Mass Psychosis in the US

[geauxtohell]

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?

What better way to make then happy then to come back for their hypertension pills, or their diabetes pills, or their cholesterol pills........?

That could apply to anything.

In the primary care setting, I've never encountered a single patient whose sole pathology that was being treated was "depression". Generally, it's the last thing on the list.

You seem simply to have a grudge against the notion of "depression". I don't know why. For one thing (to correct another mistake), the standard of care for treating depression is considered to be therapy and medications. You've already refuted your position with "lifestyle change" when you quoted the Mayo article (without reading it). Of course the goal is to get people active. Guess what? While diet and exercise will arguably make people feel better, there is no doubt that it is superior to medication when it comes to heart problems and diabetes.

Physicians tell people to get out and exercise at every office visit. Pragmatically though, everyone knows it falls on deaf ears and Drs. can't make people exercise.

So it becomes even more problematic with your point, because no Dr. can say: "The evidence based medicine shows that the best treatment for depression is diet and exercise".

Just because you really feel something to be true in your heart doesn't make it medically true.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

What better way to make then happy then to come back for their hypertension pills, or their diabetes pills, or their cholesterol pills........?

That could apply to anything.

In the primary care setting, I've never encountered a single patient whose sole pathology that was being treated was "depression". Generally, it's the last thing on the list.

You seem simply to have a grudge against the notion of "depression". I don't know why. For one thing (to correct another mistake), the standard of care for treating depression is considered to be therapy and medications. You've already refuted your position with "lifestyle change" when you quoted the Mayo article (without reading it). Of course the goal is to get people active. Guess what? While diet and exercise will arguably make people feel better, there is no doubt that it is superior to medication when it comes to heart problems and diabetes.

Physicians tell people to get out and exercise at every office visit. Pragmatically though, everyone knows it falls on deaf ears and Drs. can't make people exercise.

So it becomes even more problematic with your point, because no Dr. can say: "The evidence based medicine shows that the best treatment for depression is diet and exercise".

Just because you really feel something to be true in your heart doesn't make it medically true.

And just because you quacks like to prescribe antidepressants more than any other class of drugs does not necessarily mean that all those people are actually best served by being medicated.

Like I said there's no money in an "illness" if you can't make people buy a pill

 

[geauxtohell]

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?

What better way to make then happy then to come back for their hypertension pills, or their diabetes pills, or their cholesterol pills........?

That could apply to anything.

In the primary care setting, I've never encountered a single patient whose sole pathology that was being treated was "depression". Generally, it's the last thing on the list.

You seem simply to have a grudge against the notion of "depression". I don't know why. For one thing (to correct another mistake), the standard of care for treating depression is considered to be therapy and medications. You've already refuted your position with "lifestyle change" when you quoted the Mayo article (without reading it). Of course the goal is to get people active. Guess what? While diet and exercise will arguably make people feel better, there is no doubt that it is superior to medication when it comes to heart problems and diabetes.

Physicians tell people to get out and exercise at every office visit. Pragmatically though, everyone knows it falls on deaf ears and Drs. can't make people exercise.

So it becomes even more problematic with your point, because no Dr. can say: "The evidence based medicine shows that the best treatment for depression is diet and exercise".

Just because you really feel something to be true in your heart doesn't make it medically true.

And just because you quacks like to prescribe antidepressants more than any other class of drugs does not necessarily mean that all those people are actually best served by being medicated.

Like I said there's no money in an "illness" if you can't make people buy a pill

"Quacks"? LMAO.

Is that really the best you can do? You've been wrong on multiple occasions about your assumptions on this thread.

However, I tell you what:

Why don't you start up an "alternative medicine" program (shockingly easy to do in this country, just make sure you include that your claims have not been vetted by the FDA and a few other magic words) for treating depression that consists of getting people to get out and exercise everyday.

I certainly won't get in your way, and if it works better then pills; I am all for it. Despite what you seem to believe, there isn't a ton of money in depression in primary care. In fact, most primary care doctors would rather avoid psych issues if they could.

So go for it. It's a damn sight more productive then sitting here and bitching about a bunch of stuff (that you are basically wrong about).

 

[Skull Pilot]

What better way to make then happy then to come back for their hypertension pills, or their diabetes pills, or their cholesterol pills........?

That could apply to anything.

In the primary care setting, I've never encountered a single patient whose sole pathology that was being treated was "depression". Generally, it's the last thing on the list.

You seem simply to have a grudge against the notion of "depression". I don't know why. For one thing (to correct another mistake), the standard of care for treating depression is considered to be therapy and medications. You've already refuted your position with "lifestyle change" when you quoted the Mayo article (without reading it). Of course the goal is to get people active. Guess what? While diet and exercise will arguably make people feel better, there is no doubt that it is superior to medication when it comes to heart problems and diabetes.

Physicians tell people to get out and exercise at every office visit. Pragmatically though, everyone knows it falls on deaf ears and Drs. can't make people exercise.

So it becomes even more problematic with your point, because no Dr. can say: "The evidence based medicine shows that the best treatment for depression is diet and exercise".

Just because you really feel something to be true in your heart doesn't make it medically true.

And just because you quacks like to prescribe antidepressants more than any other class of drugs does not necessarily mean that all those people are actually best served by being medicated.

Like I said there's no money in an "illness" if you can't make people buy a pill

"Quacks"? LMAO.

Is that really the best you can do? You've been wrong on multiple occasions about your assumptions on this thread.

However, I tell you what:

Why don't you start up an "alternative medicine" program (shockingly easy to do in this country, just make sure you include that your claims have not been vetted by the FDA and a few other magic words) for treating depression that consists of getting people to get out and exercise everyday.

I certainly won't get in your way, and if it works better then pills; I am all for it. Despite what you seem to believe, there isn't a ton of money in depression in primary care. In fact, most primary care doctors would rather avoid psych issues if they could.

So go for it. It's a damn sight more productive then sitting here and bitching about a bunch of stuff (that you are basically wrong about).

So your best solution to what you call mild cases of anxiety and depression is to put your patients on a pill for the rest of their lives right?

You're not curing anything. You're not giving your patients skills to deal with what you cal minor or mild conditions that can be just as well served with talk therapy and simple lifestyle changes.

Tell me why would you drug someone when a drug free treatment would yield the same results?

We all know that answer. Money.

I would argue that drug free treatment is better simply because one is not polluting their body with chemicals

We're not talking about the people with severe depression that can't get out of bed for weeks or are suicidal because in all honesty you know damn well that those are the minority of people currently on antidepressants.

But quacks are trained to treat with drugs so that is exactly what they do

 

[Iridescence]

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?

What better way to make then happy then to come back for their hypertension pills, or their diabetes pills, or their cholesterol pills........?

That could apply to anything.

In the primary care setting, I've never encountered a single patient whose sole pathology that was being treated was "depression". Generally, it's the last thing on the list.

You seem simply to have a grudge against the notion of "depression". I don't know why. For one thing (to correct another mistake), the standard of care for treating depression is considered to be therapy and medications. You've already refuted your position with "lifestyle change" when you quoted the Mayo article (without reading it). Of course the goal is to get people active. Guess what? While diet and exercise will arguably make people feel better, there is no doubt that it is superior to medication when it comes to heart problems and diabetes.

Physicians tell people to get out and exercise at every office visit. Pragmatically though, everyone knows it falls on deaf ears and Drs. can't make people exercise.

So it becomes even more problematic with your point, because no Dr. can say: "The evidence based medicine shows that the best treatment for depression is diet and exercise".

Just because you really feel something to be true in your heart doesn't make it medically true.

And just because you quacks like to prescribe antidepressants more than any other class of drugs does not necessarily mean that all those people are actually best served by being medicated.

Like I said there's no money in an "illness" if you can't make people buy a pill

That really is just an aweful way of seeing things...

 

[Skull Pilot]

What better way to make then happy then to come back for their hypertension pills, or their diabetes pills, or their cholesterol pills........?

That could apply to anything.

In the primary care setting, I've never encountered a single patient whose sole pathology that was being treated was "depression". Generally, it's the last thing on the list.

You seem simply to have a grudge against the notion of "depression". I don't know why. For one thing (to correct another mistake), the standard of care for treating depression is considered to be therapy and medications. You've already refuted your position with "lifestyle change" when you quoted the Mayo article (without reading it). Of course the goal is to get people active. Guess what? While diet and exercise will arguably make people feel better, there is no doubt that it is superior to medication when it comes to heart problems and diabetes.

Physicians tell people to get out and exercise at every office visit. Pragmatically though, everyone knows it falls on deaf ears and Drs. can't make people exercise.

So it becomes even more problematic with your point, because no Dr. can say: "The evidence based medicine shows that the best treatment for depression is diet and exercise".

Just because you really feel something to be true in your heart doesn't make it medically true.

And just because you quacks like to prescribe antidepressants more than any other class of drugs does not necessarily mean that all those people are actually best served by being medicated.

Like I said there's no money in an "illness" if you can't make people buy a pill

That really is just an aweful way of seeing things...

Wake up and join the real world.

 

[Iridescence]

I'm not one that is asleep... I do not disagree with the part that talk therapy and lifestyle adjustments/change can make a difference for a good number, but sometimes the initial start of change even for those individuals is a pill to balance the chemicals within the brain and body that allows the talk therapy and lifestyle adjustments/change to be more effective sooner. Years of producing an unbalanced body may take years to naturally cure without the aide of chemical intervention. It is logical. It may not be necessary for everyone, of course, but too many times depressed individuals are very resistant to change... the stagnancy that has become their lives to enable their depression is a state they'd likely prefer to NOT change.

 

[sparky]

I'm not one that is asleep... I do not disagree with the part that talk therapy and lifestyle adjustments/change can make a difference for a good number, but sometimes the initial start of change even for those individuals is a pill to balance the chemicals within the brain and body that allows the talk therapy and lifestyle adjustments/change to be more effective sooner. Years of producing an unbalanced body may take years to naturally cure without the aide of chemical intervention. It is logical. It may not be necessary for everyone, of course, but too many times depressed individuals are very resistant to change... the stagnancy that has become their lives to enable their depression is a state they'd likely prefer to NOT change.

Mel,
methinks nobody will argue your point.....

but.....

the issue is really about situational ethics introduced by the market, vs. specific diagnosis

......... that market all the libertopians claim is so self correcting

~S~

 

[Iridescence]

I fear a time of too limited prescribed medications as a consequence of economic recovery provoking liberal minded naturalists, of which I could be regarding most subjects. Addressing the potential cures for depression of all grades/levels should provoke proactive unity from all potential avenues, not divisional wars. Sadly, things like this do seem to go through extreme fluctuations in the cure avenues most researched vs. availability.

 

[geauxtohell]

So your best solution to what you call mild cases of anxiety and depression is to put your patients on a pill for the rest of their lives right?

You lack the training and expertise to call differentiate between mild and "severe". For that matter, so do I. The difference is that I know it. I don't assume I have the latitude to pry into other people's business when it comes to mental health.

You're not curing anything. You're not giving your patients skills to deal with what you cal minor or mild conditions that can be just as well served with talk therapy and simple lifestyle changes.

You generally don't "cure" psychiatric conditions. You treat them. You are further ignorning the standard of care for managing depression and anxiety which calls for psycho-therapy and pharmacotherapy.

No one claims that "pills" are the answer. Everyone agrees it should be a combined approach. Physicians are not trained in therapy. They are trained in the pharmacologic management of disease. I don't really know what you are harping about.

Tell me why would you drug someone when a drug free treatment would yield the same results?

Because there is no evidence based medicine that supports your claim. Again, do you expect physicians to magically turn into therapists? Most primary care physicians manage depression as an add on to a multitude of other health issues they are taking care of.

We all know that answer. Money.

No. You speculate that is the answer. It's been explained to you many, many times that that is not the case.

I would argue that drug free treatment is better simply because one is not polluting their body with chemicals

Argue away. The way it works in medicine is you actually have some data to support your hypothesis. I am sure if you don't want to be completely intellectually lazy, you could find some sort of work on this matter. As it stands, the best you've been able to do is produce an article (which you obviously didn't bother to read) that actually refuted your claims.

So you can argue. But you don't seem to get that your unsolicited opinion on the matter is not going to convince anyone that knows better.

You'll also never get an arguement out of me that people should be more active and eat more healthy. I just don't buy your claims that it's curative for depression.

We're not talking about the people with severe depression that can't get out of bed for weeks or are suicidal because in all honesty you know damn well that those are the minority of people currently on antidepressants.

Do we have to wait for them to become catatonic or committ suicide before we try to treat their depression?

You are really starting to sound asinine now. Look, I get that you don't believe that depression is a big problem. Or you believe that the people that are truly depressed is a very small number. You are looking at it with a different set of eyes. You are entitled to your opinion. However, I don't really understand why you feel your opinion entitles you to speak about other people's health. I mean, there might be some debate when talking about over medicating children. However, we are talking about consenting adults and the care plan they devise with their physician. Who the hell are you to question that? You make it sound like these people are being strapped down and injected with thorazine as opposed to being given a script that they have to voluntarily fill for a bottle of pills they have to voluntarily administer to themselves everyday.

But quacks are trained to treat with drugs so that is exactly what they do

What else do you propose? Magic?

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm not one that is asleep... I do not disagree with the part that talk therapy and lifestyle adjustments/change can make a difference for a good number, but sometimes the initial start of change even for those individuals is a pill to balance the chemicals within the brain and body that allows the talk therapy and lifestyle adjustments/change to be more effective sooner. Years of producing an unbalanced body may take years to naturally cure without the aide of chemical intervention. It is logical. It may not be necessary for everyone, of course, but too many times depressed individuals are very resistant to change... the stagnancy that has become their lives to enable their depression is a state they'd likely prefer to NOT change.

It's sad that people still want to attach a stigma to mental health and depression. You can see undertones of "buck up" and "it's all in your head" and "nothing some fresh air can't cure" in these posts.

The crucial point is, if adults feel SSRIs help them, then what is the problem? And if people are over-medicated, isn't that better to undermedicated where people suffer needlessly and end up killing themselves (suicide being the number one mortality factor behind any mental illness to include schizophrenia and bipolar disorder).

If SSRIs tuned people into drooling zombies like the old school psych meds like thorazine, then it might be different. The truth is, you wouldn't know most people who are on antidepressants.

The side effects are minimal (but still there from the real "Serotonin Syndrome" to the bunk "increased risk of suicide") and the benefits are real.

I don't see the problem. I also don't see why in the hell anyone else cares.