard_thread.asp?board=971x6162x16694070
Here's a good 10 hour read.
And again, the same problem - too many armchair physicians. You don't even seem to understand the difference between a double-blind study and an internet message board. Plus, we weren't even TALKING about Ambien!
Well at least nobody has ever swallowed a muzzle flash from Pot.
You don't even seem to understand the difference between a double-blind study and an internet message board.
We do understand that difference.
You don't seem to understand the difference between manufacturers' paid verbiage and actual data. Read the actual numbers, which show only 10% efficacy compared to placebo, with a side effect rate near 50%. If you ignore the numbers and read only the sponsors' paid spin, you're deluding yourself by reading only what you want to hear.
And, regarding Internet message boards, they were the first to report that SSRIs cause physical dependence. Manufacturers had denied that specifically, including in DTC advertising on TV and "education" delivered to physicians. The dependence you're experiencing, which your physician was told to tell you would never happen, is now very widely reported and well documented. Read about SSRI withdrawal syndrome.
Lastly, always check the duration of "studies". Most last only a few months. The study length can be adjusted to report favorable results, like tossing a coin many times until you get a count that makes it look like more heads than tails. If they end early, they issue a press release along the lines of, "the results were so encouraging we had to tell everyone immediately." If the results say the drug is useless, they extend the study or throw $ to a poor doctor in a "rescue country" to re-do it. And after-effects, like SSRI withdrawal syndrome or Vioxx strokes, are excluded because the study "ends" when people stop taking the pills, so the after-effects don't show up at all.
Well at least nobody has ever swallowed a muzzle flash from Pot.
The problem with marijuana is that a lot of people self medicate with it, and it has a tendency to make depression worse rather than better. Same for alcohol. SSRIs have been shown to be non habit forming.
Great comments on this thread!
Yes, it is amusing how big pharma keeps re branding it's SSRI's, coming out with new names for them to alleviate the stigma. My current final opinion on western medicine is that sickness=profit.
Mother Jones covered this one issue back.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/sugar-industry-lies-campaign
If you really wanted to gauge effectiveness of these worthless and dangerous drugs, rather than compare them to a placebo, they should be judged relative to an elimination diet.
You really are what you eat, and the majority of these conditions that are "treated" with drugs would likely be cured by eliminating whatever it is that is causing them in the patients diet. That and realizing a healthy macronutrient profille, or at least sumplementing the vitamins. And minerals that you are lacking in.
Fuck all to those physicians, go see a nutritionist that knows what they are doing, or educate yourself with the wealth of information that is at our collective disposal. Of course, forgetting that which you think you know, shedding your assumptions, and replacing your misingormation with good info, is easier said than done
Oh, Jesus Christ - not the "vitamin" thing. What a fucking load of crap.
http://www.rd.com/health/wellness/5-vitamin-truths-and-lies/
No, don't go see a "nutritionist" instead of getting real treatment from a doctor.
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09350.html
"Ten Red Flags for Consumers
Recommendations that promise a quick fix.
Dire warnings of danger from a single product or regimen.
Claims that sound too good to be true.
Simplistic conclusions drawn from a complex study.
Recommendations based on a single study.
Dramatic statements that are refuted by reputable scientific organizations.
Lists of "good" and "bad" foods.
Recommendations made to help sell a product.
Recommendations based on studies published without peer review.
Recommendations from studies that ignore differences among individuals or groups."
Sound familiar?
"It has been reported that in 2007, Americans spent $39.5 billion on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) services in search of short cuts or simple solutions to better health. Health fraud can be defined as misinformation about health, ranging from a self-proclaimed medical expert who has discovered a miracle cure, to a food supplement or drug that is promoted with unproven health claims.
A person who pretends to be able to cure a disease or health problem is defined as a quack. Problems that help promote quackery include:
Lack of laws to prevent someone from selling anything as long as it is called a dietary supplement.
Almost anyone can call himself or herself a nutritionist. Thousands of people who call themselves nutritionists have dubious credentials from nonaccredited schools.
Research scientists who go public with their findings before their study has been published in a peer reviewed journal or duplicated, thus causing Consumer confusion about what to believe.
A product may state that you can eat all you want and still lose weight, or that it can help overcome the aging process, arthritis and even cancer. These products usually do nothing to improve health and often are expensive. Even worse, they can be harmful or delay necessary medical treatment."
"Targets of Questionable Treatments
Alternative treatments are designed to appeal to anyone, but certain conditions and populations are more likely to be targeted:
The unsuspecting who are unable to question things critically. To them, all health claims seem to make sense.
The naive who are looking for a magic cure. They believe that printed or spoken claims must be true.
The desperate who have incurable or potentially fatal diseases and are hoping for a cure that medical science has not yet been able to provide.
The alienated who feel animosity toward medicine or the scientific community."
Does that sound like anyone here on this forum?
SSRIs have been shown to be non habit forming.
LOL - evidently denial isn't just a river in Egypt. They were advertised as not habit forming, but they've been banned from making that claim in Europe and sued for it here because they do cause physical dependence including withdrawal symptoms:
[SSRI] maker abandons 'no addiction' claim
And the drug has caused suicidality (leading the FDA to require a black box warning) and homicide:
***
Two weeks earlier, in Australia, a judge ruled Sertraline, a drug in the same family, had caused David Hawkins to murder his wife and attempt to kill himself."
It's a high price to pay for drugs that don't even work.
The problem with marijuana is that a lot of people self medicate with it, and it has a tendency to make depression worse rather than better.
That's because they aren't taking it with Spongebob square pants, and fudgestripe cookies.
That's because they aren't taking it with Spongebob square pants, and fudgestripe cookies.
Yeah, that should be required.
I would agree that people that are depressed should not smoke pot, if they have never smoked it or not used to smoking it. As for pot heads that self medicate, what difference does it make if it gets the job done for them?
I went through a bout of Dissociation, and at the time, pot only agitated me after smoking. Either that or I was smoking mean green.
That lasted about three months, before I started feeling normal again.
But seriously I'd take depression over Dissociation any day. Nothing gives you pleasure and you want to be left alone, but even that was unbearable as I couldn't stand being my own skin. I never felt suicidal, but it was a bad state to be in. I'd take ten "young love" heart breaks all at once over that.
There are different ways to deal with PTSD, but pills make it worse and talk therapy with a paid licensed person isn't better than spending the same amount of time talking with someone who isn't paid or licensed. Physical exercise is probably the single best thing, but that isn't always apparent in a world where the media and government are always trying to sell you something on behalf of their commercial sponsors.
A common pattern is, young guys running hard in a stressful environment get accustomed to eating and burning two or three times more calories than a normal person would, then come home and keep consuming the same number of calories due to habit. Their metabolisms slow down because they aren't using as much energy and because they're getting older. They aren't getting as much exercise anymore, so muscle turns to fat, so they start getting other medical problems and they don't always get the same - ahem - personal attention that they did at their peak. Often they start drinking, which makes them more depressed. Anxiety and depression are closely linked, so instead of recovering from their stress they add a new layer of anxiety to it.
If you look at the guys who do well, they tend to have solid pre-existing networks of families and friends, they continue to push themselves mentally and physically, and they don't get fat. If you look at the guys who do badly, they tend to come from addictive families, they spend too much time sitting and drinking, and they slide down a spiral.
Despite the claims from various lobbies that try to make you buy what they're selling, they don't really have solutions for sale. Their business model requires turning problems into revenue centers, and that tends to mean finding credible (usually also credulous) salesmen to push products and services that continue the problem instead of solving it.
what difference does it make if it gets the job done for them?
I don't think it gets the job done. There isn't any good evidence that marijuana use cures depression. There are other treatments that are more effective.
There isn't any good evidence that marijuana use cures depression. There are other treatments that are more effective.
There isn't good evidence for SSRIs either, but that doesn't stop you from insisting everybody pay for them. Physical exercise is proven to be effective, and it costs nothing.
There isn't any good evidence that marijuana use cures depression.
Nothing cures depression but time, if it's just a case of the blues, if it's more a chronic brain damage. Then not even Pills "Cure" depression.
I work with a guy that is in his 50's, he says he's been depressed since he was 21. He sits at his desk with blue LED lights shining on his face. He says that actually helps. It looks like a bunch of hooey to me, but he swears by it.
Nothing cures depression but time, if it's just a case of the blues, if it's more a chronic brain damage. Then not even Pills "Cure" depression.
I work with a guy that is in his 50's, he says he's been depressed since he was 21. He sits at his desk with blue LED lights shining on his face. He says that actually helps. It looks like a bunch of hooey to me, but he swears by it.
If it works, that's great. It's just that the evidence shows marijuana doesn't work that well as a treatment for depression. It's supposedly really good for nausea and glaucoma, but for depression, not so much.
Why are you so hell bent on depressed people smoking weed when there are other treatments that actually show results? Seems like a narrow view to me. Insisting that marijuana is the only good treatment isn't being any more open minded than others insisting pills are the only good treatment. I think that's the main problem with the "alternative" crowd. You just assume anything that you perceive as "alternative" is automatically good, and anything that's "mainstream" is automatically bad. That's actually a much more rigid outlook than the medical profession which you decry.
Smoking weed doesn't cure anything.
How ever Vaporizing it at controlled temperatures, is therapeutic for multiple ailments. Depending on the ailment. At different temps it produces different compounds. at 356 it starts producing antidepressant properties.
Smoking a joint or bong hits, you never get past THC.
Cannabis is made of more than 65 different psychoactive chemical compound.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) : boiling point -> 157C (315F) flash point -> not sure
Properties: Euphoriant, Analgesic, Antiinflammatory, Antioxidant, Antiemetic
Cannabidiol (CBD) : boiling point -> 180C(356F) flash point -> 207C(405F)
Properties: Anxiolytic, Analgesic, Antipsychotic, Antiinflammatory, Antioxidant, Antispasmodic
Cannabinol (CBN) : boiling point -> 185C(365F) flash point -> 212C(414F)
Properties: Oxidation, breakdown, product, Sedative, Antibiotic
Cannabichromene (CBC) : boiling point -> 220C(428F) flash point -> not sure
Properties: Antiinflammatory, Antibiotic, Antifungal
Cannabigerol (CBG) : boiling point ->not sure flash point -> not sure
Properties: Antiinflammatory, Antibiotic, Antifungal
Tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) : boiling point -> 220C(428F) flashpoint -> not sure
Properties: Analgesic. Anti-inflammatory, Antibiotic, Antimutagenic
Pulegone : boiling point -> 224C(436) flash point -> not sure
Properties: Memory booster, AChE inhibitor, Sedative, Antipyretic
Here is a good pdf about other stuff that is not here, a good read.
Nothing cures depression but time, if it's just a case of the blues, if it's more a chronic brain damage. Then not even Pills "Cure" depression.
Except maybe pot?
at 356 it starts producing antidepressant properties.
Smoking weed doesn't cure anything.
How ever Vaporizing it at controlled temperatures, is therapeutic for multiple ailments. Depending on the ailment. At different temps it produces different compounds. at 356 it starts producing antidepressant properties.
Smoking a joint or bong hits, you never get past THC.
What's your point?
« First « Previous Comments 44 - 66 of 66 Search these comments
Hint the word "Study" was used in every paragraph. Study has become one of those marginalized words, that Libs like to throw around to give their injection indisputable scientific credence.
From 1995 to 1996, consumption of drinks such as soda, tea, fruit punch and coffee was evaluated in 263,925 adults. About 10 years later, researchers asked the participants whether they had been diagnosed with depression since the year 2000. A total of 11,311 people said yes.
The researchers acknowledge the study does not prove a cause and effect. In other words, it could be that people who are depressed tend to drink more soda.
Though if you take the time to peruse on how many people in the US are depressed you'll get conflicting results depending on the "Study".
http://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+the+percentage+of+the+population+that+are+depressed