Mass Psychosis in the US

[Skull Pilot]

The drugs are called "anti-psychotics" because that's what they were originally developed to do. Just like "anti-depressants" were originally designed for that, but now we know they have good effects against anxiety. We know now that "anti-psychotic" drugs are good for major depression refractory to typical antidepressants. "Abilify" is aripiprazole and is good for major depressive disorder that is refractory to SSRIs. Electroconvulsant Treatment also is effective for people who are majorly depressed and can't find relief with pharmaceuticals. (It is highly effective, and patients have to request it and it's administered under general anesthesia).

It all makes sense, since (despite what Scientology would have you believe), psych diagnosis are caused by chemical imbalences in the brain. All psych drugs modify those.

True psychosis is found in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and a few more. The incidence of these pathologies remains stable. So the increase in "antipsychotic" use is for off label indications. The major question is this: if patients find benefit from the drugs, then what is the real problem?

We are over drugged as a whole and most people on anti depressants would do as well or better if they changed their lifestyles.

A simple thing like exercise can stave of depression for many people. It's funny how the fatter more sedentary we get as a society the more depressed we feel.

Depression and anxiety: Exercise eases symptoms - MayoClinic.com

Yeah. That's what they need. Diet, exercise, and vitamins. Just like Tom Cruise said.

Thanks for your opinion. My original question stands: if patient's feel that they benefit from anti-depressants, what is the harm and who is anyone else to judge them?

If diet and exercise works for you, then great. It's presumptuous to think they will work for everyone.

Gee people at the Mayo clinic agree with me.

Just because drugs work for you doesn't mean everyone has to be a fucking slave to a pharmaceutical company

 

[geauxtohell]

Gee people at the Mayo clinic agree with me.

Just because drugs work for you doesn't mean everyone has to be a fucking slave to a pharmaceutical company

No they don't. You just didn't bother to read the whole article. Last paragraph:

Exercise is a great way to ease symptoms of anxiety or depression, but it isn't a substitute for psychotherapy, medications or other treatment.

You'll never hear me arguing against getting Americans to work out.

What I dispute is this nonsense that smacks of claiming depression is not a real illness and people are just self medicating themselves into a stupor.

By the way, in light of your low blow comment, I am not on antidepressants or any "antipsychotic" medications. Way to go from zero to douche baggary in one post.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Gee people at the Mayo clinic agree with me.

Just because drugs work for you doesn't mean everyone has to be a fucking slave to a pharmaceutical company

No they don't. You just didn't bother to read the whole article. Last paragraph:

Exercise is a great way to ease symptoms of anxiety or depression, but it isn't a substitute for psychotherapy, medications or other treatment.

You'll never hear me arguing against getting Americans to work out.

What I dispute is this nonsense that smacks of claiming depression is not a real illness and people are just self medicating themselves into a stupor.

By the way, in light of your low blow comment, I am not on antidepressants or any "antipsychotic" medications. Way to go from zero to douche baggary in one post.

Where did I ever say depression is not a real illness.

If you bother to read my statements I said the incidence of clinical depression is lower than the current rampant prescribing of drugs warrants.

Doctors prescribe shit. That's what they do. What better way to get you into their office a few times a year so they can charge your insurance outrageous amounts for drugs that cost a few pennies a pill?

 

[sparky]

SP - While what you post is somewhat true, I'm sure, for many 'of us' it seems not logically true for all 'of us'. There are chemical imbalances that are sometimes too great to affectively change through diet, exercise, lifestyle, emotional influences, etc... and those do require medication. The problem is perhaps more so that so many 'of us' primarily depend on the chemical change/adjustments of prescription medications instead of being personally responsible and spiritually proactive.

I've only posted the current gesalt of the shrink click Mel

and i quite agree, one shoe does not fit all.........

My personal experience with depression has not proven my mother's or my husband's. We cannot logically assume that people can 'just snap out of it' because of the individual chemical make up within a person's brain, neurological issues, emotional... hormonal issues, etc. Depression is quite a different kind of beast than one that can be addressed by throwing a medicinal blanket over, as well... The causes of depression are as vast as the potential treatments/cures, too.

Depression , while most prevelant of mental health issues , is frustratingly the most understood. Most can't even decipher sophmoric endogenous from reactive

But enligtenment is not what's being sold here, is it................?

The leading factor in defeating depression of any grade/depth is most assuredly personal responsibility coupled with spiritually proactive determination. Economics and sociology may effect mass psychosis but if each individual had the mind of a survivalist then perhaps even the most difficult of economic recession/depression could be successfully withstood and perhaps even prevented from recurring

Prove it then (bold mine)

~S~

 

[geauxtohell]

Gee people at the Mayo clinic agree with me.

Just because drugs work for you doesn't mean everyone has to be a fucking slave to a pharmaceutical company

No they don't. You just didn't bother to read the whole article. Last paragraph:

Exercise is a great way to ease symptoms of anxiety or depression, but it isn't a substitute for psychotherapy, medications or other treatment.

You'll never hear me arguing against getting Americans to work out.

What I dispute is this nonsense that smacks of claiming depression is not a real illness and people are just self medicating themselves into a stupor.

By the way, in light of your low blow comment, I am not on antidepressants or any "antipsychotic" medications. Way to go from zero to douche baggary in one post.

Where did I ever say depression is not a real illness.

If you bother to read my statements I said the incidence of clinical depression is lower than the current rampant prescribing of drugs warrants.

Doctors prescribe shit. That's what they do. What better way to get you into their office a few times a year so they can charge your insurance outrageous amounts for drugs that cost a few pennies a pill?

Do you have any quantitative evidence that the "incidence" of clinical depression is lower then the "rampart prescribing of drugs warrants"? Keep in mind that SSRIs/SNRIs are now mainline treatment for anxiety disorders and fibromyalgia.

You think physicians get a kickback for prescribing drugs? Physicians get paid to treat disease and bill for that treatment. The pharmacology involved in that is completely irrelevant. The physician just writes a script. They don't see any more money if they treat hypertension with three drugs or one. They are compensated for simply treating hypertension.

Furthermore, the type of drug prescribed and it's cost on the free market in no way factors into reimbursement. That would be unethical. I've yet to find a physician who doesn't strive to find the cheapest, generic drug possible for their patients. I carry a Wal Mart $4 drug list in my pocket as do most of my peers.

You are basically spouting off claims that do not approximate reality.

 

[sparky]

Doctors prescribe shit. That's what they do. What better way to get you into their office a few times a year so they can charge your insurance outrageous amounts for drugs that cost a few pennies a pill?

and if you dress like a pirate, and raise your knee just right, you'll get all the chicks too>

 

[Skull Pilot]

No they don't. You just didn't bother to read the whole article. Last paragraph:



You'll never hear me arguing against getting Americans to work out.

What I dispute is this nonsense that smacks of claiming depression is not a real illness and people are just self medicating themselves into a stupor.

By the way, in light of your low blow comment, I am not on antidepressants or any "antipsychotic" medications. Way to go from zero to douche baggary in one post.

Where did I ever say depression is not a real illness.

If you bother to read my statements I said the incidence of clinical depression is lower than the current rampant prescribing of drugs warrants.

Doctors prescribe shit. That's what they do. What better way to get you into their office a few times a year so they can charge your insurance outrageous amounts for drugs that cost a few pennies a pill?

Do you have any quantitative evidence that the "incidence" of clinical depression is lower then the "rampart prescribing of drugs warrants"? Keep in mind that SSRIs/SNRIs are now mainline treatment for anxiety disorders and fibromyalgia.

You think physicians get a kickback for prescribing drugs? Physicians get paid to treat disease and bill for that treatment. The pharmacology involved in that is completely irrelevant. The physician just writes a script. They don't see any more money if they treat hypertension with three drugs or one. They are compensated for simply treating hypertension.

Furthermore, the type of drug prescribed and it's cost on the free market in no way factors into reimbursement. That would be unethical. I've yet to find a physician who doesn't strive to find the cheapest, generic drug possible for their patients. I carry a Wal Mart $4 drug list in my pocket as do most of my peers.

You are basically spouting off claims that do not approximate reality.

Oh really?

CDC: Antidepressants most prescribed drugs in U.S. - CNN

Doctors are now medicating unhappiness," said Dworkin. "Too many people take drugs when they really need to be making changes in their lives."

For Dworkin, the proof is in the statistics. According to a government study, antidepressants have become the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States. They're prescribed more than drugs to treat high blood pressure, high cholesterol, asthma, or headaches. CNN's Elizabeth Cohen discusses the CDC study on antidepressants

Dr. Robert Goodman, an internist in New York City, says the real force behind skyrocketing antidepressant prescription rates is pharmaceutical marketing to doctors and to consumers. "You put those two together and you get a lot of prescriptions for antidepressants," he said.

He questions whether all those prescriptions are necessary. "It's hard to believe that number of people are depressed, or that antidepressants are the answer," he said.

I find it a little hard to believe that depression is the most prevalent illness in society.

The fact that anti depressants are the most prescribed drugs is more proof that doctors are simply medicating people for no good reason.

 

[sparky]

You think physicians get a kickback for prescribing drugs? Physicians get paid to treat disease and bill for that treatment. The pharmacology involved in that is completely irrelevant. The physician just writes a script. They don't see any more money if they treat hypertension with three drugs or one. They are compensated for simply treating hypertension.

Furthermore, the type of drug prescribed and it's cost on the free market in no way factors into reimbursement. That would be unethical. I've yet to find a physician who doesn't strive to find the cheapest, generic drug possible for their patients. I carry a Wal Mart $4 drug list in my pocket as do most of my peers.

You are basically spouting off claims that do not approximate reality

au contraire teach>


Drug companies are spending millions of pounds every year on all-expenses-paid trips to conferences around the world for doctors and other hospital staff, in what critics say is a massive marketing exercise dressed up as medical education.

The Guardian can reveal the scale of pharmaceutical company sponsorship following an examination of the registers of gifts and donations to doctors that all hospitals are required to keep. They show considerable largesse - from drug companies regularly picking up hefty bills for travel to international conferences in Europe, Asia and America, to specialist nurses' salaries, and weekly sandwich lunches for hospital staff training sessions.

Drug companies accused of spending millions on conference trips for doctors | Society | The Guardian


The sins do not end with high prices, huge budgets for marketing and advertising, and efforts to restrain free markets. Drug companies, Angell and Kassirer remind us, have connived to do everything they can think of to capture the attention, allegiance and gratitude of physicians. And they have been able to think of quite a lot.

Dip anywhere at random into The Truth about the Drug Companies or On the Take and you will find disturbing passages such as this one (from Angell's book):

Suppose you are a big pharmaceutical company. You make a drug that is approved for a very limited use. . . . How could you turn it into a blockbuster? . . .
. . . You could simply market the drug for unapproved ("off-label") uses—despite the fact that doing so is illegal. You do that by carrying out "research" that falls way below the standard required for FDA approval, then "educating" doctors about any favorable results. That way, you could circumvent the law. You could say you were not marketing for unapproved uses; you were merely disseminating the results of research to doctors—who can legally prescribe a drug for any use. But it would be bogus education about bogus research. It would really be marketing.

Angell goes on to show that this is exactly what many pharmaceutical companies have done. In the name of "research," they have subtly encouraged doctors to use drugs for unapproved purposes, or for groups of patients (children, for example) in whom the agent's effectiveness has never been studied. The industry has also encouraged "innovative" prescription practices on the part of doctors who are not equipped to safely monitor and to learn from what they are doing. Outrage about this sort of conduct infuses every page of her powerful book.

Kassirer, like Angell, is no slouch at condemning ethical shenanigans:

Big business and physicians alike are involved in a massive charade. Representatives of the drug companies claim repeatedly that marketing serves an essential function in the health-care delivery system by helping to educate doctors so they can prescribe drugs more appropriately. At the same time, they press their drug salesmen to push the newest (and usually the most expensive) products, and their surrogate intermediaries, the medical education companies, are advertising their services as "persuasive" education.
Kassirer does not write with the same overt anger as Angell, but his quiet fury is palpable as he watches his beloved medical profession being corrupted by businesses willing to do whatever it takes to get their drugs prescribed.


It turns out to be relatively easy to make the case against bloated profits, the herd mentality of companies looking for blockbusters, dishonesty in marketing and crass schemes to pay off doctors, politicians and the media. No one can read these books and not believe that something needs to be done to reform the way drugs are discovered, patented, sold and used in the United States and around the world. But these books are far less satisfying when it comes to providing solutions.

Despite all the corruption documented by Angell, Kassirer and Avorn, the pharmaceutical industry is not the tobacco industry. Its products may sometimes be sold at bloated prices and marketed using techniques more commonly associated with used car dealers and Internet mortgage brokers. And some of those products may even turn out to be dangerous or ineffective. But Big Pharma, unlike Big Tobacco, is not selling inherently evil products. Many Americans have benefited from pharmaceuticals, and more do so every year, which is as much a cause of higher total expenditures for the nation as are increases in the prices of individual drugs. So medicine has no real choice but to deal with Big Pharma; nobody wants it just to go away. But clearly the drug industry must be better regulated.

Angell and Kassirer take a fairly straightforward route in their prescriptions for reform: Get the pharmaceutical industry away from the medical profession. Prohibit the drug companies from underwriting continuing medical education, get their sales representatives ("detail" people) out of hospitals and doctors' offices, and shut off the junket pipeline. And stop the industry from flooding the airwaves with ridiculously deceptive direct-to-consumer advertising.


Easy enough to say, but these are deeply ingrained practices that will prove next to impossible to eradicate. If you take the detail men and women out of doctors' offices, they will quickly reappear in the homes, country clubs, civic organizations and vacation spots of physicians. Companies are willing to invest heavily in these activities, which means that control (rather than eradication) is probably the most realistic goal.
Indicting Big Pharma » American Scientist

 

[geauxtohell]

You think physicians get a kickback for prescribing drugs? Physicians get paid to treat disease and bill for that treatment. The pharmacology involved in that is completely irrelevant. The physician just writes a script. They don't see any more money if they treat hypertension with three drugs or one. They are compensated for simply treating hypertension.

Furthermore, the type of drug prescribed and it's cost on the free market in no way factors into reimbursement. That would be unethical. I've yet to find a physician who doesn't strive to find the cheapest, generic drug possible for their patients. I carry a Wal Mart $4 drug list in my pocket as do most of my peers.

You are basically spouting off claims that do not approximate reality

au contraire teach>


Drug companies are spending millions of pounds every year on all-expenses-paid trips to conferences around the world for doctors and other hospital staff, in what critics say is a massive marketing exercise dressed up as medical education.

The Guardian can reveal the scale of pharmaceutical company sponsorship following an examination of the registers of gifts and donations to doctors that all hospitals are required to keep. They show considerable largesse - from drug companies regularly picking up hefty bills for travel to international conferences in Europe, Asia and America, to specialist nurses' salaries, and weekly sandwich lunches for hospital staff training sessions.

Drug companies accused of spending millions on conference trips for doctors | Society | The Guardian


The sins do not end with high prices, huge budgets for marketing and advertising, and efforts to restrain free markets. Drug companies, Angell and Kassirer remind us, have connived to do everything they can think of to capture the attention, allegiance and gratitude of physicians. And they have been able to think of quite a lot.

Dip anywhere at random into The Truth about the Drug Companies or On the Take and you will find disturbing passages such as this one (from Angell's book):

Suppose you are a big pharmaceutical company. You make a drug that is approved for a very limited use. . . . How could you turn it into a blockbuster? . . .
. . . You could simply market the drug for unapproved ("off-label") uses—despite the fact that doing so is illegal. You do that by carrying out "research" that falls way below the standard required for FDA approval, then "educating" doctors about any favorable results. That way, you could circumvent the law. You could say you were not marketing for unapproved uses; you were merely disseminating the results of research to doctors—who can legally prescribe a drug for any use. But it would be bogus education about bogus research. It would really be marketing.

Angell goes on to show that this is exactly what many pharmaceutical companies have done. In the name of "research," they have subtly encouraged doctors to use drugs for unapproved purposes, or for groups of patients (children, for example) in whom the agent's effectiveness has never been studied. The industry has also encouraged "innovative" prescription practices on the part of doctors who are not equipped to safely monitor and to learn from what they are doing. Outrage about this sort of conduct infuses every page of her powerful book.

Kassirer, like Angell, is no slouch at condemning ethical shenanigans:

Big business and physicians alike are involved in a massive charade. Representatives of the drug companies claim repeatedly that marketing serves an essential function in the health-care delivery system by helping to educate doctors so they can prescribe drugs more appropriately. At the same time, they press their drug salesmen to push the newest (and usually the most expensive) products, and their surrogate intermediaries, the medical education companies, are advertising their services as "persuasive" education.
Kassirer does not write with the same overt anger as Angell, but his quiet fury is palpable as he watches his beloved medical profession being corrupted by businesses willing to do whatever it takes to get their drugs prescribed.


It turns out to be relatively easy to make the case against bloated profits, the herd mentality of companies looking for blockbusters, dishonesty in marketing and crass schemes to pay off doctors, politicians and the media. No one can read these books and not believe that something needs to be done to reform the way drugs are discovered, patented, sold and used in the United States and around the world. But these books are far less satisfying when it comes to providing solutions.

Despite all the corruption documented by Angell, Kassirer and Avorn, the pharmaceutical industry is not the tobacco industry. Its products may sometimes be sold at bloated prices and marketed using techniques more commonly associated with used car dealers and Internet mortgage brokers. And some of those products may even turn out to be dangerous or ineffective. But Big Pharma, unlike Big Tobacco, is not selling inherently evil products. Many Americans have benefited from pharmaceuticals, and more do so every year, which is as much a cause of higher total expenditures for the nation as are increases in the prices of individual drugs. So medicine has no real choice but to deal with Big Pharma; nobody wants it just to go away. But clearly the drug industry must be better regulated.

Angell and Kassirer take a fairly straightforward route in their prescriptions for reform: Get the pharmaceutical industry away from the medical profession. Prohibit the drug companies from underwriting continuing medical education, get their sales representatives ("detail" people) out of hospitals and doctors' offices, and shut off the junket pipeline. And stop the industry from flooding the airwaves with ridiculously deceptive direct-to-consumer advertising.


Easy enough to say, but these are deeply ingrained practices that will prove next to impossible to eradicate. If you take the detail men and women out of doctors' offices, they will quickly reappear in the homes, country clubs, civic organizations and vacation spots of physicians. Companies are willing to invest heavily in these activities, which means that control (rather than eradication) is probably the most realistic goal.
Indicting Big Pharma » American Scientist

The degree of "pharmaceutical influence" has been cut down on so much that physicians don't even carry pens with logos in them (or aren't supposed too). They have virtually gone away.

All that aside, there was no doubt some shady marketing ploys by the pharmaceuticals, all that has been clamped down on too. The conferences and meetings still go on, but they have been clamped down on. To a degree, there is nothing wrong (and certainly not un-American about a drug rep hosting a brunch to talk to physicians about a drug they think would help their arsenal).

None of that equates to the original claim that physicians get a commission or see a dime of profit for prescribing one drug versus another. That's not how billing works. That would be a kick back. If it's going on, it's illegal.

Consequently, after this movement, big pharma started direct marketing instead. At any rate, Drs. don't see a pay raise for prescribing one drug versus another. Where it get's expensive is when a new drug is in the 10 year exclusivity window and they aren't allowed to make a generic form of it.

That's also not physician's fault.

 

[geauxtohell]

Where did I ever say depression is not a real illness.

If you bother to read my statements I said the incidence of clinical depression is lower than the current rampant prescribing of drugs warrants.

Doctors prescribe shit. That's what they do. What better way to get you into their office a few times a year so they can charge your insurance outrageous amounts for drugs that cost a few pennies a pill?

Do you have any quantitative evidence that the "incidence" of clinical depression is lower then the "rampart prescribing of drugs warrants"? Keep in mind that SSRIs/SNRIs are now mainline treatment for anxiety disorders and fibromyalgia.

You think physicians get a kickback for prescribing drugs? Physicians get paid to treat disease and bill for that treatment. The pharmacology involved in that is completely irrelevant. The physician just writes a script. They don't see any more money if they treat hypertension with three drugs or one. They are compensated for simply treating hypertension.

Furthermore, the type of drug prescribed and it's cost on the free market in no way factors into reimbursement. That would be unethical. I've yet to find a physician who doesn't strive to find the cheapest, generic drug possible for their patients. I carry a Wal Mart $4 drug list in my pocket as do most of my peers.

You are basically spouting off claims that do not approximate reality.

Oh really?

CDC: Antidepressants most prescribed drugs in U.S. - CNN

Doctors are now medicating unhappiness," said Dworkin. "Too many people take drugs when they really need to be making changes in their lives."

For Dworkin, the proof is in the statistics. According to a government study, antidepressants have become the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States. They're prescribed more than drugs to treat high blood pressure, high cholesterol, asthma, or headaches. CNN's Elizabeth Cohen discusses the CDC study on antidepressants

Dr. Robert Goodman, an internist in New York City, says the real force behind skyrocketing antidepressant prescription rates is pharmaceutical marketing to doctors and to consumers. "You put those two together and you get a lot of prescriptions for antidepressants," he said.

He questions whether all those prescriptions are necessary. "It's hard to believe that number of people are depressed, or that antidepressants are the answer," he said.

I find it a little hard to believe that depression is the most prevalent illness in society.

The fact that anti depressants are the most prescribed drugs is more proof that doctors are simply medicating people for no good reason.

Great, an Anesthesiologist (who wrote a book on the matter) and an Internist's anecdotal experience is that we over-medicate depression.

Again, if the patient's feel better, then what is the harm and (more importantly) what business of it is yours?

The massive surge in the use of antidepressants is the fact that the SSRI class (prozac and zoloft) really only reached the U.S. Market in 1987. Prior to that, the only thing available where the dangerous Tricyclic Antidepressants that physicians were hesitant to prescribe.

Now, SSRIs have been found to have multiple indications to include anxiety disorders.

The age old debate of "we are medicating personality or trying to ablate people from every feeling bad which is a natural condition of life versus we are helping people with a problem" will rage on. The notion that being on antidepressants keeps people from ever feeling bad is absurd.

Finally, no single antidepressant made the top 10 list.

The 10 Most Prescribed Drugs

Shockingly, Vicodin was #1. Now if you want to talk about over medicating and America's pain pill addiction; I am game.

 

[Iridescence]

Some things do require a little kick in the butt...
Be 'it all' by
Pirates or other...

 

[Skull Pilot]

Do you have any quantitative evidence that the "incidence" of clinical depression is lower then the "rampart prescribing of drugs warrants"? Keep in mind that SSRIs/SNRIs are now mainline treatment for anxiety disorders and fibromyalgia.

You think physicians get a kickback for prescribing drugs? Physicians get paid to treat disease and bill for that treatment. The pharmacology involved in that is completely irrelevant. The physician just writes a script. They don't see any more money if they treat hypertension with three drugs or one. They are compensated for simply treating hypertension.

Furthermore, the type of drug prescribed and it's cost on the free market in no way factors into reimbursement. That would be unethical. I've yet to find a physician who doesn't strive to find the cheapest, generic drug possible for their patients. I carry a Wal Mart $4 drug list in my pocket as do most of my peers.

You are basically spouting off claims that do not approximate reality.

Oh really?

CDC: Antidepressants most prescribed drugs in U.S. - CNN

Dr. Robert Goodman, an internist in New York City, says the real force behind skyrocketing antidepressant prescription rates is pharmaceutical marketing to doctors and to consumers. "You put those two together and you get a lot of prescriptions for antidepressants," he said.

He questions whether all those prescriptions are necessary. "It's hard to believe that number of people are depressed, or that antidepressants are the answer," he said.

I find it a little hard to believe that depression is the most prevalent illness in society.

The fact that anti depressants are the most prescribed drugs is more proof that doctors are simply medicating people for no good reason.

Great, an Anesthesiologist (who wrote a book on the matter) and an Internist's anecdotal experience is that we over-medicate depression.

Again, if the patient's feel better, then what is the harm and (more importantly) what business of it is yours?

So as long as it makes a patient feel good right so how about an unlimited supply of Vicodin. Hey amphetamines make me feel good so how about a script.

Finally, no single antidepressant made the top 10 list.

And just where did I imply that? Antidepressants as a whole are the most prescribed drugs is what the article I quoted stated.

Just what is it in today's society that is responsible for the rampant use of mood altering drugs?

Is it really that all these people are depressed or is it more likely the easiest and most profitable thing for the medical community to do?

My money is on the latter.

 

[sparky]

The degree of "pharmaceutical influence" has been cut down on so much that physicians don't even carry pens with logos in them (or aren't supposed too). They have virtually gone away.

All that aside, there was no doubt some shady marketing ploys by the pharmaceuticals, all that has been clamped down on too. The conferences and meetings still go on, but they have been clamped down on. To a degree, there is nothing wrong (and certainly not un-American about a drug rep hosting a brunch to talk to physicians about a drug they think would help their arsenal).

Evidence?????

None of that equates to the original claim that physicians get a commission or see a dime of profit for prescribing one drug versus another. That's not how billing works. That would be a kick back. If it's going on, it's illegal.

'kickbacks' ? illegal? how about making one's life easier GTH. For example , it's well know for those who have fledgling comprehension of the antibiotic paradox that prescribing an antibiotic for a virus is basicaly usless , yet they do

why? because the patient, and/or patients mother goes out the door empowered with a placibic mission

much like your lot , and the drugging of all our children

you/they/ think it 'makes it better'

[Consequently, after this movement, big pharma started direct marketing instead. At any rate, Drs. don't see a pay raise for prescribing one drug versus another. Where it get's expensive is when a new drug is in the 10 year exclusivity window and they aren't allowed to make a generic form of it.

That's also not physician's fault.

I see, so sending you on all expense paid trip to the caribean for educational purposes wouldn't be seen as renumeration to you then?

rather a stretch my man....

~S~

 

[sparky]

Just what is it in today's society that is responsible for the rampant use of mood altering drugs?

.

Oh I dunno, maybe talking to complete retards on the 'net, who haven't the GD ability to even use google to back up thier rants

hey, where's my beer?

~S~

 

[sparky]

Over the last decade, ADHD diagnoses have reached epidemic proportions in the United States. Behaviors that were once considered normal range are now currently defined as pathological by those with a vested interest in promoting the widespread use of psychotropic drugs in child and adolescent populations

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Over the last 10-15 years, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnoses have reached epidemic proportions in the United States (Baughman, 2006; Breggin, 2002). In 1950s America, ADHD did not exist. In 1970, 2,000 American children (mostly boys) were diagnosed as "hyperactive," and the standard method of treatment was behavior modification (Levine, 2004). By 2006, approximately 8-10 million American children (again, the majority are boys) had been diagnosed with ADHD


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



Scientists investigating the recently constructed ADHD phenomenon must begin to question why ADHD is alarmingly prevalent in 21st-century America. Why has this disease not been recorded across time? Across cultures? Across mammalian species?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Do Americans truly believe that the biochemistry of the developing male brain has been altered to such an extent that it requires dangerous and addictive drugs in order to function properly? If this is the case, what has caused this unprecedented neurological dysfunction? And why is this neurological dysfunction reaching epidemic proportions in young males who live within America's borders?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Under the 1991 amendment to the Americans with Disabilities Act, individual public schools receive additional federal monies for each child that has been diagnosed with a behavioral and/or psychiatric disorder. Clearly stated, the more children who are diagnosed, the more money the individual school receives (Cohen, 2004). As a direct result of the 1991 amendment, ADHD rates vary considerably from school to school in the United States.



????????????with me so far teach???????????


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The pharmaceutical industry has a vested economic interest in promoting the widespread acceptance of ADHD medications in America. Parenting magazines, television commercials, radio advertisements, doctor's offices, and medical journals routinely advertise psychotropic drugs for pediatric populations. This unprecedented flood of advertising in America has desensitized the American consumer and has led to the unconditional acceptance of ADHD as a legitimate and verifiable neurological disease (Stolzer, 2005). The pharmaceutical industry has also done much to alleviate parental guilt in America as pharmaceutical representatives continue to insist that ADHD is neurological in nature and has nothing whatsoever to do with current parenting practices, economic incentives, school systems, national policies, specific environments, and/or particular cultural ideologies (Stolzer, 2005).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The economic alliance that exists between the pharmaceutical industry and the medical community in America must be severed. The American consumer should be the beneficiary of authentic and scientifically validated research-not the pawn of an economic partnership

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Proponents of the disordered brain hypothesis insist that ADHD is a verifiable disease although there exists no scientific evidence to support this supposition (Baughman, 2006; Breggin, 1995, 2001, 2002; Breggin & Cohen, 1999; DeGrandpre, 1999; Leo, 2000). What the diagnosis of ADHD does is takes the blame away from parents, teachers, and specific cultural practices, and instead places the blame squarely on the shoulders of the child


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Perhaps America could benefit by seeking guidance from countries such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway-countries who rarely prescribe psychiatric drugs to children and whose national policies clearly reflect the motto "Children first" (Breggin, 1995).


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>snip<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

ADHD Epidemic in America, The | Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry | Find Articles at BNET

 

[geauxtohell]

So as long as it makes a patient feel good right so how about an unlimited supply of Vicodin. Hey amphetamines make me feel good so how about a script.

It's a non-sequitur. SSRIs are to treat the underlying cause of depression and anxiety. The result is that people feel better.

They don't exist simply to feel better. Since they take 2-4 weeks to work, the "instant gratification" factor isn't there.

And just where did I imply that? Antidepressants as a whole are the most prescribed drugs is what the article I quoted stated.

And yet, not a single one cracked the top ten. There are about a gillion anti-hypertensives. About three of them were on the top ten list.

Just what is it in today's society that is responsible for the rampant use of mood altering drugs?

Is it really that all these people are depressed or is it more likely the easiest and most profitable thing for the medical community to do?

It doesn't have to be an either or. "Depression" isn't a discrete entity. Some people are so depressed that they are virtually suicidal. Some people struggle with minor depression their whole life. Some people are so depressed that drugs don't work for them and they voluntarily undergo electroshock treatment for their depression.

What does it matter to you? In each case, people seek out medical help for their condition. We all got along before the advent of SSRIs, but now that we can treat various forms of depression, why should people have to suffer if they have options? Simply because you think diet and exercise is the key?

Your last sentence is absurd. Again, the "medical commnity" doesn't get a commision for writing scripts for certain drugs.

 

[geauxtohell]

The degree of "pharmaceutical influence" has been cut down on so much that physicians don't even carry pens with logos in them (or aren't supposed too). They have virtually gone away.

All that aside, there was no doubt some shady marketing ploys by the pharmaceuticals, all that has been clamped down on too. The conferences and meetings still go on, but they have been clamped down on. To a degree, there is nothing wrong (and certainly not un-American about a drug rep hosting a brunch to talk to physicians about a drug they think would help their arsenal).

Evidence?????

None of that equates to the original claim that physicians get a commission or see a dime of profit for prescribing one drug versus another. That's not how billing works. That would be a kick back. If it's going on, it's illegal.

'kickbacks' ? illegal? how about making one's life easier GTH. For example , it's well know for those who have fledgling comprehension of the antibiotic paradox that prescribing an antibiotic for a virus is basicaly usless , yet they do

why? because the patient, and/or patients mother goes out the door empowered with a placibic mission

much like your lot , and the drugging of all our children

you/they/ think it 'makes it better'

[Consequently, after this movement, big pharma started direct marketing instead. At any rate, Drs. don't see a pay raise for prescribing one drug versus another. Where it get's expensive is when a new drug is in the 10 year exclusivity window and they aren't allowed to make a generic form of it.

That's also not physician's fault.

I see, so sending you on all expense paid trip to the caribean for educational purposes wouldn't be seen as renumeration to you then?

rather a stretch my man....

~S~

DRUG COMPANY SAMPLES: No More Freebies?: An AMA Journal Article Splits Medical World Over Doctors' Gifts - Health News - redOrbit

I agree with you on giving antibiotics for viral conditions. Again, it's different as with antidepressants you are actually treating something.

 

[sparky]

DRUG COMPANY SAMPLES: No More Freebies?: An AMA Journal Article Splits Medical World Over Doctors' Gifts - Health News - redOrbit

a 5 yr old AMA situational ethics article , which obviously went in the Dr office round file......

 

[Skull Pilot]

So as long as it makes a patient feel good right so how about an unlimited supply of Vicodin. Hey amphetamines make me feel good so how about a script.

It's a non-sequitur. SSRIs are to treat the underlying cause of depression and anxiety. The result is that people feel better.

They don't exist simply to feel better. Since they take 2-4 weeks to work, the "instant gratification" factor isn't there.

And just where did I imply that? Antidepressants as a whole are the most prescribed drugs is what the article I quoted stated.

And yet, not a single one cracked the top ten. There are about a gillion anti-hypertensives. About three of them were on the top ten list.

Just what is it in today's society that is responsible for the rampant use of mood altering drugs?

Is it really that all these people are depressed or is it more likely the easiest and most profitable thing for the medical community to do?

It doesn't have to be an either or. "Depression" isn't a discrete entity. Some people are so depressed that they are virtually suicidal. Some people struggle with minor depression their whole life. Some people are so depressed that drugs don't work for them and they voluntarily undergo electroshock treatment for their depression.

What does it matter to you? In each case, people seek out medical help for their condition. We all got along before the advent of SSRIs, but now that we can treat various forms of depression, why should people have to suffer if they have options? Simply because you think diet and exercise is the key?

Your last sentence is absurd. Again, the "medical commnity" doesn't get a commision for writing scripts for certain drugs.

It's the billing of insurance companies where the quacks make their dough. What better way to bill more than to keep people coming back for their happy pills?


It doesn't matter that a person could be just as well treated with a lifestyle change and some talk therapy that doesn't involve taking a pill for the rest of their lives but that's not making any money for doctors and drug companies is it?

 

[geauxtohell]

DRUG COMPANY SAMPLES: No More Freebies?: An AMA Journal Article Splits Medical World Over Doctors' Gifts - Health News - redOrbit

a 5 yr old AMA situational ethics article , which obviously went in the Dr office round file......

That's not true. Most institutions adapted it as official policy. Mine did. I am now at an outside institution that also did. Does every Dr. follow it? No. Can the AMA force them too? No. It's a 1st amendment issue. But the profession has been moving away from this for the past few years.

At any rate, it's recognized as being unethical and people are trying to limit the influence "big pharma's reach when it comes to influence.

That is still a deflection that doesn't really explain what you are so pissed off about.

It's not like the advertising was limited to antidepressants.