Mourning with those who mourn

This is an old post from Christianity Today’s Her.meneutics blog, but they recently re-posted it on their RSS feed: “Should Christians Take Antidepressants?

That headline is infuriatingly stupid. The subhed for the post is even worse: “Medication can help, but it can also hinder our reliance on Christ.”

Is insulin just a crutch that Christians use to cope with diabetes instead of relying on Jesus?

This is cruel and ignorant.

And when ignorance strikes a pious pose of sanctimony, that makes it worse, not better.

No pious jackasses sit around pondering “Should Christians Take Insulin?” No insufferably holier-than-thou idiots pretend it would be deeply spiritual if they said, “Rattlesnake anti-venom can help, but it can also hinder our reliance on Christ.” Or “An emergency appendectomy may sometimes be beneficial, but only if we’re careful not to allow it to overshadow our true savior.”

Yet when it comes to any kind of mental illness, evangelical Christians suddenly turn into Christian Scientists or Scientologists — preferring “spiritual” treatments over medicine.

This hurts people. This kills people. This needs to stop.

Here’s a taste of the article:

In a 2010 Revive Our Hearts radio interview, Reformed writer Elyse Fitzpatrick, author of Will Medicine Stop the Pain? (Moody), said:

It’s so important for us just to remember that yes, perhaps the anti-depressants are making it so that we’re not feeling those raw, painful emotions. But those emotions are given to us by God to drive us to himself and then to force us to ask questions about our faith and about the way that we’re living and thinking and responding to things.

Should Christians avoid taking antidepressants, instead “letting go and letting God” lead us through the ups and downs of life? I’m not sure.

Again, would these people talk like this about any other ailment? What if she had written this?

Should Christians avoid taking antibiotics, instead “letting go and letting God” lead us through the ups and downs of infection? I’m not sure.

Or who wrote the following as the conclusion of the essay?

Certainly antibiotics can take the edge off the pain of living in this broken world. But is it possible that we need those edges, which so often lead us to Christ?

I only changed one word in that — the rest is verbatim from the last two sentences of the actual article.

Seriously, this is abysmally stupid and it does real harm to real people. Knock it off.

 

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

White evangelicals' 'new chapter' on race (cont'd.)
'[White] evangelicals and race -- a new chapter'?
Trust me, I've tried all the other religions. All of them.
'Moral tribalism' and translating the d-word
  • Just Sayin’

    “Anti-depressants are offered too frequently in primary care because the waiting lists for alternative treatments are too long .Doctors need to think hard about putting people on these drugs, because they can be hard to get off and have significant side-effects”. – consultant psychiatrist, Tim Kendall ( Director of the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health) .

  • Just Sayin’

    ‘Antidepressants and Violence: Problems at the Interface of Medicine and Law’:

    ‘Recent regulatory warnings about adverse behavioural effects of antidepressants in susceptible individuals have raised the profile of these issues with clinicians, patients, and the public. We review available clinical trial data on paroxetine and sertraline and pharmacovigilance studies of paroxetine and fluoxetine, and outline a series of medico-legal cases involving antidepressants and violence.

    Both clinical trial and pharmacovigilance data point to possible links between these drugs and violent behaviours. The legal cases outlined returned a variety of verdicts that may in part have stemmed from different judicial processes. Many jurisdictions appear not to have considered the possibility that a prescription drug may induce violence.

    The association of antidepressant treatment with aggression and violence reported here calls for more clinical trial and epidemiological data to be made available and for good clinical descriptions of the adverse outcomes of treatment. Legal systems are likely to continue to be faced with cases of violence associated with the use of psychotropic drugs, and it may fall to the courts to demand access to currently unavailable data. The problem is international and calls for an international response.’

    …The new issues highlighted by these cases need urgent examination jointly by jurists and psychiatrists in all countries where antidepressants are widely used. The problem is international, and it would make sense to organise an international effort now.’

  • AnonaMiss

    Please provide proper citations, rather than simply an article name. Authors, date of publication, and place of publication are important.

    It is inconsiderate and damages your credibility to expect your audience to look up your sources themselves, especially since you presumably already have the source close to hand, in order to quote from it.

  • Just Sayin’

    Please provide ANY citation at all, on anything to do with this topic! It might be “considerate”, and more productive, to keep on topic instead of berating me like a fishwife over every triviality you can find, no?

  • Just Sayin’

    The UK’s NHS issued 39.1 million prescriptions for ‘drugs to tackle depression’ in England during the year 2009. This compares with 20.1 million in 1999. Where will it all end. Billions of prescriptions per year?

  • Just Sayin’

    “About 80% of mass killers were on drugs – usually anti-depressants or anabolic steroids.
    The blame for most of these terrible tragedies is sought on the availability of fire arms. The failure to observe out-of-character aggression by drug-users is disregarded.” – UK Labour MP Paul Flynn

  • AnonaMiss

    [citation needed] – the fact that a politician said it is not a reliable source and has no bearing on whether or not it’s true. It could easily be #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement.

  • Just Sayin’

    And the fact that you made some analogy is supposed to be significant and persuasive? I think you need a mirror.

  • Just Sayin’

    Eric Harris the shooter at Columbine in 1999 was described as having been ‘depressed’ and ‘on medication’.

    Patrick Purdy, culprit of the 1989 Cleveland School massacre in Stockton, California, had been on anti-depressants. Jeff Weise, perpetrator of the March 2005 Red Lake High School massacre, was on anti-depressants.

    Anti-depressants were found in the cabin of the ‘Unabomber’ Ted Kaczynski. Michael McDermott, culprit of the 2000 ‘Wakefield massacre’ in Massachusetts, was on anti-depressants.

    Kip Kinkel, culprit of a 1998 murder spree in Oregon, was on anti-depressants.

    John Hinckley, who tried to kill Ronald Reagan in 1981, was on anti-depressants.

    Coincidence? I think it’s worth finding out, since lives could be at stake. But others here just want to stitch mouths up with steel wire for daring to suggest it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dpolicar David Policar

    > I think it’s worth finding out, since lives could be at stake.

    Very noble of you.

    I’m all for research, and research to help reduce the negative side-effects of antidepressants while preserving their medicinal properties is valuable work. Much of it is being done, of course, and has been for decades, which is why the spectrum of antidepressants and associated treatments today are different from (and superior to) those available forty years ago.

    So are you a psychopharmaceutical researcher yourself, or are you more encouraging donating to research funding? If the latter, which research projects do you donate to, and who is conducting them? Are there particular antidepressants you’re concerned about, or is it just one large undifferentiated mass of “antidepressants” from your perspective?

    Or are those questions too detailed? If you would rather keep this at the “antidepressants bad, here are some links” level of discussion, I think that point has been made.

  • Just Sayin’

    No, it’s not noble, it’s common sense. Get real, please.

    And if I need to be a pharmaceutical researcher to have a rational opinion on this topic, does that apply to you too, or are you ruling your views out as worthless? You can’t have it both ways.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dpolicar David Policar

    I didn’t say you need to be a pharmaceutical researcher to have a rational opinion on this topic. I didn’t even suggest it.

    I’m sure you can find other grounds to dismiss me, though. Keep trying, little buckaroo, you’ll get there some day.

    (Yes, yes, I know: you’re not interested in dismissing me, you’re interested in having a rational conversation about antidepressants, do I want to do that or not? Spare me the script, it’s gotten tedious. Incidentally, if you’re an even moderately skilled programmer you could probably write an ELIZA-like program to derail Internet discussion forums like you’ve been doing here with much less effort on your part; you might consider it as a labor-saving investment.)

  • Just Sayin’

    PLONK!

  • http://www.facebook.com/dpolicar David Policar

    Oh, if only it were that easy. Sadly, Web forums have not yet caught up to USENET functionality in many ways, including support for kill files. If they did, I suspect you’d be fed somewhat less.

  • Just Sayin’

    Go away, troll.

  • AnonaMiss

    [citations needed]

  • Just Sayin’

    Yes, every one of your posts does need citations!

  • Lori

    In general, what AnonaMiss said–citation needed.

    Anti-depressants were found in the cabin of the ‘Unabomber’ Ted Kaczynski.

    A couple of specific questions about this.

    1. How did a man who had been living as a recluse since 1971, with limited contact with the outside world and very little income, get antidepressants? Note that the best-known of the SSRIs, fluoxetine (aka Prozac, among other brand names) didn’t even receive FDA approval until the end of 1987. By that time Kaczynski was barely dealing with anyone, let along anyone able or willing to prescribe antidepressants.

    2. Why would the man who wrote this be taking antidepressants? It’s not as if there was anyone there forcing him to take them.

    Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them
    terribly unhappy, then gives them the drugs to take away their
    unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in
    our own society. It is well known that the rate of clinical depression
    had been greatly increasing in recent decades. We believe that this is
    due to disruption of the power process, as explained in paragraphs
    59-76. But even if we are wrong, the increasing rate of depression is
    certainly the result of SOME conditions that exist in today’s society.
    Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed, modern
    society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect, antidepressants are a
    means of modifying an individual’s internal state in such a way as to
    enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find
    intolerable. (Yes, we know that depression is often of purely genetic
    origin. We are referring here to those cases in which environment plays
    the predominant role.)

    3. If Kaczynski was on antidepressants why was there no mention of it during his trial? His mental health was a major issue, both in pre-trial hearings to determine his competence to stand trial and at the trial itself, so it’s not as if the subject didn’t arise.

    Did it even occur to you to ask those questions or did you simply hear from someone that Kaczynski had antidepressants and accept it mindlessly because it fit your preconceptions and agenda?

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    According to David Kaczynski, his brother Ted was on SSRIs as part of a secret military/CIA/Nazi/Harvard mind-control experiment ordered by President Eisenhower.

    When it’s put that way, it all seems so logical.

  • Lori

    I think a couple of stories are getting merged. There is some indication that Kaczynski took part in experiments at Harvard and that as a result he was given LSD. The CIA connection is that the (highly dubious) experiments were supposedly part of MKUltra. Sadly, that’s actually possible.

    It’s also potentially relevant since being given LSD, especially without being told what it was or what to expect, it could easily trigger very serious problems in a person with an underlying vulnerability to mental illness.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Neither story would explain the presence of SSRIs in his cabin, either, but that’s what we get for assuming these sorts of things are supposed to have rational explanations. ^_^

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Did it even occur to you to ask those questions or did you simply hear
    from someone that Kaczynski had antidepressants and accept it mindlessly
    because it fit your preconceptions and agenda?

    Oh no no, he’s not “mindlessly accepting” it, he’s just “asking questions”. See, that’s how legitimate debates work, right? Any claim, no matter how spurious, must be treated as a legitimate subject for “further investigation”. Just because the very idea of Kaczynski being on antidepressants contradicts pretty much everything we know, we still have to stop everything and scientifically debunk the claim before we can go on, otherwise we’re not having a proper debate, just engaging in groupthink.

    It’s like how if I say “The president is a kenyan-born muslim socialist nazi atheist communist,” even though that combination of things inherently makes no sense, the fact that anyone anywhere has suggested it means that we have to bring all political discourse to a halt for four years while we dispatch investigators to determine the truth, and then more to determine a better truth if we don’t like what the first ones came up with.

  • Lori

    Fair point.

  • AnonaMiss

    I’ll just leave this here (thanks to LoneWolf for reminding me of this):

    http://www.thecontrarianmedia.com/2009/09/did-glenn-beck-rape-and-murder-a-young-girl-in-1990/

  • Just Sayin’

    Do you have any citations to back up your statements? I don’t see any. I guess your opinion must be worthless then!

  • Lori

    Kip Kinkel, culprit of a 1998 murder spree in Oregon, was on anti-depressants.

    I thought I remembered something about this one too. Kip Kinkel was on Prozac for 12 days. Those 12 days were 11 months before the shootings.

    Did you actually ask any questions about any of the cases on your list before you posted it? If you can’t be arsed to find out basic information then why exactly do you expect anyone believe that you place any value on “just asking questions”?

  • Just Sayin’

    Too
    many people taking antidepressants? A generation of “Prozac children” raised on
    the promise of on-demand happiness? Antidepressants
    responsible for hundreds of unnecessary deaths each year? Can it really be
    true? Worth finding out? Or do *those* lives not matter?

    Find
    out here, if you care:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rr377

  • Lori

    So rather than deal with the problems with what you already posted you’re just going to try another diversion? Figures.

  • Just Sayin’

    It’s called information. And it’s on topic, unlike your obsessed ad hominem.

  • Lori

    One more time. The fact that someone says something insulting about you does not mean that they’ve made an ad hominem attack. No, not even if you really don’t like it or are offended by it. And no, not even if they swear. Not even if they swear a lot.

    This is what ad hominen means:

    -Person A makes claim X.

    -Person B makes an attack on person A.

    -Therefore A’s claim is false.

    See how that goes? The bad opinion of the person comes first and is followed by the bad opinion about the claim.

    That is not what is being said to/about you. Given that we didn’t know you before you came here and totally derailed this thread it’s not even possible for the bad opinion of you to have come first. What is being said to/about you is this:

    -Just Sayin’ makes claim X (while trying to avoid responsibility for making that claim)

    -Claim X is false

    -This is explained

    -Just Sahyin’ goes right on making claim X, while still refusing to take responsibility for the claim

    -Therefore Just Sayin’ is ignorant, unintelligent, dishonest or some combination thereof

    See the difference? I don’t think your claims are false because you’re an ass, I think you’re an ass because your claims are persistently false. That’s not ad hominem, it’s a logical inference.

  • Just Sayin’

    Ad hominem is attacking the person not the argument. That’s precisely what you and most of the other pro-antis have been doing obsessively. For example, I’ve yet to see a single pro-anti address Professor Self’s concerns, to which I linked. Ironically, you’d rather ramble on about my “reading comprehension.”

  • AnonaMiss

    Are you using some sort of text-to-speech software that makes it difficult to keep track of who says what? I’m the only person here who’s used the phrase “reading comprehension” (most others making the same point have been considerably less polite about it).

    For all your talk about us speaking only for ourselves as individuals, you sure do seem to confuse us with each other!

  • Just Sayin’

    No, others have used it too. It’s quite a popular juvenile bullying tactic on internet forums like this one. If you want to try to demean your opponent, start rabbiting on about his “reading comprehension.”

  • AnonaMiss

    Mon couer, I think you may be projecting. I had no intention of demeaning you when I brought it up – at the time I thought your sidestepping was unintentional. Not every criticism is intended to demean.

    Now that I know you’re doing it intentionally, I’m happy to enjoy the performance. Do that sidestep, little troll! Show us your man-tits!

  • http://www.facebook.com/dpolicar David Policar

    “Cut a little swath, and lead the people on!”

  • Just Sayin’

    LOL. Yes, rabbiting on about your opponent’s “reading comprehension” isn’t an attempt to bully and demean. Quite so. Now you’re using the old ‘troll’ slur. Time to grow up?

  • AnonaMiss

    I had no intention of demeaning you when I brought it up. Now that I know you’re not even trying, I’m happy to demean you for it!

    For someone who dislikes being told they have poor reading comprehension, you sure don’t seem to put much effort into it. I mean, a single re-read should have caught that.

  • Just Sayin’

    Actually I couldn’t care less how much you continue rabbiting on about “reading comprehension.” It’s an old internet forum bullying ploy that everyone can see through. No doubt some of your fellow pro-antis are quietly cheering from the sidelines.

  • https://pjevansgen.wordpress.com/ P J Evans

    It *does* seem to fit you, as you seem to be unable to comprehend much of what is being said to you.

  • Just Sayin’

    Yes, I was right about you cheering from the sidelines.

  • Just Sayin’

    By the way, you forgot to include your “citations”?

  • Lori

    What’s that you said. Oh yeah—look it up on Google.

  • Just Sayin’

    Ah, so it’s okay then and you’ve withdrawn your criticism. Good. We’re making progress.

  • Lori

    No, I’m saying that you’re responsible for the things you bring into this thread and you need to do your own work.

  • Just Sayin’

    And have you read any of the evidence I’ve posted links to? Professor Self’s excellent examination of the topic, for example? The two reviews in the NY Review of Books? Or any of the other cited evidence?

    Or do you just want to harp on about me? (rhetorical question).

  • Lori

    I just realized that this entire list is nothing but a cut & paste from one of Peter Hitchens’ columns in the Mail. A column in which he provides no sources and no proof of any of these claims and ignores anything that doesn’t fit his anti-antidepressant views*. That’s rather a large problem. No actual reporter would be able to get away with that sort of sloppiness and dishonesty, but as an opinion columnist for a paper with less than stellar standards Hitchens is allowed to do it. Shame on Hitchens and on the Mail.

    I now find myself wondering if you’re quoting Hitchens because he says what you want to hear about antidepressants or if you’re worked up about antidepressants because you’re fixated on Hitchens.

    *Take Patrick Purdy’s case an an example. I couldn’t find a single reputable source for information about his supposed antidepressant use. What I did find was that he had a long criminal history going back to his adolescence, long-standing problems with alcohol and illegal drugs, a history of suicide attempts, nasty racist attitudes and a lot of anger over his failure to succeed in life. At the time of the shooting he was an unemployed drifter, staying in a room at the El Rancho Motel in Stockton.

    As with Kaczynski I’m going to ask how a person in that situation is supposed to have been on antidepressants. I can’t find any indication that he was ever prescribed any, even after his suicide attempts. Even if he was, that was years before the shooting and there is virtually no possibility that he was taking them for at least a year and a half preceding the shooting.

    I found all this out because unlike some people, I actually ask real questions and then look for the answers. Answers which are not difficult to find and don’t require any sort of background in psycho-pharmacology to understand.

  • AnonaMiss

    I’ve been wondering for a few days if Just Sayin’ isn’t Hitchens himself.

  • Just Sayin’

    Wrong again. When are you going to address the concerns that Professor Self highlights, and to which I posted a link? Or the New York Review of Books articles by an expert in the field, to which I’ve also posted links?

    Or don’t you have any real interest in debating this topic rationally, rather than simply ad hominem and a closed mind?

  • Lori

    If I’m wrong, prove it. Provide a link to actual evidence. You started this, it’s on you to back up the claims that you brought into this discussion.

    As for your link to Professor Self, I have no intentions of playing along with your attempts at diversion. You came into this thread and totally derailed it by linking to Hitchens and demanding that everyone read him. I did and found crap, so now you’ve moved on to something else that everyone supposedly has to read in order to prove to you that we’re open minded. My mind is open, but it’s not empty and I have nothing to prove to you.

    You’re the one who has something to prove. You need to prove that you’re interested in asking questions and learning by actually giving some intelligent thought to the things you post before you post them. You clearly didn’t do that with Hitchens’ anti-antidepressant crusade. Until you can demonstrate that your other links are of higher quality than that we don’t owe you anything. Especially since you can’t even be bothered to stop using “ad hominem” incorrectly.

  • Just Sayin’

    I just have proven it. You claimed I was just quoting Peter Hitchens and I replied by citing a number of others to whose work I’ve already referred and posted links to.

    If you were a gracious debating opponent, truly interested in furthering the discussion, you’d at least acknowledge that before continuing your obsessed personal attack.

  • Lori

    Truly, you are the kind of diversion. Do you usually hang out in places where people fall for this?

    Also? I have no interest in being gracious to you and you are not my debating opponent. You are a person spreading lies and disinformation. I started out responding to you because I didn’t want to leave those lies unchallenged. I’m still responding to you because this is like performance art now. Some people smear themselves with pudding. Some people sleep in clear plastic boxes. You are not that creative so you just post stupid things on the internet. How droll.

  • Just Sayin’

    Yes, I get the message that you don’t like me, even though I’m a complete stranger to you. Now, do you have anything to contribute to the topic on hand or do you just want to ramble on about me forever?

  • Just Sayin’

    Sometimes the link between antidepressants and mass shootings never officially emerges (there are, for example, strong indications that the perpetrator of the Virginia Tech massacre had been taking anti-depressants but this has never been definitively established). Also the effects of some of these drugs are sometimes felt after the person who takes them suddenly stops doing so — thus a blood analysis isn’t necessarily decisive. What’s needed is a record of what they took and when they took it. There’s also the question of people exceeding their dose.

    All this need serious research. If one is opened minded and not a zealot, of course.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    I also heard that almost all known spree killers ingested dihydrogen monoxide, most on a daily basis.

    All this need serious research. If one is opened minded and not a zealot, of course.

    Well that’s one of us disqualified then.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Oh man. DHMO. Now if anyone wants to talk about dangerous chemicals, it’s that stuff. We know how deadly it is, but it’s still in almost every major foodstuff, often unreported. I can confirm it, every spree killing, suicide or domestic assault case in the last century or so has had a link with DHMO.

  • AnonaMiss

    The biggest problem is that it’s practically impossible to get clean once addicted: withdrawal is so harsh that going cold turkey is a recipe for hallucinations, seizures, and eventually agonizing death. Once you’re addicted, you’re screwed.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Genetics isn’t my strong suit, but I have it on good authority that addiction to DHMO is passed down from mother to child almost 100% of the time and can lead to lifelong complications. It’s not inconceiveable that within a few generations, almost every living person on the planet will have been exposed to this deadly chemical, and those who haven’t will almost certainly be on their way out the door…

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    When my son was born, we were advised not to let him consume any until he was at least six months old.

  • Just Sayin’

    Presumably you are too. Does that make your opinion worthless? Funny how every time I ask this, no one answers, the pro-antis just keep repeating the fallacy!

  • AnonaMiss

    All this need serious research. If one is opened minded and not a zealot, of course.

    >implies our opinions are worthless because we’re closed-minded zealots (otherwise why bring up our open-mindedness, zealotry or lack thereof?)

    Presumably you are too.

    >admits ze is a closed-minded zealot

    Does that make your opinion worthless?

    >implies closed-minded zealot opinions aren’t worthless, in direct contradiction to previous implication

    Funny how every time I ask this, no one answers, the pro-antis just keep repeating the fallacy!

    >accuses opponents of being the ones to bring it up

    Wonderfully crafted, sir or madam. You are an artist.

  • Just Sayin’

    Have you anything to say about antidepressants?

    Didn’t think so.

  • AnonaMiss

    You’ve already been thoroughly discredited to anyone reading the thread who has the capacity to follow an argument across multiple paragraphs. Why should I say any more on the subject when I can laugh at you instead?

  • Just Sayin’

    Your opinion is noted. But, just like all the other pro-antis who have taken it upon themselves to speak for an entire imaginary constituency, you speak only for yourself. Just like me.

  • Just Sayin’

    Meanwhile, in the real world away from the silly bickering in this thread, people like rampage killer Scott Dekraai of Seal Beach, California, was said to have been suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which in the USA is often treated with SSRI (antidepressant) pills. He is also said by his ex-wife to be “a diagnosed bipolar individual who has problems with his own medication and his reaction to same”.

    Eight innocent people slaughtered, quite possibly at the hands of someone who had been taking antidepressants. Isn’t it time qualified researchers looked into this connection?

    It could be your school or cinema next time.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dpolicar David Policar

    >Isn’t it time qualified researchers looked into this connection?

    As I asked before: OK, what do you recommend?

    For example, is there a researcher or research organization you endorse whom you would like us to fund?

    Is there someone you’d like us to write to, to encourage _them_ to do research into the effects of antidepressants?

    Something else?

  • Just Sayin’

    Go away, obsessed troll.

  • Lori

    Oh, that is rich. From now on when I need to say that something is like the pot calling the kettle black I’m linking back to this comment.

    Is your presence in this thread some sort of performance art project?

  • Just Sayin’

    No, it’s a statement of fact. Obsessive fixation on one poster, simply wanted to nitpick his statements over and over, is commonly known as trolling. I haven’t done that; he has.

    Ad hominem noted.

    By the way, where are your “citations”?

  • Lori

    You brought the issue into the thread, the responsibility for finding citations is on you. I found them. If you’re actually interested in asking questions then you should be able to find them too.

  • Just Sayin’

    Let me get it straight … I’m supposed to provide “citations” on demand, but no one else has to, especially you.

    Okay, got that.

    Now … once again, it’s about ANTIDEPRESSANTS. It’s NOT about me. Got that yet?

  • Lori

    You brought the claim into the thread. It’s your responsibility to provide citations to back it up. If you are unable to do that, or too lazy to do it, then you need to withdraw the claim.

  • Just Sayin’

    If you can’t be bothered to address the evidence I’ve already linked to, I’m certainly not obliged to provide any more. Once again, IT”s NOT ABOUT ME. It’s supposed to be about antidepressants.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dpolicar David Policar

    I’ve wondered that too.

    Actually, the whole dynamic has been interesting… as soon as I started actually talking about how we could help collect reliable research on the risks and benefits of antidepressants — which I actually do consider a useful subject to research, given how much suffering has been eased by the results of similar research over the last few decades — our little buddy stopped repeating the “aren’t you open-minded enough to want research?” script and switched to “please go away”.

    It’s not a tactic I would have expected to work; I’m not exactly sure how to generalize it.

  • mroge

    Even though I have posted this elsewhere I am going to post at other places as well so that I can be sure that you have read it. Everyone knows your point of view and if they are interested then they will check it out. You have dominated this forum for days on a topic that it never was intented for. You have not shown any sensitivity towards others. Right now you are simply harrassing others to accept your point of view. I am quite sure that there are other places you can post that are appropriate to your topic. The topic on here has to do with whether Christians should take anti-depressants. It does not have anything to do with the safety of them. It is time you move on.

  • Just Sayin’

    No, I have replied to several obsessed-with-me posters, of which you are one. Seemingly, simply replying to their plethora of posts also annoys them. Well, they know what to do!

  • Rhubarbarian82

    The irony!

  • Just Sayin’

    Anything to contribute to the antidepressants discussion?

    Didn’t think so.

  • AnonaMiss

    My dear sir or madam – though in the interest of sparing you discomfort at my psychic powers of inference I will refrain from drawing conclusions on the motives of your other serial respondents, please know that I am far from annoyed with you. In order to be annoying you would have to be much less amusing.

  • Just Sayin’

    Please stop the attempts to be snidely clever and post on topic.

  • AnonaMiss

    As I’m only still watching this thread to laugh at you, and you don’t respond to the things I say that are on topic, why on earth would I say any more on topic?

  • Just Sayin’

    You’re not watching, you’re posting snide personal remarks. How about posting something about antidepressants i.e. on topic?

  • AnonaMiss

    “To watch”, on the internet: to continue checking in on a particular site/conversation/whatever.

    I’ve already contributed far more to the topic than you have, so I feel comfortable resting on my laurels and laughing at you further.

  • Just Sayin’

    And you’re not just checking in and watching, you’re actively engaging by posting repeatedly. I’ve posted numerous links to evidence supporting my concerns, none of which you’ve addressed.

  • AnonaMiss

    I have checked your sources and found them laughable. Just like you :).

  • Just Sayin’

    If a link between antidepressants and suicides and mass shootings are a big joke to you, then it’s not to me. And, yes, I know it’s me you find laughable, blah, blah, blah, but the topic is supposed to be antidepressants, not me.

    Actually, since I’ve linked to leading specialists in the subject, your laughter testifies to your arrogance rather than any discernment you think you possess.

  • AnonaMiss

    [citation needed]

    quite possibly at the hands of someone who had been taking antidepressants

    lol

  • Just Sayin’

    “LOL” is not an argument.

  • Lori

    It’s more or an argument than you’ve made.

  • Just Sayin’

    Pot. Kettle, Black.

    It’s about ANTIDEPRESSANTS. It’s NOT about me. Got it yet?

  • Lori

    Again, it’s not about antidepressants. It’s about whatever bug you have up your bum about antidepressants.

  • Just Sayin’

    No, it’s quite clear that you want to ramble on about me ad infinitum. Addressing the issues, such as Prof. Self’s concerns, is the last thing you want to do.

  • AnonaMiss

    No, it’s a statement of amusement.

    Additionally, you may have noticed that I generally write in full sentences with proper capitalization and, barring typos and a word or two lost in editing, proper spelling and grammar. In the interest of improving your reading comprehension, I suggest that you ponder the implications of the abandonment thereof in the post you are responding to.

  • Just Sayin’

    Yes, yes, another pro-anti rattling on about my “reading comprehension.” Very original. I used to post like that when I was a teenager but I grew out of it.

  • Lori

    So we’re all just “pro-antis” and we swear too much and we’re not gracious and blah, blah, whining, blah. If we’re all so horrible why are you still here? We did not seek you out. We are not harassing you. You came here, derailed a thread and then starting trying to dictate other people’s behavior or it. If we don’t meet your high standards for debate you should go elsewhere.

  • Just Sayin’

    It’s crystal clear you’re a pro-anti. As for going elsewhere, if you don’t like my posts, DON”T READ THEM.

  • AnonaMiss

    Pretty sure I’m the only “pro-anti” going on about your reading comprehension. Which you continue to demonstrate a remarkable lack of!

    I’m not sure which is funnier, how you continue to fail to understand the basic point of replies to you, or how you derisively dismiss the very process of understanding them.

  • Just Sayin’

    No, the reading comprehension thing is a common juvenile diversion, designed to make the asserter feel superior. An attempt at bullying in other words. Grow out of it.

  • AnonaMiss

    Wow. Do you know what “reading comprehension” means? It means “being able to understand what you read.” No more, no less.

    I’ve never seen someone accused of poor reading comprehension online when it wasn’t manifestly true, despite my interest in, and occasional participation in, troll culture. Generally, trolls are more interested in questioning your sexual predilections than your understanding or lack thereof. If you encounter accusations of poor reading comprehension often enough to think it’s a “common” form of trolling, I’m afraid that’s all on you.

    Or are you one of those people who thinks that a person who communicates using a reasonably large vocabulary must be trying to show off/pretend they’re better than you? Is that what you mean by calling the mere use of the phrase “reading comprehension” a “juvenile diversion, designed to make the asserter feel superior”? I assure you, I’m just expressing my ideas in the way that seems most natural to me – the result of heavy exposure to 19th century literature at a young age, nothing more.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dpolicar David Policar

    Judging from JS’s comments elsewhere, I conclude that the script being used here is: whenever someone phrases a criticism of my contribution to a discussion in terms of my personal attributes (e.g., if they say “you lack reading comprehension skills” rather than “that comment does not reflect an understanding of the question it purports to respond to,” I reply “my skills aren’t the issue here, stop derailing us with ad-hominem attacks!”).

    The particular attributes of reading comprehension, including the level of literacy talking about it demonstrates, and how they apply to the social dynamic at play here are almost entirely orthogonal to using that script, and I suspect you’ve already put more time and effort into thinking about that dynamic than JS has.

  • Just Sayin’

    Blah, blah, blah. Everybody who visits internet forums for any length of time has seen the old “reading comprehension” jibe over and over again. As I say, grow out of it.

  • AnonaMiss

    Maybe back on Usenet. The Eternal September’s been going on for 20 years now, gramps.

  • Just Sayin’

    You can try out as many insults as you like. When you have something of value to contribute about antidepressants let me know.

  • AnonaMiss

    Likewise!

  • Just Sayin’

    I’ve already posted numerous times with lots of links, expert opinion, testimonies, and other facts. In response, you’ve ignored it all (as have the rest of the pro-antis) and attacked the messenger obsessively — just like the rest of the pro-antis.

  • AnonaMiss

    And yet, you ignore the only citations of scientific value that have been presented by anyone in this thread – including yourself, as the “expert opinions” you have cited have been of the un-researched hypothesis variety and thus are no more than educated guesses at best. Because apparently statistical analysis of data isn’t science, because it isn’t “empirical research”!

  • Just Sayin’

    You forgot the “in my opinion” at the end of the first half of your first sentence. Your unsubstantiated opinion.

  • AnonaMiss

    Scientific value isn’t something you have an opinion about.

    Census statistics have scientific value unless there’s reason to believe they’ve been falsified or improperly collected.

    Hypotheses and anecdotes do not, no matter how well-educated the source.

  • Just Sayin’

    A Harvard expert in social medicine speaks out:

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/epidemic-mental-illness-why/?pagination=false

    I rate her opinion higher than yours.

  • AnonaMiss

    You rate her opinion higher than the opinions of the grand majority of medical experts, apparently.

  • Just Sayin’

    I certainly rate it higher than yours (and you’ve only cited yourself, no one else. Remember the necessity for “citations” or was that only applicable last week?).

  • AnonaMiss

    Upthread I cited the US census, the New York Times’ independent journalistic research, and a scientific study into the rate of suicide among people taking antidepressants.

    Those parentheses with the word Source in them, in blue? Yeah, that’s a citation. You’ve yet to address the only sourced data in the thread, which has been mine.

  • Just Sayin’

    Sorry, the US Census isn’t exactly relevant to expert medical concerns regarding antidepressant medications.

  • AnonaMiss

    Yes it is. The US Census tracks causes of death and therefore gives us statistical baselines for deaths by suicide & homicide among the general population. The US census is the control group.

    This is how science works: you have the target population you’re investigating, and the control group. The data on the target population is meaningless without knowing how it differs from the control.

    You haven’t addressed the scientific studies you’ve been linked either, instead stating (upthread) that “the research hasn’t been done” even when linked to the research in question.

  • Just Sayin’

    But it doesn’t track, for example, the correlation between mass killings and antidepressant medications, which are very often not even noted. Nor the activities of the drug companies in masking the ineffectiveness and side effects of antidepressants. That’s why we need investigation.

  • Lori

    So you have no actual evidence that he had ever been prescribed SSRIs and no details on what type of problem reactions he had to his bipolar meds. You are simply speculating to fit your agenda, conveniently ignoring the fact that he and his ex-wife were involved in a bitter custody dispute at the time of the shooting. Nasty divorces and bitter custody disputes being things that all too often produce violence in people who have never been on any type of psychotropic medication in their lives. Because sometimes people are shitty like that.

    You clearly have personal issues with antidepressants and psychotropic meds in general. I have no idea what those personal issues are. I also have no idea what purpose you think is served by your continuing to act out your personal grudge/drama in this thread. If your goal is anything other than a narcissistic desire to have people pay attention to you then you’re failing. If you continue to post in this vein we’ll have no choice but to assume that your goal is simply a narcissistic desire for attention. That’s pretty pathetic.

  • Just Sayin’

    I’ve posted plenty of examples of other mass killers who most certainly have been on antidepressants.

    Too many people taking antidepressants? A generation of “Prozac children” raised on the promise of on-demand happiness? Antidepressants
    responsible for hundreds of unnecessary deaths each year? Can it really be true? Worth finding out? Or do *those* lives not matter?

    Find out here, if you care:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rr377

  • cyllan

    Would you please fuck the hell off? You’re taking up valuable real estate on my “Most Recent Comments” section. Seriously. Go find another hobby.

  • Just Sayin’

    More vulgarity … soooo persuasive. Just cuss enough and you must be right! Interesting that all the cussing is coming from the pro-antis.

    By the way, who appointed you the Forum Moderator?

    Nobody?

    Thought so.

  • cyllan

    I am not attempting to be persuasive. I am telling you that you are being an annoying ass and that you should stop.

  • Just Sayin’

    You mean my posts are annoying you. Well, you know what to do, don’t you.

  • Lori

    Cussing doesn’t make one right, but neither does it make one wrong. Same goes for your pearl-clutching. The fact that you keep pulling out the same tired tone argument doesn’t make you wrong, but contrary to what you seem to believe it also doesn’t bolster your case, let alone make you right.

    If you don’t like the language here then go somewhere else where it’s more to your liking. If you make the choice to keep coming where you are most definitely not wanted then you need to stop whining.

  • Just Sayin’

    No, cussing is simply an attempt to intimidate. You got that much right.

    Now … it’s about ANTIDEPRESSANTS. It’s NOT about me. Got it yet?

  • Lori

    It’s not about antidepressants. It’s about your ill-informed crusade against anti-depressants. You’ve made that perfectly obvious and everyone gets it.

  • Just Sayin’

    No, the topic of this thread is supposed to be antidepressants. You and numerous other pro-antis want to make it about me. Which sums up the ad hominem fallacy perfectly.

  • Lori

    God, you’re hopeless.

  • Just Sayin’

    Thanks for that stunning contribution to the antidepressant debate.

  • AnonaMiss

    Didn’t you copy-paste that one before? Are you out of unique instances of sensationalism which you attempt to pass off as argument already?

  • Just Sayin’

    Yes, I’m still waiting for your reply to this “citation”. Since when did Professor Self and the experts he consults become a bunch of quacks in — your presumably qualified — judgment?

    Waiting for your ON TOPIC response, but not holding my breath . . .

  • Just Sayin’

    As for my continuing to post here, are you another of these people who conveniently think everyone else should be able to post obsessively about me but that I shouldn’t have the right of reply?

  • Lori

    That’s some ego you’ve got there. No one is posting obsessively about you. Some of us have (no doubt unwisely) responded to your ongoing link bombing in an attempt not to leave misinformation unanswered.

    If you don’t want people contradicting you, then stop posting here and we’ll happily forget all about you.

  • Just Sayin’

    Since when did exercising a right of reply become “some ego”?

    Another question that you won’t answer but just bully on, continuing your barrage of obsessive personal abuse.

    It’s about ANTI-DEPRESSANTS. NOT about me. Got it?

  • Lori

    The ego is you thinking that people are posing obsessively about you. If you are simply exercising your right of reply then so is everyone who replies to you.

    So, I answered your question. I didn’t bully you or abuse you. I just answered your question. If you’re still not happy with the way you’re being spoken to, you have the absolute power to make it stop.

  • Just Sayin’

    LOL. No, of course you’re not posting obsessively about me. Carry on doing so!

  • Just Sayin’

    By the way, pro-antis, you can’t refute someone’s position by pointing out a (supposed) ulterior motive they might have for believing in it.

    Here’s the way the whole thing works: once an argument is given, the focus goes away from the person to the argument they use.

    If you can evaluate the argument, you should do that, as opposed to just considering the source.

    Simple logic, really.

  • Lori

    Actually, it’s perfectly legitimate to evaluate the motives of the person presenting the argument as part of evaluating the argument.

    Here’s the way the whole thing works: When you bring the same things up again and again and ignore it when people point our serious problems with your links, people start to wonder why you’re doing that. It’s a legitimate question and folks aren’t going to stop asking it. If you don’t want your motives questions go somewhere else.

  • Just Sayin’

    No, motive is immaterial to the validity or otherwise of an argument.

    Please learn basic logic before taking it upon yourself to lecture and berate others.

  • Lori

    A person who didn’t even think to question how a hermit supposedly came to be in possession of prescription medication is in no position to lecture anyone else about basic logic.

  • Just Sayin’

    Sadly, your basic logic is severely lacking. Berating me like a fishwife isn’t addressing the issues and certainly isn’t winning the argument.

  • Lori

    Fishwife? I’m not the one who is yelling.

    Important safety tip: Be sure to wipe the spittle off your keyboard before you shut down for the night. The moisture isn’t good for the components.

  • Just Sayin’

    Behave like a fishwife and you must expect to get called on it. I’d much prefer that you discussed antidepressants, not me, and in a calm, reasonable manner.

  • Lori

    If you desire a calm, reasonable discussion and we’re not providing one then why are you still here? You should go somewhere that will welcome your anti-antidepressant paranoia, scientific illiteracy, lack of basic logic skills and tendency to go all CAPSLOCK when things don’t go your way.

    As for us, you may have heard that we’re having a bit of a difficult week here in the US, so we have more pressing topics to discuss.

  • Just Sayin’

    I’m still here exercising my right of reply. Do you have a problem with that?

    If you have more pressing topics to discuss than suicides and mass shootings, go ahead, no one’s stopping you. However, I’m sure the blog owner would prefer that you not do it on this thread, which is about me … errr, I mean antidepressants.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dpolicar David Policar

    > I’m sure the blog owner would prefer that you not do it on this thread, which is about [..] antidepressants.

    Your certainty about Fred’s preferences is entirely consistent with your other comments here. I commend you for that consistency.

  • Just Sayin’

    zzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZ…

  • http://www.facebook.com/dpolicar David Policar

    :-)

  • Madhabmatics

    pro-tip: life isn’t philosophy 101 and no one cares about your arguments if they are tinged with alex jones “THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW’ conspiracy theories.

  • Just Sayin’

    If you don’t care you have a funny way of showing it. And by the way, you speak only for yourself, just like everyone else here.

    Life isn’t philosophy but reasoned debate is. “You can’t be right because I think you’re a moron” is not a valid argument but it’s all that most of the pro-antis here have to offer, alas.

  • Lori

    No one is saying that you can’t be right because we think you’re a moron. Several people have said that they think you’re a moron because you’re not right and won’t learn. Those are not the same thing.

  • Just Sayin’

    In 2011 a Canadian judge ruled that a teenager was under the influence of an ‘antidepressant’ when he knifed a close friend to death. Judge Robert Heinrichs was told in his Winnipeg court that the killer grew more irrational once prescribed the ‘antidepressant’. He became “irritable, restless, agitated, aggressive and unclear in his thinking,’ the judge said. ‘In that state he overreacted in an impulsive, explosive and violent way’. Once off the drug, he was ‘simply not the same in behaviour or character’.

    This, one of many such examples, merely underlines the urgent need for proper research into these widely used pills.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Based on the expert testimony of one Peter Breggin, a psychiatrist whose credentials are only slightly marred by his association with the Church of Scientology…

  • Just Sayin’

    He could belong to the Church of the Celestial Teapot and still be right that two and two makes four.

    Him and his alleged membership of some organisation of which you, and you hope others, disapprove, is not the issue here, what is at issue is the validity of his evidence and the validity of his psychiatric credentials.

    Please learn basic logic in order to avoid the ad hominem fallacy.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    He’s admitted to the association, and yes, an association with a church which doesn’t believe in either psychiatry or mental illness (beliefs which he has also admitted to sharing) does damage one’s credibility when speaking about psychiatry and mental illness when he’s referring to agents of control used by the galactic overlord Xenu to control the lizardpeople.

  • Just Sayin’

    Okay, lets judge the validity of someone’s arguments not on the facts presented but on whether we think that particular person passes muster or not. Heck, who needs facts anyway?

    And what about the rest of the evidence I’ve presented links to? Or are you just going to pick at this one particular item forever, content that you’ve exposed one flaw so the rest might as well not exist?

  • AnonaMiss

    Heck, who needs facts anyway?

    1) When someone is affiliated with an organization which believes as an article of faith that XYZ is evil, that person’s statements on XYZ cannot be trusted to be facts, and refusal to engage with those statements is not a refusal to engage with ‘the facts’.

    2) You have come here with anecdotes about the evils of antidepressants – some of which have been previously pointed out to not make any sense – and links to people making similar anecdotal, pop-science claims based on anecdote alone. However, you refuse to acknowledge the anecdotes given by posters here as equally valid, because “anecdotes are not data”. (Agreed on that point, obviously).

    3) Most notably, you have refused to engage the research and statistics I presented upthread which demonstrate that there is no correlation between SSRIs and increased violence when one takes into account that the conditions people take SSRIs for raise the baseline of those types of violence. That, in fact, SSRIs reduce the incidence of violence compared to untreated patients.

    The correlation between antidepressants and violence which you came into the thread all worried about and decrying and calling for more research – but which you don’t seem to be interested in helping to obtain more funds for research – is a figment of fallacy, the result of improperly comparing between the treated and the general population, instead of between the treated and the untreated.

    That fictitious correlation, therefore, is also not a fact, and does not require engagement.

  • Just Sayin’

    Sorry, none of this guff amounts to a hill of beans. Unless you can point out the empirical scientific research that has shown there is no causation factor in the correlation between antidepressants and mass shootings, (you can’t, it hasn’t been done, and the correlation is often not even generally noted), you’ve posted nothing but smoke and mirrors.

  • AnonaMiss

    The information I provided was entirely from US national health institutions and scientific researchers. This information demonstrated that there is no statistical correlation between antidepressants and violence. Since there is no correlation, there cannot be a “causation factor” in that non-existent correlation.

    Thus, the reason why the correlation is “often not even generally noted” (“Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?”) is that it does not exist.

    I say “more in depth” because one of the studies I linked to above mentioned in the abstract that its intent was to investigate if there was a correlation. (Obviously it concluded that there was not.)

    As for your continued insistence on “mass shootings” instead of “violence” or even “homicide”, are you proposing that SSRIs are more likely to steer their users towards guns specifically?

  • Lori

    Just Sayin’ seems to be demanding that someone prove a negetive.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dpolicar David Policar

    I think their demands adapt to the situation.
    Not in a good way.

  • Just Sayin’

    And it’s not relevant information. As I keep saying, unless you can point out the empirical scientific research that has shown there is no causation factor in the correlation between antidepressants and mass shootings, (you can’t, it hasn’t been done, and the correlation is often not even generally noted), you’ve posted nothing but smoke and mirrors that will impress only those who are already the true believers.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    So. It is insufficient for us to demonstrate an absence of evidence and an absence of correlation, you are requesting that via empirical methods we prove the non-existence of a causal relationship?

    The standard you have set for proof is definitionally impossible to meet. You should know this.

    You have attempted to set terms such that it is logically impossible for anyone but you to claim a rhetorical victory. So I think we can all conclude that you are not debating in good faith, and are, in fact, trolling.

  • Just Sayin’

    No, I’m not. I’m saying that empirical — scientific — investigation, preferably under government auspices involving subpoenas, needs to be undertaken regarding the correlation between antidepressants and mass killings. As I’m sure you already know.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dpolicar David Policar

    > I’m saying that empirical — scientific — investigation, preferably under government auspices involving subpoenas,

    Whom should the government subpoena?

  • Just Sayin’

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

  • https://pjevansgen.wordpress.com/ P J Evans

    Clearly it doesn’t understand ’empirical’ proof.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dpolicar David Policar

    I haven’t yet gathered enough data to be confident in an opinion about their understanding, or their motives.

  • AnonaMiss

    Empirical and scientific are not synonyms. Empirical investigation is a subset of scientific investigation. It is also a subset that is highly unethical and, in the US, illegal to perform on human subjects.

    Which is why the grand majority of medical research is statistical. Statistical research doesn’t require giving healthy people drugs with potentially dangerous side effects so that there’s a control group.

    But you’ve already dismissed (government-undertaken) statistical research as not scientific, because its conclusions don’t agree with your preconceptions.

  • Just Sayin’

    Doctors once told us thalidomide was safe. No doubt someone at the time was statistically wishing it away too. Until the tragic reality became clear. Perhaps a government investigation into antidepressants can save lives before (any more) tragedies take place.

  • AnonaMiss

    So government statistical research isn’t scientific, so you want a government to do illegal, unethical human subjects experiments because you don’t believe the statistical research’s conclusions?

  • Just Sayin’

    Government ENQUIRY. Got it?

  • Just Sayin’

    Antidepressants: Do they heal or harm? One expert’s view:

    http://lefeverblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/02/antidepressants-do-they-heal-or-harm.html

    Now I’m sure I’ll hear all kinds of irrelevant waffle about the source (me) and the venue (this horrid newspaper), and so on and on and on, and zero engagement with the arguments laid out . . .

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    You’re Robert Lefever?

  • Just Sayin’

    Once again, IT’S NOT ABOUT ME. It’s about antidepressants.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dpolicar David Policar

    I’m sorry you feel the need to shout.

  • Just Sayin’

    I’m being considerate to the deaf.

  • Lori

    I think we’re getting to the bottom of the problem. You don’t know what a source is. As Sam notes, unless you’re Robert Lefever you aren’t the source.

    I’m going to assume that you are not Robert Lefever and wonder again why someone who is so focused on the Mail’s anti-antidepressant coverage (that would be you) is posting on a blog written by an American, with a readership that is also heavily American and which is not generally about antidepressants or mental health issues. Are you trolling other US blogs too or are we special?

  • Just Sayin’

    And you are a source? I think Dr. Lefever is a bit more qualified to speak on this than you are. I’ll take him as a source of information and informed opinion anyday over you. Unless you are as qualified as he is?

    AS for the US vs. UK thing you’re harping on about, who really cares? For you, it’s just one more petty little thing to pick at, isn’t it? Ignore content, pick at source, eh?

  • AnonaMiss

    When “content” has been debunked, it deserves to be ignored, yes.

  • Just Sayin’

    I must have missed your debunking among all the smoke and mirrors you’ve been posting!

  • Just Sayin’

    Dr. Declan Gilsenan, former Assistant State Pathologist in Ireland, has stated that he has seen “Too many suicides” after people start taking antidepressants, and he questions whether doctors are over-prescribing them. After 30 years as a pathologist he says the evidence is “more than anecdotal.”

    Anyone want to discuss this, or just continue rambling on about me and how horrid I am, impolite, laughable, disrespectful, lacking in “reading comprehension” and other waffle?

  • AnonaMiss

    Waffles are yummy. I want waffles now.

    My friends in Istanbul tell me that you can order waffles for delivery there. Imagine! Waffles direct to your house at any hour of the night!

    Also, I heard that the British Left waffles on the Falkland Islands.

  • Just Sayin’

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ…

  • Lori

    Anyone want to discuss this

    It should be failry obvious by now that the answer is no. No one here wants to discuss this with you.

  • Just Sayin’

    Once again, you speak for no one but yourself. For someone who doesn’t want to discuss with me, you’re going a funny way about it.

  • Lori

    I’m not speaking for others, I’m making an observation. One which you should have made at least a week ago. If someone wanted to have a coversation about anti-depressants on your terms they’ve had more than ample oppertunity to jump into this 2 week old thread. No one has. You do the math.

  • Just Sayin’

    Of course you’re trying to speak for others when you use the royal “we”. Unless you’ve carried out a survey, your “observation” isn’t exactly scientific is it?

    I prefer science, not groupthink.

  • Lori

    Not that I did not use “we”, royal or otherwise. What was that you were saying about your reading comprehension being just fine?

    Also, you prefer science? Hahahahaha. Thanks so much for the laugh.

  • Just Sayin’

    You’re attempting to speak on behalf of others all the time. It’s typical internet forum behaviour, just another attempt at bullying.

  • Lori

    Your attempts to play the victim are really quite sad. No one is bullying you. I repeat something I’ve said before which you keep ignoring—no one here sought you out. TTBOMK no one here has attempted to follow you anywhere else. I certainly haven’t. You have complete power over the situation. If you do not like the way you’re being spoken to you can make it stop at any time. There is literally no reason for you to be here. This is not a blog devoted to mental health issues or to conspiracy theories.

  • Just Sayin’

    Pointing out other posters’ vulgarity is hardly “playing the victim” (yet another familiar old internet forum phrase, again designed to bully your opponent), as they have stated that they are proud of their ability to cuss at me like sailors. I’m taking them at their word, as should you.

    As for seeking me out, try the Polcar fellow, or whatever his name is, or several others, who have nothing to contribute on topic but simply wish to obsess endlessly about me, and my lack of “reading comprehension”, lack of “citations”, blah, blah , blah.

    But being a pro-anti, you only seem to see what you want to see..

  • http://www.facebook.com/dpolicar David Policar

    As far as I recall, I haven’t mentioned reading comprehension, and I haven’t mentioned citations.

    I have asked you, repeatedly, what research you want to support into antidepressants, since I agree with you that research into the risks and benefits of these medicines is useful.

    (I’m still curious, incidentally. Is there a particular researcher you think is doing interesting work? Or a particular funding institution you think is worth supporting?)

    When you clarified that you wanted government investigations with subpoenas (either in lieu of or in addition to scientific research, I’m not quite sure which), I also asked you who you would like to see subpoenaed.

    Thus far you’ve mostly replied by insulting me, by telling me to go away, and by making silly noises like “PLONK!” and “ZZZZ…”

  • Just Sayin’

    You and Evans make the perfect stalker pair. Or perhaps you’re the same individual.

    Address the evidence I’ve already cited or drone on obsessively, it’s up to you. I’d prefer the former but expect the latter.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dpolicar David Policar

    You said you wanted scientific research, and I agreed, and asked you what research you wanted and how you wanted us to support it.

    You said you wanted government-issued subpoenas, and I asked you who you wanted to subpoena.

    Have a polite conversation about how we can collectively make progress on the issues you think are important, or continue having the same old boring arguments.

    It’s up to you. I’d prefer the former but expect the latter.

    Oh, and I suppose Evans and I might be the same individual. I say we aren’t, but I don’t suppose my testimony is reliable. What evidence is there in favor of that theory, and what evidence is there against?

  • Just Sayin’

    Go away, troll. You like the sound of your own “cleverness” far too much.

  • Lori

    Claiming to be bullied when you are not is playing the victim.

    Polcar is not seeking you out. He’s not following you to other blogs or sending you emails. He’s reading and responding to your presence in this thread. If you don’t want him to do that, stop commenting in this thread.

  • Just Sayin’

    “Reading comprehension” silliness, ad hominem attacks, repeated demands for “citations” when none are demanded from others (and I’ve already posted numerous expert evidence for the need for research), posters cussin’ at me like sailors, and other aggressive behaviour, posts calling for anyone with my viewpoint to have his mouth forcibly sewn up with wire, etc., etc.

    Yes, I’m playing the victim. Sure.

    As for Policar, and now Evans, they are most certainly stalking and trolling.

  • Lori

    So David Policar and PJ Evans have sent you email or followed you to other blogs? If this has happened and you have evidence of it then I’d say that you have some reason to complain.

    However, we both know that’s not the case. The only thing either of them have done is consistently respond to the comments you make here. They are not stalking you, they are exercising their right of reply. If you don’t want to hear from them stop commenting here. There is no good reason for you to continue to do so.

    The rest of your comment is even less true and more whiny than your claims of stalking.

  • Just Sayin’

    No doubt they would do those things if they could. I’ve seen this sort of behaviour before, as I’m sure have you. The difference is, you consider them allies so you overlook their bad behaviour.

    As for commenting here, I’m replying to them — and you — as you well know. You’ve simply picked up and begun parroting my right of reply remark.

    Now, what about getting back on topic?

  • https://pjevansgen.wordpress.com/ P J Evans

    Please do everyone else a favor and go away.
    For the record, I don’t know who you are, and I don’t WANT to know. I have no plans to follow you to whatever bridge you live under, either. I *have* a life, and you’re not part of it.

  • Just Sayin’

    No one’s forcing you to read a single word of anything I’ve written here, so please don’t be melodramatic and ridiculous.

  • Lori

    Oh please, if they wanted to track you down they probably could. There’s really no such thing as anonymity on the internet. I presume you know that. You keep going on about all the bad behavior you’ve seen in forums, so I assume your internet experience is truly vast.

    Unfortunatley all that experience seems to be wasted on you, since you seem to be unwilling or unable to comprehend much. I’m not excusing bad behavior in “allies” because there’s no bad behavior to excuse. You came into this forum and posted. They responded to you. The fact that you don’t like their responses doesn’t make their behavior bad.

    And I’m not picking up and parroting your right of reply remark, I’m pointing out your hypocrisy. You claim the right to reply to any and everything posted while claiming that those who reply to you are stalking you. That’s playing the vicitm.

    As for getting back on topic, there’s nothing to get back to. The topic has been exhausted. If anyone wanted to discuss anti-depressants with you on your terms, which is what you’re insisting on, they would have done so. It hasn’t happened and there’s no reason to think that it will. David Policar has now tried several times to discuss research option with you and all that’s done is lead you to whine about him stalking you, so that’s clearly no a productive topic.

    You are obviously not going to get the discussion you claim to want here, and yet you continue to post. Why are you doing that?

  • Just Sayin’

    Sorry, I have a right of reply and I’m exercising it. If you don’t like my freedom of speech, then stop posting to me. Your choice.

  • Lori

    Strictly speaking, you don’t have a right of reply on someone else’s blog. However, since Fred isn’t going to ban you, you can of course keep on replying. However, if you claim your “right of reply” while complaining that other people who do the same are stalking you then you’re a hypocrite and also more than a bit of an ass.

  • Just Sayin’

    I’ve been granted it here. If you don’t like it, stop posting to me. Your choice. But don’t complain when I reply to you. That would be just being silly.

    As for the name-calling, grow up.

  • Lori

    So it’s silly of me to complain when you respond to me, but stalking and obsessive when others respond to you?

    I’m just trying to clarify your terms here.

  • Just Sayin’

    You’re just being obsessive. Let it go.

  • AnonaMiss

    Ohhh, we’re engaging in suuch bad behavior by telling you you aren’t understanding what we’re saying and that you aren’t making any sense. Poor widdle JS. Clearly if we were able to penetrate your seven proxies we would be following you all over the internet, calling you names and forcing you to reply to us, just like we called you out here and forced you to reply to us when you had had no intention of posting in the Slacktivist comment thread at all…

  • Just Sayin’

    Now you’ve added patronising to the rest of your personal attacks.

    Doesn’t add anything to the discussion, does it?

  • AnonaMiss

    It adds more of the only thing this “discussion” still has: entertainment value.

    Not even snarking: you seriously brighten my day. It’s hard not to feel your ego stroked when confronted by someone who disagrees with you who also happens to be an idiot.

  • Just Sayin’

    Sorry, I don’t find mass killings, suicides and gross human misery “entertainment.” If you do, you’re simply not taking the discussion seriously. In other words, you’re admitting to trolling.

  • Just Sayin’

    The renowned Poet Laureate Ted Hughes believed that it was antidepressant drugs that led to the suicide of his wife Sylvia Plath. This sort of thing is still going on among less famous people. Time for serious scientific research into it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dpolicar David Policar

    > Time for serious scientific research into it.

    I couldn’t agree with you more. Research into the risks and benefits of these medicines is critical for developing more reliable treatments for helping people who suffer from depression.

    What research do you recommend?

    For example, is there a researcher or research organization you endorse whom you would like us to fund?

    Is there someone you’d like us to write to, to encourage _them_ to do research into the effects of antidepressants?

    Something else?

  • Just Sayin’

    Blah, blah, blah.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dpolicar David Policar

    Right back at you, Sparky.

  • Just Sayin’

    zzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ…

  • Just Sayin’

    Last year GlaxoSmithKline, one of the biggest antidepressant manufacturing companies, was fined £2 BILLION in the US for, among other things, bribing doctors, and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable drugs to children. Its drug Paxil, sold in the UK as Seroxat, was promoted as suitable for teenagers and children, even though scientific trials had shown it was not.

    Doctors were sent on free trips where they were treated to snorkelling, sailing, deep-sea fishing, balloon rides and spa treatments (and cash payments), to persuade them to prescribe these drugs, or to reward them for doing so. A medically-qualified radio host was paid £150,000 to plug one GSK antidepressant for unapproved uses. GlaxoSmithKline paid for articles approving its drugs to appear in reputable medical journals.

    Still have unwavering faith in your doctor to objectively prescribe you some “safe” antidepressants?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    It takes a lot of gall to spend a week accusing others of “vulgarity” and “ad hominem” arguments, then turn around and argue based entirely on the straw man fallacy.

    Not a single person has said or intimated that anyone should have “unwaivering faith in your doctor to prescribe you some safe antidepressants.”

    This is not an ad hominem attack: you are lying. Your argument has no merit.

  • AnonaMiss

    Not to mention that improper conduct on the part of megacorporate marketers, leading to the overprescription of a drug, would have no bearing on whether the drug was dangerous or not when properly prescribed.

  • Lori

    There’s also something more than a bit off about a person chiding us for supposedly placing too much faith in doctors while offering the opinions of (among others) a newspaper columnist and a poet as very serious things that we must all grapple with in order to prove that we’re open-minded and interested in science.

  • Just Sayin’

    I pointed out the vulgarity and the mass of irrelevant and illogical ad hominem coming like a floodtide from the pro-antis, I didn’t invent it.

    And on the contrary, several posters have, while committing ad hominems left right and centre, stated that they will take the views of their doctor over mine anyday. After all, he’s a “professional,” right?

    Being a pro-anti, you’re seeing only what you want to see.

  • AnonaMiss

    You do know that dismissing people’s arguments because the arguers are being “vulgar” is a classic ad hominem, right?

  • Just Sayin’

    I’m not dismissing their arguments — because they haven’t presented any. They’re much too busy cussin’ like fishwives and obsessing about my “reading comprehension.”

    Oh, and demanding “citations.”

  • AnonaMiss

    The problem is that I had to spend 5 posts asking before you would respond, and you still haven’t given your thoughts on my initial argument.

    You’re welcome.

    Wow, that sure seems like acknowledging an argument has been made and dismissing it off hand!

    Or am I not allowed to draw a conclusion because only a psychic can tell what you mean by “You’re welcome”?

  • Just Sayin’

    You’ve lost me down this sinkhole of shoot-the-messenger obsession. Get back to discussing antidepressants, please. Once again, it’s not about me.

  • AnonaMiss

    Back to? So we have made arguments, then?

    Care to address any of them?

  • Just Sayin’

    Yes, you’ve failed to address the arguments I’ve already posted several times. You’re simply ignoring them. I’m still waiting for your response, to take only one example, to Professor Self’s concerns, which I posted.

  • AnonaMiss

    We’ve debunked some of your arguments (scientologist “psychiatrist”, the unabomber was an anti-anti and had been off the grid for months so he hadn’t been taking antidepressants, etc). You’ve refused to even acknowledge ours.

    You don’t get to just keep throwing ‘poop’ at the wall and seeing what sticks. We’ve addressed plenty of your arguments. Now address mine. Or someone else’s, I’m not picky.

  • Just Sayin’

    So… to get back to Professor Self’s concerns. Any comment?

  • AnonaMiss

    Not until you comment on our contributions. You don’t get to soapbox any longer. You need to address one of our citations to demonstrate good faith.

  • Just Sayin’

    As I initiated the discussion, and have posted numerous links containing supporting evidence and expert opinion, it’s up to you to address it. Instead you seem to prefer name calling.

  • https://pjevansgen.wordpress.com/ P J Evans

    I would certainly take the views of MY doctor over yours. For one thing, I know what my doctor’s qualifications are.
    AFAICT, yours are limited to copy-and-paste of stories that fail to prove whatever point you think you have..

  • Just Sayin’

    As you don’t even know my doctor, your comment doesn’t make sense.

  • Just Sayin’

    The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency UK undertook trials which showed that teenagers and children who took Seroxat were significantly more likely to experience suicidal thoughts.

    A significant empirical finding that provides food for thought for some. An excuse to cuss and bully on this forum for others.

    Let’s have the usual response now …

  • https://pjevansgen.wordpress.com/ P J Evans

    ‘Empirical’ is not ‘scientific’. You might want to look it up in your nearest dictionary. Assuming, of course, that you can find and use one without someone holding your hand and reading it to you very slowly.

  • Just Sayin’

    Another pro-anti rabbiting on about my “reading comprehension” and referring me to dictionaries.

  • AnonaMiss

    So let’s say, hypothetically, there was a word you were using incorrectly or an argument you weren’t understanding. How would you suggest we convey this to you without “rabbiting on about your reading comprehension” or referring you to a dictionary?

  • Lori

    I think the assumption is that JS can’t possibly be wrong about anything. Oy vey.

  • Just Sayin’

    ANTIDEPRESSANTS. That’s the topic of this thread.

  • AnonaMiss

    It’s not the topic of this subthread! That’s the miracle of written communication: you can follow every branch of a discussion without detracting from the other branches.

    How would you suggest I inform you of a misunderstanding, or the misuse of a word, without referring you to a dictionary or making note that you didn’t understand what I wrote (‘reading comprehension’)?

  • Just Sayin’

    Sorry, I’m not interested in your “subthread.” I’m interested in the very serious subject of antidepressants, linked to such grim realities as suicides and mass killings. You’re interested in “entertainment”, name calling and general trolling behaviour, alas.

  • AnonaMiss

    Let’s hear about how people who use anti-fungal cream are significantly more likely to experience Athlete’s Foot next!

  • Just Sayin’

    I just want there to be a public debate and a proper independent inquiry, an aim surely no honest person can oppose. Who can be against the truth emerging?

    Or are you one of those who wants my jaw wired shut for suggesting this?

  • AnonaMiss

    Did Glenn Beck rape and kill a girl in 1990?

  • Just Sayin’

    Antidepressants. That’s the topic of this thread.

  • AnonaMiss

    While we’re at it, let’s have a public debate and a proper independent inquiry into the pro-Athlete’s Foot properties of anti-fungal cream, and the disturbing link between AIDS and anti-retroviral medications.

  • Just Sayin’

    Doctors once told us thalidomide was safe. Do you want to make a joke about it too?

  • AnonaMiss

    “Antidepressants. That’s the topic of this thread.” Any analogy you make is inherently irrelevant and a “red herring”.

    However, I will take you up on the offer:

    What’s the difference between a pile of thalidomide baby corpses and a pickup truck?

    I don’t have a pickup truck in my garage.

  • Just Sayin’

    Please don’t be juvenile.

  • AnonaMiss

    Wouldn’t you say the topic of whether or not I’m juvenile is a “red herring”? Or do you only care about staying on topic when you’ve been embarrassed in a side-branch?

  • Just Sayin’

    You’ve admitted that you’re here for “entertainment” and not on-topic discussion. Instead you want to divert to your “subthread” i.e. obsessing about me.

    If you don’t have anything to add about this serious topic of antidepressants, then you should stop posting to me.

  • Just Sayin’

    “Such is modern psychopharmacology. Guided purely by symptoms, we try different drugs, with no real conception of what we are trying to fix, or of how the drugs are working.” – Psychiatrist Daniel Carlat

    Quick — wire his jaw up!

  • Lori

    No one disputes the fact that we don’t know exactly how many psychotropic drugs work and no one is going to wire anyone’s jaw up for saying that. I have no desire to reread this entire, very tiresome, thread to double check, but I’m pretty sure that’s already been discussed. It’s definitely true that many people have said many times that more research needs to be done. Your persistent refusal to grasp that and your continued posting of things that people already know as if they were grand revelations is your problem, not ours. Are you this much of a drama queen about other issues or do you reserve this behavior for your anti-antidepressant crusade?

  • Just Sayin’

    I must have missed your dissenting reply to the pro-anti poster lobbying for anyone with a contrary opinion to have their jaws wired together forcibly.

    But of course you just turn a blind eye to such behaviour. I don’t.

  • Lori

    Put up or shut up. Provide an exact quote from this thread where someone said that anyone disagreeing should have their jaws wired together forcibly. And no, someone wishing that you would shut up and go away doesn’t count.

  • AnonaMiss

    There was one person who said in an unrelated comment that when people tell her she shouldn’t take antidepressants because Weak or Rely on Christ or what have you, she wishes they would have their jaws wired.

    However, it was pretty clearly not in the context of “don’t question research!” but instead “strangers shouldn’t tell me how I should live my life”; it was pretty clearly blowing off steam rather than an actual recommendation; and it was pretty clearly not directed at JS here, though he did take grave offense at it earlier after assuming it was a reply to him, until it was pointed out that if it were a reply to him, it would have a little “Reply” link in the post.

  • Lori

    I figured it was something like that. Just Sayin’s intellectual dishonesty is nothing if not consistent.

  • Just Sayin’

    I’m still waiting for your dissenting reply to the jaw-wirer.

  • Lori

    So link directly to that comment and demonstrate the the person in fact said what you are claiming.

  • Just Sayin’

    Your dissention from the jaw-wirer’s views, please. Or do you agree with her? Time to put up or shut up, as the expression goes.

  • Lori

    So, you expect me to respond to a comment that you haven’t provided? I
    don’t know if I agree with her or not because I don’t know what she
    said.

    And no, it’s not my job to dig through the thread and find it. If
    you want a response to it then link to it. If you’re not willing to do that then drop it.

  • Just Sayin’

    Surely you didn’t miss the original comment? The one where your ally was advocating violence against those who disagree with her? Didn’t it matter to you? Or were you just quietly cheering her on?

    Anyway, you’ve now been called on it. Do you agree with her or do you publicly dissent from such a view?

    Time to put it on the record, either way.

  • Lori

    This thread now has almost 950 comments and is over a month old. I do not recall every comment made. Given how difficult disqus now makes it to follow long threads I may well have missed seeing the comment that has you so worked up when it was first posted. I am not going to respond to your characterization of someone else’s comment.

    If you want me to respond to it, link to it. If it’s not important enough to you for you to put in the effort to locate it, then stop whining about it.

  • Just Sayin’

    Surely a comment so violent would have caught your attention? It was commented on by other posters at the time and by me. As you’ve been obsessively following my posts and responding to most of them, it’s barely credible that you could be ignorant of one of the most controversial ones — far more controversial than anything I’ve posted, which have merely been calls for more research and enquiry.

    Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

  • Lori

    Link or stop whining.

  • Just Sayin’

    I’m not the one whining, dear.

  • Lori

    Don’t call me dear. It’s neither cute nor appropriate.

  • Just Sayin’

    Then kindly stop the name-calling yourself. It’s not nice, is it?

  • Lori

    Oh sure, totally the same thing.

  • Just Sayin’

    No, actually name-calling is worse.

  • AnonaMiss

    As noted, the post in question was a) not in reply to you and b) over a month ago, so even if Lori were “obsessively following your posts” (instead of being alerted by Disqus’ email subscription service to new posts, which, remarkably, only you are making to this month-old thread!), there’s no reason ze would necessarily have seen it or remembered it.

    I only remember it because you put up such a fuss about it when it was a) new and b) not in reply to you, and at this point every silly, stupid, and/or dramatic post you make fills me with… not exactly schadenfreude… I’m gonna say unvernünftigkeitfreude, if my understanding of German synthesis is correct.

  • Just Sayin’

    So do you support your jaw-wiring pro-anti colleague or don’t you? It’s very easy to answer that in one word: Yes or No? Why wouldn’t you want to answer?

  • Just Sayin’

    Peter Reeve, a man who shot dead a policeman in 2012, and who later killed himself, was taking ‘antidepressant’ medication. Reeve worked as a volunteer handyman at a Gun Club. The club owner, Andy Riva, said: “He had a troubled past, he suffered from depression. You could tell from his mood swings if he was taking his medication.”

  • Lori

    You could tell from his mood swings if he was taking his medication.”

    So, Mr Reeve sometimes took his medication and sometimes did not and his mood was different when he took it than his psychotropic medication than it was when he did not. That certainly is a shocker..

  • Just Sayin’

    Yes, and everything in the garden is rosy. Keep turning a blind eye. After all, there’s no firm evidence, is there? So why go looking for it? Better to be happily ignorant.

  • Lori

    Using logic is not the same thing as being happily ignorant. Even if it was, it would be better than being like you—unhappily ignorant.

  • Just Sayin’

    Using logic without the necessary facts isn’t much good, is it. That;s why we need an enquiry.

  • Lori

    There is no amount of facts that will help someone such as yourself who is demonstrably unable to grasp them. You are on an crusade. Facts don’t actually matter to you.

  • Just Sayin’

    I’m the one calling for an open mind, caution, and further enquiry and research, based on the facts I’ve linked to. Those facts that don’t matter to you and your jaw-wiring friend.

  • Lori

    If all you were calling for is “open mind, caution, and further enquiry and research” this thread would have been over 4 1/2 weeks ago (as it should have been). You’re on a crusade.

  • Just Sayin’

    Antidepressants are guesswork in an area of which doctors know virtually nothing. And no, they aren’t all in the pay of the drug companies, but any honest doctor will admit that many are influenced by the perks and benefits which the drug companies give to those who prescribe their pills. And many more are influenced by the need to get the patient out of the surgery quickly, with some form of apparent reassurance. How will you know if you are on the receiving end of either of these factors? You won’t.

    The level of objective scientific knowledge about the operation of antidepressants is pitifully small. Doctors are mostly no more qualified to make judgments on how chemicals will affect an individual’s brain than are Miley Cyrus or David Beckham. Why? Because there simply is no reliable objective knowledge on this matter. We know that these things change moods. We don’t know how or why they do it, or what the long-term effects may be. In many cases, it may be a placebo effect. The real effect, dismissed as a side-effect, initially disguised by the placebo effect, may well be the more important effect.

    For all these reasons, and more, we need a government enquiry with subpoena evidence. That’s my argument. Hardly a radical position. Some might even say it’s a responsible one.

    Others will call for my jaw to be forcibly wired for daring to express it. Others, like you, will try to call it a “crusade.”

  • Lori

    The depth of your ignorance, and your determination to maintain that ignorance, is truly impressive.

    Who exactly do you want to subpoena and why?

  • Just Sayin’

    All relevant parties.

  • Lori

    Who would those relevant parties be?

    Also, there seems to be a bit of a contradiction in your stated aims and methods. On one hand you keep saying that no one really knows anything about anti-depressants. On the other you want to subpoena unnamed persons to get them to tell what they know. So, do people not know anything or do they know things and they’re just keeping it from you and need to be forced by the law to tell?

  • Just Sayin’

    I’ve already been through all that with my other Chief Interrogator, the smug Policar bloke. The big drug companies for one. Obviously.

  • Lori

    Have at it. Good luck with that. Go with god and all that.

  • Just Sayin’

    Glad to see that you’ve come around to my way of thinking.

  • Lori

    I haven’t “come around” to you’re way of thinking. I think what I always though. I was never the “pro-anti” cartoon you’ve been pretending that i am and I have not become a anti-antidepressant crusader now.

    Mostly I just want you to go away. There is no reason for you to be posting here.

  • Just Sayin’

    Pro-anti, to repeat for the umpteenth time, isn’t a cartoon or pigeonholing or ad hominem anything other than shorthand for an identifiable group sharing a viewpoint.

    And again for the umpteenth time, if you want me to stop posting my replies why are you obsessively posting to me day after day after day?

  • http://www.facebook.com/dpolicar David Policar

    I’m now sort of tempted to change my handle here to “the smug Policar bloke.” In any case, thanks for answering the question.

  • Just Sayin’

    I see the Chief Troll is back. Antidepressants. That’s the topic.

  • AnonaMiss

    Oh you are soooo persecuted because someone used a colorful metaphor to express disapproval for people who make moral judgments about patients taking antidepressants. Clearly that person wants to stifle scientific inquiry, and anyone who doesn’t explicitly disavow hir completely unrelated remarks wants to silence all dissent!

  • AnonaMiss

    Also just to clarify my position, I would be for responsible research into SSRIs and in fact any drug and in fact anything. But research dollars are scarce, and when preliminary research indicates no correlation (as demonstrated upthread), it is irresponsible to direct our limited resources towards investigating further – thus delaying other, more promising medical research – because a few people have a hunch.

  • Just Sayin’

    ANTIDEPRESSANTS. That’s the topic. Not me. You seem to find me endlessly fascinating, I don’t.

  • Just Sayin’

    ‘We do know that anti-depressants have effects. Mostly they have placebo effects and side-effects. We also know that for many people they can have sedating or numbing effects’. — Cracked – Why Psychiatry is doing more harm than good’ by James Davies, Icon Books, page 98.

  • Just Sayin’

    ‘These [antidepressant] pills , in other words, don’t cure us – they simply change us. They can throw us temporarily into a foreign state of mind, into an altered version of who we are. From this standpoint, antidepressant medications do not return us to health as medical pills aim to do- they rather manufacture a new state of mind, an often unnatural state’. — Cracked – Why Psychiatry is doing more harm than good’ by James Davies, Icon Books

  • Just Sayin’

    The manufacture and distribution of antidepressants is controlled by large companies whose gigantic profits depend on the continued sale of these pills. Combine this with the enormous pressure on doctors who need some way of sending unhappy patients home happier than they were when they came in, and who can receive cornucopias of free gifts and free trips if they play along with those large companies.

    But the greatest obstacle to a serious debate — as we’ve seen on this thread — is the complicity with the doctors and the drug companies of many of the patients themselves. They have been persuaded to believe that they have been helped by medications. So persuaded that any contrary view often meets with fury, torrents of irrational wrath poured upon the doubter, and even a call for forcibly wiring such a Doubting Thomas’ jaw! Well, their pills have certainly had an effect on them. But what is that effect?

    I’d like to find out. But I don’t expect any sudden revelations of honesty from the drug companies, or confessions of doubt from harried family doctors. It will need an independent, government sponsored enquiry.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X