People Pray for improved health too. Science denies that this works, but does show that people think it works. And that is good enough in many cases. Hope is a potent thing, even if it is false. For myself, I will be dead within the next decade or two, and I already know what will kill me. But if someone said they could restore my kidneys to proper function and all they had to do was wave a magic wand, if I were in enough pain I might let them try. Dialysis is in my future with medical treatments. But this stuff would probably be offered in addition to that stuff. However my medical insurance does not cover magic wands. And I have no faith in such things either. So even as a placebo it would be worthless to me since I am already convinced it is nonsense. If only I were more gullible... Back to the subject, Medical Doctors cannot support this stuff even if it worked. That is why they are "Medical" Doctors. They practice "Medicine". No medical Doctor can legally advise a patient to use a non-medical treatment. Not even if they know it does work. Ayurvedic "Medicine" has not been mentioned here so far... Odd that. Read and learn. Some of the medicines used by this practice have massive amounts of toxic heavy metals, yet they show results that suggest they actually work. I am no expert on the subject though. I have used more than one so-called "Ayurvedic medicine" and can tell you that it worked. What specifically I do not recall. It clearly was not to improve my memory... And just to get a tidbit of knowledge stirring, it is pronounced "eye-a-v-war-da." Check the Wikipedia pronunciation guide for details.
In the words of Tim Minchin: Re: Ayurvedicadicadicadicadacadaca Wiki says issues are (like many eastern medical products exported) containing dangerous levels of contaminants in ~20% of cases. Good stuff from what I could see: The scientific appraisal contains much of what you would expect for traditional medicine: The benefits from herbs are fairly typical - consider Aspirin. Derived from plants (i.e. willowbark). Much of the modern 'big pharma' industry is to attempt to synthesise new drugs - but that's only because we've already copied the most readily accessible from traditional western medicine, and discarded the relatively useless stuff.
Yep. I believe the sole reason marijuana is illegal in the USA is that it benefits people with a number of medical issues and can be grown anywhere. Pharmaceutical companies make junk like Dronabinal that is a synthetic version of THC. It does not work as well, but it is legal for prescription since it was not derived from the plant. Shame on the sold out politicians who are bought to rig things like this. There are a number of plants with significant medical benefits. Kratom is one with amazing properties. But the pharmaceutical companies will eventually seek to have it banned under the phony BS excuse of protecting the public. They already did so in Taiwan and Singapore.
More on Ayurvedic medicine: http://www.whatstheharm.net/ayurvedicmedicine.html (follow the links for the more detailed stories) http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/09/ayurvedic-skin-care-product-blamed-for-lead-poisoning/ http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/08/hea...vedic-meds-advertised-to-help-with-pregnancy/ http://doubtfulnews.com/2011/12/banned-ayurvedic-supplements-are-poisonous-problem-in-nyc/ The truth is that there MAY be a couple of real medicines hidden among herbal, ayurvedic, and similar old medicines. And once they have been shown to be affective, then actual doctors will start recommending them for VERY specific reasons. This has happened with Omega 3 (fish oil), garlic, ginger, and red rice yeast, to name 4, but I'm sure there are a few more. They are prescribed because they have actually been shown to be affective. While it is true that greed can drive people to do unethical things, but nowhere is this more apparent than within the realm of alt medicine, You can buy anything from sugar water to herbs tainted with arsenic, and the sellers will tell you it will cure every possible disease and ailment under the sun. And while doctors and pharmaceutical companies may not always be angels themselves, many of the alt med manufacturers make them look like philanthropists by comparison. One problem is that a lot of what they sell is not categorized as either food nor drugs, which means that: 1. The ingredients are not rigorously inspected 2. The claims of efficacy by the manufacturers are not examined by the FDA 3. Manufacturing conditions are not monitored 4. Imported alt meds are not closely inspected as foods, drinks, or medications would be. And people thus see alt med as an easy way of making a buck with very little investment. As an example, homeopathic 'medicines', by definition, contain absolutely no active ingredients. When they've been surveyed, they often don't even include what's actually on their labels. James Randi, and skeptics all over the world, have been doing regular demonstrations where they purposefully take 'overdoses' of homeopathic medicines. This is not a trick -- it's based on the fact that they are often simply sugar water. I guarantee that you'll get just as good a result by drinking tap water. And they call pharmaceutical companies criminal.
Honestly, I think Marijuana is mostly banned for political reasons. Most people see it as a drug for slackers and life-wasters. Stuff like that, it's generally not well regarded in the population above 40 I'd say. Any party that seriously thinks about legalizing Marijuana will lose a lot of votes and immediately be discarded to the far-left, along with them commies, hippie scum and blasted human righters. This is not my opinion, I think man is free to smoke whatever he wants
Yeah. I should not have mentioned that. Sorry everyone. I only mentioned it because of dronabinol and similar "medicines" used to treat glaucoma are based upon it. Yet it by itself is criminal. And that makes no sense to me. But I should have found another example instead.
As someone who believes in the sanctity of scientific and medical practice - and more specifically, someone who is studying to become a pharmacologist and may well be working in the pharmaceutical industry one day - it saddens me deeply to know that people would put profits etc. before doing the Right Thing. I find it difficult to comprehend how one could put greed above such things. Omni - I resent your comparison of antidepressants to street drugs without any mention of which ones specifically you're comparing (and it also includes the assumption that street drugs are inherently bad) but I do agree that they should not be given to children or anyone else on a whim. I also agree that many drugs used to treat mental illness are not very good, but if it's any consolation I intend to devote my future work to developing a better understanding of how to treat these problems with drugs.
Alright Mashirafen. I apologize for that. I simply cannot recall the specific names of each of the antidepressants I have used. I cannot tell you all such drugs are bad, and I never intended to imply that street drugs are inherently bad either. If it was sold as an antidepressant a decade or two back, I probably used it for a while. Wellbutrin and Prozac and Paxil each had multiple years of use. Also for the record, I worked at a mail-order pharmacy for several years back right after I turned 18.. So I know the industry more than I would like to. Also for the record, you have not actually challenged any specific thing I said. I said rather pointedly that Prozac and/or Paxil has been linked to suicide by head trauma. Do you challenge that? There is also the awful practice of "Evergreening" in the pharmaceutical industry. They have a pill that is being prescribed and selling like crazy. But the patent ends in a few years? They change it in some trivial way and promote the "new" version so they maintain their monopoly. Usually the trivial change is nothing more than making it slightly slower to be absorbed. And it actually does not effect the performance of the substance. I have much more to say, but I am actually about to leave home for a few hours. I will post more on this when I return.
I think in this case Omni wanted to make a comparison that would make it possible to see that no matter what it is, if it has any sort of negative effects, it should not be treated like a fix-it-all. Because, just like people who treat drugs (regardless of which ones we are talking about, and I am including cigarettes and tobacco here) as the solution to life and all of its problems and who later often have problems because they got addicted to this stuff and it's ruining their lifes (I am aware that the effect is somewhat psychological and depends on the person, and in many cases people would be able to get out of it had they actually had appropriate help and were isolated from what caused them to turn to drugs after they managed to rid themselves of the habit of reaching for them), there are also people who think that antidepressants are the solution if their mood (or worse, their children's) gets sour or if they have problems with something, without regard to the fact that antidepressants often do have the same kind of mind-altering stuff that one would find in drugs (maybe not exactly the same stuff, but it doesn't matter what you rape[1] your mind with for as long as you continue to do so repeatedly, just like it doesn't matter what kind of blade you slit your wrists with for as long as the act of doing so is there). And it is really sad that many people don't trust doctors with their health, but the very same people do trust not only non-doctors who admit that they aren't educated in the matter, but also TV advertisements which aren't meant to educate people but rather to make them want to buy something, and they often do so without care to the "small print" in these adverts. And from there there are many people who overuse various "drugs" (I'm referring to what you can get in a drug store, not to things you would go to a back-alley dealer for), antidepressants being only one of many things that ought not to be overused that commonly are, on them and on their families (and on their children; no, I do not hold children in higher regard or think that they are something "special", but I am aware that an adult might simply decline and deal with the tantrum the "medicine overuser" would throw while a child often has no choice because of the whole "children have to listen to adults" thing). Heck, it's one of the reasons why I learned to endure pain for as long as its intensity does not render me incapable of doing anything - there is a person in my family who was (there was a point when I chewed on that person pretty violently for that, a few times in a short period of time, and after that it at least appears that he stopped doing so) taking prescription-only painkillers every time he felt pain, no matter how weak (even thought there might be at least a partial justification for that, since I am closely related to that person and even with me not taking painkillers for the most part nothing below prescription-only grade works for me; but still, it is a classical example of getting overly reliant on "drugs" when it was not necessary). And "street drugs"? Well, some of them are inherently bad, but in some other cases it is merely a matter of people being stupid and overusing them, getting addicted in the process and then not being strong enough mentally to pull themselves out of it. It's the same with alcohol, cigarettes, video games, soap operas (bleech), shopping, etc.. So basically it is about being aware of our limits, and not about the drugs themselves. [1]: I know you dislike it when that word is used, Daynab. I just don't really know of any replacement I could use there, and it's about the whole sentence rather than that single word so I hope you won't smite me for that.
With the "alternative medicine bullshittery" topic: http://www.badscience.net/2007/12/aids-quackery-international-tour/ Re: "Let's change something so we can patent it again and keep using it under patent": That's the responsibility of a company. A company is being negligent and is technically breaking the law by not putting all of their effort into maximizing profit for their shareholders. That is literally the point of a company - and if it turns out they can produce a product people want (whether it's pharmaceuticals, alcohol, rugs, cereal, milk, TV shows, etc. etc.) their duty is still to try to maximize profit for themselves. Insofar as drugs and medical use... I strongly suspect that it's less a matter of "we're going to ban these drugs so that they can't be used medically! Hah!" but more a "We're going to ban these drugs." /endsidetopicforgoodbecausethisthreadisgoodandwedon'tneedtoloseit
Some good interesting links: http://www.badscience.net/2007/10/543/ http://www.badscience.net/2006/02/resistance-is-worse-than-useless/ http://www.badscience.net/2007/09/homeopathy-gives-you-aids/ http://www.badscience.net/2009/11/all-bow-before-the-mighty-power-of-the-nocebo-effect/ <-- this one is very interesting indeed. http://www.badscience.net/2007/09/542/ http://www.badscience.net/2008/03/a...t-is-the-coolest-strangest-thing-in-medicine/ This one is pretty interesting and suggests that coming out with "new and improved" drugs is actually beneficial to people, ironically enough.
Almost any medication that has an active ingredient, will also have side effects -- that's why, homeopathic proponents are so proud to claim that their medications have no side effects (they have no actual effects either, but that's because, as I said, they contain no actual medication). The problem is that we all are different and can potentially react differently to medications, and some of those reactions can be dangerous at times. That's why medications are supposed to undergo rigorous testing by the FDA to see how bad or common such reactions are. And then a judgement is made based on how bad or common those bad reactions are, and the specific ailment that is being treated. You might argue that the judgement is wrong, or affected by greed, and on occasion, you may be right. But it's still a judgment. I have been diagnosed with clinical depression and an anxiety disorder, and I do take medication. So I know that it took me and my doctors a fair amount of time to find a specific medication (and a dosage) that was both effective enough and had no side effects. That's one of the reasons why there are so many different antidepressants, because not everyone will respond well to the same drugs. But there are cases where pharmaceutical companies will market what is essentially the same drug under two different names for profit reasons only. They can charge more for the new drug than the old and can convince doctors to prescribe the new, more profitable drug. Don't get me wrong, there can be slight differences between the drugs, but usually, the largest difference will be in the price tag, rather than on its efficacy.
Honestly, right now medication geared towards depressions/mood swings etc. can only be effectively used through trial and error. The problem is that the nervous system and with it the brain is an incredibly complex system. I've only dabbled with it in school and my first year at the university, but it's the most complex system known to man. Information gets transmitted in two ways basically: Through the bloodstream in form of hormones and similar things, and through the nervous system itself, which combines a transmission with a chemical transmission again. Here's the basis for the synaptic transmission: It's digital, that means either there is a signal or not, the signal has no strenght.Information is only conveyed by the frequency of the electric pulses. Now, when a synapse ends, this information gets converted into an analog information, where the signal strenght does matter. If a lot of pulses arrive in a short time, a lot of chemicals will be set free. Those dock to receptors at the next synapse, where the information is again converted to a digital, electric pulse. Now, the chemicals that make the transmission between the synapses are influenced by a huge number of factors, and the receptors as well. Some receptors accept multiple chemicals, then you have receptors that actually "weaken" the message, others enhance it when certain circumstances are met... Well, it's complicated. The fact that pretty much no two connections are the same doesn't help much. Let's take an easy example: We have Acetylcholin, which is one of the most important transmitters. When connecting synapses to the muscles, it acts as a normal transmitter. Alzheimer's disease is actually not enough production of Acetylcholin. Now, why don't we just give the patient more of it? Oh wait, in other cells it actually blocks transmissions. Or it docks in receptors it shouldn't and suddenly the signal is way too strong. Ouch. And now we add artificial substances to the picture: Let's take nicotin. nicotin can actually dock to some of the Ach (Acetylcholin) receptors, but not to all of them. It also docks to receptors for different substances. And now add a few hundred more transmitters and you'll have a lot of fun, considering we have about 100 trillion brain cells. Without the rest of the nervous system. Now add to that that the nervous system is kind of unbalanced or defective. To make things clear: Depression is a mutation, since the body does not function like the norm does. This is not meant in any negative way, mutation is the only way to progress in evolution This is not meant to offend, forgive me if it does, English is not my native tongue. That obviously makes things even harder, and I'm not even scratching the surface, just slightly stroking it perhaps TL;DR Nervous system is complex, we don't know shit. And this might be getting slightly off-topic lol.
Mutation is not offensive (at least not to me). I just wonder what happened to my invitation to the X-Men. /edit BTW, this also is a bit off-topic, but peripherally related: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3072/are-shrinks-nuts
Please wait - this post is still under construction. I'm writing it on my phone and I accidentally posted it prematurely.
It's cool Omni, I know what you meant - they work on the same systems and some of the same neurotransmitters and in some cases in not so different ways. There are many more things you have to consider when making a comparison though. I'll confess I don't know of the links you mentioned (though if you have links or anything I'd love to read about it) and so I can't really offer much of an opinion. It's certainly possible - as Createx said, it's the most complex of biological systems and depression is probably not quite the same in any two people even on the biological level so a drug could easily have the potential to make things much worse. The hypothesis upon which our current efforts to understand and treat mental illness are based is currently only a hypothesis. It's quite possible we're completely wrong, at least in a significant proportion of people affected. It's exactly this vagueness and generalisation and lack of understanding I want to change, because besides being ineffective and slowing down progress towards helping people it's criminally inefficient. Kaz - I believe I had something to say to your post beyond just largely agreeing with you but I'm very tired and don't remember. I definitely don't think drugs can solve problems like that in the same way that they can cure an infection, but I still haven't really solidified my views on everything covered in your post to say much more. For reasons I won't go into here (but if anyone cares they are welcome to ask in private) it's difficult to commit to an opinion.
Just to clarify, I do believe the vast majority of those who go into the mental health and/or medicine industry do so expecting to help people. They still have to make a living, and one single corrupt person who is the boss of dozens of well meaning people can waste their potential for profit rather than helping the world. Over the years I have found several things that are outright lies the pharmaceutical industry spreads. When I need to switch Doctors due to my previous Doctor retiring or taking a long vacation, I ask the new Doctor specific questions and see how they reply. If they tell me the lies then I blacklist them and switch Doctors the same day. I do not even bother to tell them they are wrong. (Because they should know the truth from experience. If they do not, then they are ignoring what they see every day.) One such question I ask is no longer useful since it finally came to light. But a decade ago it was denied by every major pharmaceutical company selling SSRIs. "Will this substance have any effect on sexual function?" That should be answered with a definitive yes. They should mention anorgasmia. If they do not, then they failed to understand that medication enough to be competent. Newer Doctors are unlikely to have the benefit of experience. They had to stuff so much knowledge in their brain over so brief a period of time that they have to be babied. That is why I usually switch Doctors because the previous Doctor I had either retired or died from old age. I strongly favor the old Doctors.
This reminds me of a time when I had this intense rash all over my body and I went to my college health services for help. My usual doctor, a seventy year-old woman, wasnt there, so I saw a woman who was probably around thirty. The new doctor insisted that it was "stress", even when it told her that the rash I had was very similar to when I eat peanuts (which I am fatally allergic to). She just told me to go home and get some rest. Obviously, things didn't get any better, so a few days later I saw my usual doctor. She took one look and said, "yup, it looks like an allergic reaction" and prescribed me prednisone, which did the trick. I don't trust new doctors either. I mean, they should at least be willing to listen to their patients, but a lot of them are headstrong and feel like they know everything.
