Congresswoman Giffords Shot in Tucson

[LuckyKBoxer]

What, did you think we were just making this stuff up? That's one random study I found on PubMed in 60 seconds. Do you think we would spend millions testing something that had never been shown to work?



Well, if nothing else it's pretty entertaining to be told by someone to "get back to reality" instead of scientifically studying a disease. You think this is all my desire and my will? Competing opinions with no opinion more valid than the other? This is scientific fact my friend, studied by hundreds of thousands of scientific professionals from people like myself to clinicians and psychologists. I'm not the one in need of some reality.

You have a link for that so I can go look?
Because that graph is telling me nothing, it simply says response time... you can put chemicals in the body and get a response time to a reaction versus different chemicals and a placebo, a reaction is proof of nothing. I will be happy to go look at the full information and make a decision one way or the other, like I said though I have never shown, or had anyone able to show me irrefutable proof. Graphs are pretty easy usually to tear apart, because they are usually showing only what they want to show, not the full picture. But ill look..

scientific fact is irrefutable proof. Like I said show me that and I will agree. until then your showing bits and pieces and claiming its the holy grail.. Not so much...
I dont think it has anything to do with your will. I think it has to do with a disturbing trend in our society to make hypthesis about things, important things, and then run with them like maniacs claiming its scientific fact, only to be proven to be nonsense shortly after.... Global warming, and Vaccines causing autism anyone?

 

[Empty Hands]

You have a link for that so I can go look?

LINK

Because that graph is telling me nothing, it simply says response time... you can put chemicals in the body and get a response time to a reaction versus different chemicals and a placebo, a reaction is proof of nothing.

What "reaction" do you think we are talking about here? Your criticism makes no sense. Also, the graph is telling you that two classes of antidepressants improve CGI (a measure of depression) scores over placebo over the course of a 2 month therapy period. This is exactly the evidence you say does not exist.

scientific fact is irrefutable proof.

No it is not. "Irrefutable proof" does not exist, and scientists never speak in those terms. Your mindset is nonscientific. You've basically said right out that no evidence will ever convince you. That's fine as far as it goes, but then don't go around claiming that evidence does not exist. It does. There are thousands of papers, millions of man-hours of research, the experiences of millions of people - all of that stacked against your opinion, which you yourself admit is ignorant.

How can you defend that?

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Unlike LuckyBoxer, I do happen to think that these are real illnesses.

I just happen to think that there is a tendency to overdiagnose these illnesses.

Just to clarify, I believe there are mental illnesses, diseases, and so on.
Blade just happened to throw Depression out there, which is one I simply dont buy into.
I believe that a person can become traumatized, or over emotional and go into a depression, but I do not believe that that medication is the answer. I believe that medication is sometimes used and a patient gets better, but I believe they are getting better in spite of the medication. Patients are experimented on with an ever changing barrage of drugs to "treat" depression, and other illnesses but im referring to depression, and the majority of the time those medications fail. maybe not in a week, or a month, but they fail. They mess with the bodies ability to produce chemicals used to improve a person, and then require that person to be dependant on the medications. My thought is the medications are messing up that person more then not having them. That while medications can produce an effect in the body at a given point in time, that the majority of the time those medications are going to be too much, or too little and cause an inbalance which will lead to more problems. I see no positives about giving a patient with depression medication, as opposed to working on other options.. teaching them how to be self sufficient, independant, and any other skills they are lacking in. It seems to me most people with depression have some major problems going on.. the vast majority.. They never learned the skills to live.. it seems anyone claims they are fighting depression they have stories of abuse, neglect, traumatic experiences, ignorance, the list can go on and on.
The real questions would be are those cause or effect?
I think they are the cause of depression... who wouldnt be upset and depressed after some of that.

Those that believe medication is the answer seem to believe more often then not that those are an effect of depression, that the depression is the culprit, and it came first..
I dont buy that.

So what it comes down to me is have people diagnosed with depression gotten better without drugs? Yes.
Have people diagnosed with severe depression ever gotten better without drugs? yes.
so is it a misdiagnosis? or is it possible to beat depression without drugs? I believe the later is true.

I also believe that some of the most severe cases where people are simply diagnosed with depression are not quite true, I think those people have other issues as well. Somebody earlier mentioned hallucinations... that doesn't seem to be a symptom of depression to me but something else going on.

Like I said I believe that serious problems can happen in the brain. I believe there are mental illnesses, or conditions, or issues, however you migght want to term them.
I simply believe depression is a state of mind that a person will change on their own, sometimes needing a support system to lean on, and sometimes with their own skillsets.
But medication being irregardless of the matter, and being tossed in simply because it causes some reaction. Its a test for them, they are constantly changing the drugs and changing their minds.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

LINK



What "reaction" do you think we are talking about here? Your criticism makes no sense. Also, the graph is telling you that two classes of antidepressants improve CGI (a measure of depression) scores over placebo over the course of a 2 month therapy period. This is exactly the evidence you say does not exist.



No it is not. "Irrefutable proof" does not exist, and scientists never speak in those terms. Your mindset is nonscientific. You've basically said right out that no evidence will ever convince you. That's fine as far as it goes, but then don't go around claiming that evidence does not exist. It does. There are thousands of papers, millions of man-hours of research, the experiences of millions of people - all of that stacked against your opinion, which you yourself admit is ignorant.

How can you defend that?

Like I said show me that and I will agree. until then your showing bits and pieces and claiming its the holy grail.. Not so much...
I dont think it has anything to do with your will. I think it has to do with a disturbing trend in our society to make hypthesis about things, important things, and then run with them like maniacs claiming its scientific fact, only to be proven to be nonsense shortly after.... Global warming, and Vaccines causing autism anyone?

[/quote]

unfortunately the site wont let me look at all the articles without joining.
my immediate questions are how were patients tested? Was any methods other then giving a placebo used. my point here being if you put people in a room give them medication and do nothing to change how they are living which is causing them depression then what do you expect to change?
Also what else was done over the two month period, how where the patients monitored, there ar ealot of questions I would have to have answered, which I am sure the full information for the tests would show one way or the other.
You quick pull is not evidence of anything yet, I have not been able to read it to make a decision, a graph is easy to manipulate to show what you want it to show, if you dont know that your either ignorant, a liar, or overly optimistic..

um no the evidence that shows that depression is only able to be treated with medication does not exist. Thats what I have asked for over and over. I never said that introducing chemicals into the human body wont give a reaction.
It obviously does. I simply said that I dont believe it is the answer to depression, and there is no study that says it is either, at least not that I have seen, and this one single graph you show may or may not, but I dont have access to all the data to make that decision, and I am sure as hell not taking your word for anything.

I admitted I am ignorant, but you apparantly are as well. You just refuse to admit it. All the man hours of research,a dn all the other nonsense you said still doesn't mean anything, because none of it will do anything to prove your point. The fact is the money is there to try to make this a "real" illness, the money is there to come up with a medication for people to take that they will be able to live with. The fact is there is no profit in curing anything, so all that research you have there, its designed to find something for people to live with.. and they still dont have it right. Thats why people are coming on and off meds all the time, changing meds, having negative reactions to meds, killing themselves on meds. etc. Thats not a success... unless of course you believe the public school systems are a success as well.... all kidding aside though I wouldnt mind reading the whole research project and see if it answers my questions... my suspicion is it wont. my suspicion is that they would not do the type of study necessary because if it proved them wrong they are out billions of dollars.

 

[ballen0351]

This assumes that clinical depression is due to a state of mind, a mental conflict, trauma that happened to you, or some similar mental condition amenable to cognitive behavioral therapy. It also assumes that once you get your mind in the right order, you won't get depression again.

These assumptions are false.

Environment contributes, but the disease is biological in basis.

Meds are not the answer to every problem. It may be for you since that’s your field so it benefits you if everyone gets on meds but there are many other ways to treat mental illness.

 

[Blade96]

Thanks it sucks but they say with the meds I should feel better in 2 or 3 days

Thats good!

and for luckykboxer, you said yes many people with depression have had some kind of trauma in their lives. Like myself, I'll admit it. But what of those who develop depression and have a great life and admit themselves there's no logical explanation for why they became depressed?

and i agree with ballen saying that some meds are not really a cure as such....like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder - but they do help the person manage it better.

 

[Steve]

Meds are not the answer to every problem.

This is very true! But it's one thing to say that meds aren't the answer to every problem and quite another to suggest that meds aren't the answer to ANY problem.

Do you guys who don't believe in clinical depression think that PTSD is real or made up? Do some soldiers have PTSD or is this a scam?

 

[Empty Hands]

This is very true! But it's one thing to say that meds aren't the answer to every problem and quite another to suggest that meds aren't the answer to ANY problem.

This, this, a thousand times this.

Do you guys who don't believe in clinical depression think that PTSD is real or made up? Do some soldiers have PTSD or is this a scam?

A Real Man would gut 50 babies with a knife that day, and then sleep soundly that night knowing that he had served Truth and Justice. The rest of those wimps are just weak.

Seriously though, excellent question. It seems like some diseases are "real" and others are "fake", and what seems to set them apart is how sympathetic the victim is. Are they "at fault" for their disease, are they a deserving target for sympathy, etc. As if it matters even if it was somehow their fault! They still need treatment.

 

[ballen0351]

This is very true! But it's one thing to say that meds aren't the answer to every problem and quite another to suggest that meds aren't the answer to ANY problem.

Do you guys who don't believe in clinical depression think that PTSD is real or made up? Do some soldiers have PTSD or is this a scam?

I didnt say meds are not needed they are just not needed for everything. That seems to be the first thing brought up for any problem "there is a pill for that let me write you a perscription."

I dont believe PTSD is as wide spread as they claim. They said I had it and I dont so how many other "cases" are false?

 

[Archangel M]

I have heard some opinions saying that a chunk of PTSD cases can possibly be a "self fulfilling prophesy" of sorts. Media and popular sources push the idea that every "normal" person experiences PTSD after a violent event and that you are some sort of psychopath if you don't get all "****ed up" over what you did or saw.

I have read (and met) a number of soldiers and cops who have "seen the elephant" and said that besides the normal adrenalin "rush" followed by rubber legs, that they didn't really feel all that "bad" over what they did. It was "him or me and it sure as hell wasn't gonna be me" sort of thing.

Similarly there is a belief amongst LE/Mil trainers that the "I get shot so I lay down and die" mentality propagated by movies, TV , etc. resulted in some soldiers/cops doing just that when their wounds may in fact had been survivable. There appears to be a significant psychological influence on how quickly and how severe shock can debilitate an individual.

 

[Carol]

Meds are not the answer to every problem. It may be for you since that’s your field so it benefits you if everyone gets on meds but there are many other ways to treat mental illness.

Meds plus counseling are often the most effective solution.

However, the course of treatment most patients choose is defined by their health insurance plan. Under U.S. law it is legal to not have parity between physical health and mental health realms, so if the plan says 12 visits a year with a counselor and those 12 visits are used up in 8 weeks...then chances are those 12 visits will be all the counseling the patient receives, the rest is managed through pharmacology. I don't see changing as taxpayer dollars underwrite more and more health care costs.

There are also people who respond to counseling better than meds, there are people who respond to meds better than counseling, there are people (esp. in prisons and other controlled environments) whose reactions to psychiatric meds provoked them to develop coping skills on their own....the human brain is a highly complex organ. The goal of treatment isn't to fill the world with people that have some mentally ill badge of honor or even to push prescription drugs. It is to get people who are not functioning well back to functioning at their baseline, which can be an exceedingly complex process.

 

[ballen0351]

Meds plus counseling are often the most effective solution.

However, the course of treatment most patients choose is defined by their health insurance plan. Under U.S. law it is legal to not have parity between physical health and mental health realms, so if the plan says 12 visits a year with a counselor and those 12 visits are used up in 8 weeks...then chances are those 12 visits will be all the counseling the patient receives, the rest is managed through pharmacology. I don't see changing as taxpayer dollars underwrite more and more health care costs.
.

Well if you feel you still need to see someone after your 12 visits then turn off your cell phone and cable eat cheaper food and pay to go yourself. If I had an issue I needed fixed I would take care of it. If my insurance ran out then Id pay myself.

 

[Carol]

Perhaps Obamacare doesn't go far enough with enforcement. We could new branch of government to ensure such compliance. It is possible to build out the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services much like the DOJ built out DHS. Every hospital would have a federal Health Compliance Officer that would investigate each patient and their medical record upon entry to determine

(1) if the patient "at fault" for their health problem

(2) whether the government deemed the patient was consuming their health insurance in the proper manner for the treatment.

(3) whether the government deemed the patient was surrendering a proper amount of private property for the treatment.

This would be expensive, of course, so it would be paid for by withoulding an additional 15% of payroll taxes. These taxes, of course, can be refunded with proper compliance.

After the patient completes his exam with the Health Compliance Officer, the results will be sent back to the Department of Health and Human Services for review, and the analysis will be send to the patient. The state will mail a docket to the patient, the patient is to save these dockets and file with his/her year end tax return and receive a refund through the IRS.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Seriously though, excellent question. It seems like some diseases are "real" and others are "fake", and what seems to set them apart is how sympathetic the victim is. Are they "at fault" for their disease, are they a deserving target for sympathy, etc. As if it matters even if it was somehow their fault! They still need treatment.

I don't think that's it.

What I think it may come down to is a person's familiarity with the trauma.

For instance, how many of us have gotten a divorce or been dumped by a man / woman that we deeply cared for? And we moved on with no ill effects. So when someone says that they suffer from clinical depression and are being treated for it, it is very easy to say that they have a weak personality.

In terms of PTSD, it is easy to see how people could see it as an actual illness due to the fact that most people do not experience that type of trauma, even if most combat personnel come back fully intact. Because most of us have no experience in that type of situation, it is difficult for us to say how we would react to it, therefore we give the benefit of the doubt to those who suffer from PTSD.

 

[Tez3]

With the attitude here that we have to mental illness the military is having to work hard to get soliders to come forward if they do have PTSD, it's less a case of people exaggerating or even faking being ill more a case of people covering it up. The main sufferers of PTSD that have been identified at the moment are those who are amputees, sometimes triple and those who have been grieviously injured. Not all I add just some. The army has a more enlightened attitude these days, they don't shoot soldiers at dawn for 'cowardice' anymore, the soldiers have been briefed on what to look for and are given 'decompression' in Cyprus before they return to the UK from Afghan. They don't go on leave for three weeks on returning so there is a settling down time with families before they are out of the army's 'control' on leave.

I've heard comparisons with the soldiers from the last war with people saying they didn't have PTSD then so why now. One thing that American troops in the last war did was have to spend a long time travelling home, after leaving the battlefields of Europe the American troops had to board ships to return home, this gave them time to reflect, to talk and to generally 'heal' before going back into a normal life. By contrast the troops in Vietnam could be in the middle of a firefight in the morning and back home in the evening almost.

Our troops are all back from leave and at work next week, we are geared up for dealing with more fights, more incidents with alcohol etc. We'll see though. I wouldn't have wanted to cope with what some of these young lads have gone through out there and I believe it's really unfair to make judgements about PTSD in this instance. We have a dog handler who was diagnosed with it, he was in the army's Pioneer Corps and in Bosnia they had to dig up the mass graves of men, women and children massacred there for identification and evidence then they reburied them properly. They also had to deal with other atrocities inflicted on the civilian population. he doesn't consider himself ill but finds the nightmares and flashbacks hard to deal with. I also know some soldiers who were in the Falklands in the ships and landing craft that were bombed and burning who have similiar experiences.

There is a difference too between reactive depression which is a normal thing that would happen when losing a partner for example through death or unwanted divorce, or the loss of a child, that sort of experience and the clinical depression that descends without any life changing activity to account for it. The two are different, reactive depression will pass as the person grieves then gets themselves together, the clinical depression rarely passes without treatment or only does so when the chemical inbalances in the brain are addressed either naturally after a long time or with drugs.

 

[billc]

I am not trying to diminish the psychological effects of combat or trying to diminish the conversation here but think about this. Hollywood is a mass marketer of ideas. Every movie and television show you see now shows veterans of the U.S. military as either victims, or crazies or savages. Toby Macguire was recently in a movie, I didn't see it but I did see the trailer, and he comes home from the war and he acts like frankenstein. In the Valley of Elah, Redacted, The hurt locker, the television show Trueblood (the iraq war vet. on the show has psychological problems) and just about every movie from hollywood depicting soldiers shows them as at best troubled, or at worst on the verge of out of control violence. These messages seep into a culture.
On the show True Blood, the vet isn't even a main character but they felt the need to show him as troubled.
Here is something to think about. When was the last movie or television show that showed millitary vets in a truly positive light? Some might say Taking Chance, the HBO movie. It was a good film, but the whole movie is about the death of a soldier, and there is a scene on the airplane where Kevin bacon is reading a magazine or paper with an anti-war headline. That was not a coincidence. Just some thoughts.

 

[granfire]

I am not trying to diminish the psychological effects of combat or trying to diminish the conversation here but think about this. Hollywood is a mass marketer of ideas. Every movie and television show you see now shows veterans of the U.S. military as either victims, or crazies or savages. Toby Macguire was recently in a movie, I didn't see it but I did see the trailer, and he comes home from the war and he acts like frankenstein. In the Valley of Elah, Redacted, The hurt locker, the television show Trueblood (the iraq war vet. on the show has psychological problems) and just about every movie from hollywood depicting soldiers shows them as at best troubled, or at worst on the verge of out of control violence. These messages seep into a culture.
On the show True Blood, the vet isn't even a main character but they felt the need to show him as troubled.
Here is something to think about. When was the last movie or television show that showed millitary vets in a truly positive light? Some might say Taking Chance, the HBO movie. It was a good film, but the whole movie is about the death of a soldier, and there is a scene on the airplane where Kevin bacon is reading a magazine or paper with an anti-war headline. That was not a coincidence. Just some thoughts.

And considering the boring story it would make if the war vet came home tending his daisies....

PTSD has been known for a long time, arguably back in the bronze age. Just in previous conflicts the fellows were 'shell shocked'

 

[Tez3]

I am not trying to diminish the psychological effects of combat or trying to diminish the conversation here but think about this. Hollywood is a mass marketer of ideas. Every movie and television show you see now shows veterans of the U.S. military as either victims, or crazies or savages. Toby Macguire was recently in a movie, I didn't see it but I did see the trailer, and he comes home from the war and he acts like frankenstein. In the Valley of Elah, Redacted, The hurt locker, the television show Trueblood (the iraq war vet. on the show has psychological problems) and just about every movie from hollywood depicting soldiers shows them as at best troubled, or at worst on the verge of out of control violence. These messages seep into a culture.
On the show True Blood, the vet isn't even a main character but they felt the need to show him as troubled.
Here is something to think about. When was the last movie or television show that showed millitary vets in a truly positive light? Some might say Taking Chance, the HBO movie. It was a good film, but the whole movie is about the death of a soldier, and there is a scene on the airplane where Kevin bacon is reading a magazine or paper with an anti-war headline. That was not a coincidence. Just some thoughts.

British soldiers only watch American war films as light entertainment :lol2:

The British public has issues with Hollywood films anyway as the Hollywood version of events nearly always doesn't tally with the truth so we don't take any notice of any 'message' they may have.

 

[billc]

Every story about a vet granfire? Not one could show the vet as 99 percent or more are, normal people who come home and lead normal conventional lives. The averager vietnam vet out performed the average person who never served. they did better and did more, the myth of the psychotic vietnam war vet was perpetrated by the media. We are really insulting these soldiers when they come home if we let this myth continue.

 

[Archangel M]

And considering the boring story it would make if the war vet came home tending his daisies....

PTSD has been known for a long time, arguably back in the bronze age. Just in previous conflicts the fellows were 'shell shocked'

"Shell Shock" was NOT PTSD. "Shell Shock" is an immediate reaction to combat. Not all soldiers who experience "Shell Shock" get PTSD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_stress_reaction

Combat stress reaction is generally short-term and should not be confused with acute stress disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, or other long-term disorders attributable to combat stress, although any of these may commence as a combat stress reaction.