Let's talk about antidepressants >Proven to be only

>>6668554
>Based on 'chemical imbalance' theory which was debunked years ago
wait, people have been telling me about this a lot. I didn't know it was debunked. what's the deal?

>>6668564
It was never debunked, we just don't know shit.

But yeah, psych meds in general suck ass. Olanzapine here.

>>6668567
Psychology is not a science, anyway.

Also, you should check out the links.

>>6668567
>Olanzapine

Hows that working out for you?

>>6668573
Well it did work, I haven't been psychotic since I'm taking it, but that's basically because it just numbs my brain activity. When I started taking it I felt terrible, extremely lazy and tired and slow, it gradually got better and I tapered it off (from 10 mg to 0) so now I'm off the stuff and I feel fine. Barely any withdrawal symptomps, except for a little trouble sleeping for a few days.
Ah well, it's better than Haloperidol, lol.

>>6668554
My gf is on antidepressants and she's a cool guy who doesn't afraid of anything.

>>6668554
>Proven to be only marginally more effective than placebo, even in studies funded by pharmaceutical companies which are biased
for minor to moderate depression, right?
>Have many unpleasant side effects
>Are obviously chemically addictive, despite constant claims that they are not
depends on the drug.
I've had ones that did and ones that did not
>Can easily cost over $100 per month
I pay $7 for each generic prescription
Special XR pills can get expensive

>>6668590
You... really didn't defend your argument.

>>6668589
How big is your gf penis? He sounds like an awesome chick.

>>6668595
I hate taking my pills but I do anyway because the thoughts make me feel worse.
It costs me about $50 every 3 months for 5 anti-depressants, which is cheaper then staying in the hospital which is what I was doing last year.

>>6668605
you take 5 different antidepressants at the same time?

>>6668614
yeah I usually qualify it but I forgot this time
I take 3 or 5 depending on how you count because I take one to help sleep and one is a vitamin supplement where the deficiency has been linked to depression.

File: 1385872046058.jpg (166KB, 885x990px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 885x990px

>>6668605
>>6668590
>>6668589
>>6668581
>>6668605
> you take 5 different antidepressants at the same time?

Yes , you don't wanna miss a day taking your good goy pills.

[rubs hands together]

>>6668630
My doctor is Indian and my parents work as chemists in pharmaceuticals and are also not Jewish.

>>6668634
They are tired of your bullshit.

>>6668634
your parents really don't like you then..sorry

File: 1391146694915-1.jpg (46KB, 490x358px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 490x358px

>>6668634
>>6668634
Oh of course Dr. Shekelstein is certainly not Jewish at all

>>6668554
Wow OP, that's quite a list of problems you got there. All I have is this measly argument in favor of antidepressants: They work.

/thread

>>6668554
For the most part Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has the same level of effectiveness without any of the side effects of drugs. Drugs are largely for making money. Even CBT is largely for making money, because they just teach you meditation techniques to solve a specific life problem, instead of teaching you how to meditate and utilize metacognition to take charge of your brain. In the west meditation is "breathing rhythmically to lower stress levels" when the study of meditation is actually the slow development of control over what is normally considered to unconscious. For example Buddhist monks in Tibet dry clothes soaked in water by raising their body temperature as an exercise in meditation.

Now, should we put the guy that's throwing shit and biting off their fingers on something to make them stop for the time being? Yes.

But "hurr durr I'm sad" here's a bunch of pills! No.

>>6668675
Here, have some science, dumbass.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19476688

A meta-study in which the results of past studies (which mostly don't use double-blind procedures) were compared. It found that when the double-blind effect is taken into account, CBT does no better than control intervention in most cases.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0058244

Compares expert g-tummo meditators to Western non-meditators and finds that not only can anyone raise their body temperature regardless of training, but that the heavy breathing is what raises body temperature and not meditation. The meditation alone gives you no control over your body temperature.

>>6668554
>Doubles the risk of suicide
Are you sure that people who are twice as likely to off themselves are taking the drugs, rather than healthy people?
>cost
lol USA
>Rates of prescription
improved diagnosing
>everything else
go choke on some wheat grass

>>6668672
>source, etc.

>>6668737
>Here, have some science, dumbass.
yeah except
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735805001005
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/57/3/414/
wow, contradicting meta-analysis! The second one is from 2012, your's is from 2010. Should I discount everything you just said, no! But most of the science I've seen shows that CBT has long term effects, whereas pharmaceutical intervention only last as long as you're on the pills.

>Compares expert g-tummo meditators to Western non-meditators and finds that not only can anyone raise their body temperature regardless of training, but that the heavy breathing is what raises body temperature and not meditation. The meditation alone gives you no control over your body temperature.

>The first is the somatic component which causes thermogenesis, while the second is the neurocognitive component (meditative visualization) that aids in sustaining temperature increases for longer periods.

>while the second is the neurocognitive component (meditative visualization) that aids in sustaining temperature increases for longer periods.

>neurocognitive component (meditative visualization)

lol you didn't even read the abstract in your furor to debunk me did you?

>>6668645
>>6668648
I don't get it.
>>6668737
neat. Got one for DBT too?

>>6668554
>Proven to be more effective than placebo
>they cause negative withdrawal effects
As will pretty much every prescription drug, and several non-prescription drugs too if you use them daily and then stop without tapering.
The rest of your post is irrelevant.

>>6668749
The doubling is in comparison to other people with depression given placebos. Please try to pay attention to sources before you embarrass yourself.

>>6668749
>Doubles risk of suicide
This is compared to depressed people on placebo
>cost
I'm australian, even though the government pays for it, it's still money being transferred from my country's government to a pharma company
>Rates of prescription
I guess it's all a coincidence that the companies are now ranking 50 billion a year from the drugs

I was on Paxil and it did not help me. It just made it impossible to fap.

>>6668948
Effexor did that to me.
Good thing there's a variety of anti-depressants.

I was perscribel lots of different antidepessants.

Bacon. That is all, and that is why you are all wrong. Bacon.

File: 1248210989001.jpg (13KB, 277x237px)

13KB, 277x237px

>Proven to be only marginally more effective than placebo
Oh god no.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/ssris-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/
read it. NO READ IT. READ ALL OF IT YOU STUPID ASSHOLE.
The reality of SSRIs are really complicated.
They are only marginally better than placebos (but they are), but placebos are already REALLY GOOD at curing depression, much better than giving people no medication at all. And you can't actually give people placebos, they'll notice soon enough and then the placebo effect will be gone. So you give poeple SSRIs, for the 90% placebo effect and the 10% actual effect.
Also, the vast majority of side effects are placebo, too, SSRI have very few actual side effects.

"placebo effect" has been proven to be a farce, a scientific straw man if you will

>>6668675
>For the most part Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has the same level of effectiveness
You#re right, but not in the way you think you are.
Psychotherapy (any version, really) also isn't better than placebo.

>>6668980
except if I wasn't right in the way I think I am, insurance companies that stipulate evidence based medicine wouldn't pay for it. If Psychotherapy wasn't more effective than placebo psychotherapy, there wouldn't be psychotherapy you'd just go to talk to someone. I can literally type "cognitive behavioral therapy is more effective than placebo" into google scholar and get articles. I mean the whole way they justify the use of CBT or any therapeutic intervention is by comparing it to the placebo. If you can cite the article that is the basis of this belief I'm more than happy to discuss it, but there are numerous studies that show an effectiveness that is greater than placebo, and that this difference is statistically significant.

>>6668972
The studies proving them to be marginally more effective were funded by the pharmaceutical companies themselves, in all likelihood it was just a forgery. Also, if you think all you need is a placebo effect, do you not see the wrongness in prescribing pills that will take advantage of the depressed person and make them even more mentally disturbed, difficult to stop taking the pills, and then make billions from it?
>The side effects are a placebo
How is this even possible? Why would the human mind create a side effect?

Honestly you should be ashamed of that piece of shit of a post your feeble mind spewed out

it sucks but in a capitalist society, pharma corps need shekels to make drugs that do shit, even if it mean snake oiling people to do it

Also nuerostudents, how much longer til we can make sense of the brain, or is it some bottom of the ocean shit

>>6669038
>Honestly you should be ashamed of that piece of shit of a post your feeble mind spewed out
*cough*
http://www.jgh.ca/uploads/psychiatry/links/beecher.pdf

File: 1210493352841.jpg (80KB, 563x759px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 563x759px

>>6669038
>make them even more mentally disturbed
Pretty sure the placebo effect helps them and makes them feel better. There's no difference between getting better from a placebo than getting better from an "actual" pill, especially not in psychological diseases. Placebo effect is real, intentional and beneficial.
Antidepressants make people fell much better and actually cure Depression much better than no treatment. That giving people a sugar pill and telling them it's an antidepressant helps them almost as much is inconsequential, since it's unethical to lie to patients about their treatment and telling them it's a sugar pill will completely remove the effect.

>Why would the human mind create a side effect?
Why would the human mind create effects? Side effects from placebo are well studied and documented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo

File: Schopenhauer.gif (46KB, 339x398px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 339x398px

>2014
>still believing neurological phenomena are the CAUSE of various mental states

do you people even double aspect theory?

>>6669038
> How is this even possible? Why would the human mind create a side effect?
nocebo effect

>>6669033
>I can literally type "cognitive behavioral therapy is more effective than placebo" into google scholar and get articles.
On an unrelated note, that is probably the most terrible way possible to get an educated scientific opinion on a subject.
I type "precognition study statistically significant" into google scholar and who knows! ESP and Precognition are real! I got articles to cite, tons of them, that means it must be true!
http://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=precognition+study+statistically+significant&btnG=&hl=de&as_sdt=0%2C5

>>6669102
yeah, and all the articles that pop up are >30 years old and are lampooned for terrible methodology in other articles or outright ignored. Critical thinking leads me to conclude they're out of date and bad. I can further use google scholar to check for articles that cite the articles I find and read those to see what people think of the original article. Perhaps I should have have said: "I can literally type 'cognitive behavioral therapy is more effective than placebo' into google scholar and get recent articles by respected authors that are tenured respected universities, which are cited as evidence in other articles written by authors that are tenured at respected universities."?

I'm on 200mg sertraline

Recently I thought about going off them but I'd probably stay home all day counting my fingernails and washing my hands.

So yeah, they're good.

>Doubles the risk of suicide
yeah I worry about this. I don't have intrusive suicidal thoughts as often now that I take medication. Occasionally I get periods of a few minutes to a few hours where I'm convinced I want to kill myself or someone else. I'll probably never own a gun, but I'm also probably ineligible for a draft come ww3.

I think if you're smart you probably have some part of your mind that's out of your control. For me they make that part easier to control.

File: 1207317230363.jpg (63KB, 555x538px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 555x538px

>>6669115
>yeah, and all the articles that pop up are >30 years old and are lampooned for terrible methodology in other articles or outright ignored
Bem ist still going at it to this day and his methology is pretty solid, of course, ESP isn't real, that doesn't stop him from having really solid studies whose statistiically significant conclusion is that ESP is real. And he's a professur emeritus at Cornell! And he was kinda respected before all that ESP stuff.
Anyway the point is more that you have to look at the meta studies and meta-meta studies.
And there's some decent evidence there that any type of psychiatry (including freudian pschoanalysis, of all things!) isn't better than placebo, if placebo is "some guy is listening to your probelms, is very understanding and tries to help you"

>>6668888
That meta study doesn't take into account the double-blind effect, which is pervasive in this area of study. Nice try.

>>6669115

better than placebo, yes; but how much better?

if you're only getting a 5% better outcome from expensive and time consuming therapy sessions, are they really worth it?

slightly better results than nothing is not a significant finding, nor does it by any means establish a definite casual connexion between what is being advanced as the agent of improvement and the actual agent of improvement

"Psychology is not a science."

Google it.

>>6669093
well duh, you can't market anything for that

>>6669133
"The Earth is flat."
Google it.

>>6669159
"Your a retard".
Google it.

>>6669187
"You're mom."
Google it.

>>6669159
>The five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

Psychology fails the first two: clearly defined terminology and quantifiability.

I will NOT let you redefine science.

>>6669193
Are you the shitposter from the other thread?
I explained how it had both of those but you're too ignorant to understand.

>>6669197

No, and you couldn't accurately define or value happiness, so you just failed 3 times in one post.

Shut up and leave.

>>6669214
> On a scale from 1-10 tell me how happy you are
so hard.

>>6668675
>raise their body temperature by a significant amount by meditating

Uh huh. First, no they don't. Second, they would die.

>>6669127
> Bem ist (is) still going at it to this day and his methology (methodology) is pretty solid, of course, ESP isn't real, that doesn't stop him from having really solid studies whose statistiically (statistically) significant conclusion is that ESP is real. And he's a professur (professor) emeritus at Cornell! And he was kinda respected before all that ESP stuff.

are his results reproducible? That's kind of the point of looking at article that cite the article. Meta studies also cite the article, which is why I read them too. Honestly if people do his exact study over and over again and get the same results, and then these results get mixed in with "shitty" ESP studies, it will average out that ESP doesn't exist. I'm not saying ESP exists or that meta studies aren't useful, just that meta-studies aren't the be all end all of the scientific fact, just consensus.

inb4 "lol, doesn't get meta analysis"
quote from professor teaching methodology : "The findings of one excellent study can be made inconclusive by lumping them together with crap during the meta analysis." Pretty much every methodology professor has expressed similar concerns. Yes It provides a good overview, but it's also more fact checking you need to do. Beware of the badly constructed meta analysis

>>6669269
You have not quantified happiness.

Fuck off and pollute another board. Or just go back to /pol/.

>>6669299
> Or just go back to /pol/.
I should say the same to you.

Psychology is considered to be a social science by most institutions. You're the one with the odd opinion.

>>6669304
Yeah, you cry about everything, /pol/tard.

>>6668554
I've heard that SSRIs are ineffective, but what about MAOIs?

>>6669304
>social science
Redefining science with magic crystals again.

HEY! CHECK OUT MY DICK WAVING-SCIENCE!

IT IS THE SCIENCIEST!

My personal experience with the antidepressant Wellbutrin has been effective so far. I don't have bouts of physical numbness anymore. I still get pretty sad sometimes but not as often or as severe as before.

>>6669309
>>6669312
Strawmanning this hard.

You've never heard of social science before?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science
Grow the fuck up.

>>6669323
The strawman was your use of "social science".

>>6669127
>>6669131
Look, I'm not obsessed with CBT, I just like it because people can do it for themselves once they understand the principle.

I'm arguing for therapeutic intervention over pharmaceutical. If pharmaceutical and therapeutic intervention show similar levels of success why give people drugs that have been shown to be addictive and have crazy side effects? Especially when the consensus on the thread and in the science seems to be that any intervention is barely better than placebo in the first place. Especially when we don't even understand how they actually work.

yeah, let's just give 4 year olds ritalin.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8827986/Give-Ritalin-to-four-year-olds-with-ADHD-say-experts.html
I'm sure that won't have long term effects
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/104454601750143366

>>6669333
I don't think you know what that word means then.
social science \subset science
science: a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

>>6669323
What is the objectively observable value of morals and happiness in a society?

You should be able to quantify that if "social science" was a science.

You can't.

You can say you did, though.

>>6669339
I don't know. I don't study social science because it's boring as fuck.
Doesn't mean I disregard what the human race has determined is "science"

>>6669338
Your definition of science "Science means whatever the fuck I want!"

>the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

>>6669346
no it's the definition from wikipedia.
Let's try google this time: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
And now webster: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

Your definition of science is "Science means whatever the fuck I want!"

>>6669344

So "crystal magic science" is a science because it has a lot of clearly defined words?

By the way, don't say this shit in school. You'll get suspended for "aggressive behavior".

>>6669350
I haven't been in school for a couple years now.
I got my BS in physics and played around in industry for a bit.

>>6669128
I will endeavor to find one, but I'm going to have to do some digging, fair?
Also, I notice you dropped the meditation thing. I take it you actually took time to read the article?

>>6669348
Your definition is still crap.
"Social science" fails the "scientifically rigorous" test.

>>6669352

Then you don't have to worry about people who associate "killing Christians" with "science".

Welcome to 4chan.

>>6669355
Science isn't "scientifically rigorous"
That's something you just came up with.
>>6669365
What. How. What?

>>6669286
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0058244
>As a testament to the importance of the g-tummo practice at Gebchak nunnery, this ceremony is held annually, at dawn, and all of the experienced practitioners walk slowly for a few hours around the nunnery complex in ?25°C to ?30°C weather, wearing only short skirts and shoes and a wet sheet draped around their naked torsos.
They should die, but they don't.
It's a combination of breathing and concentration.

>>6669371
The five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

>>6669380
Says you.

>>6669382
No.
http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/05/30/what_separates_science_from_non-science_106278.html

>>6669390
>http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/05/30/what_separates_science_from_non-science_106278.html
> not biased
> Traditionally, fields such as biology, chemistry, physics and their spinoffs constitute the “hard sciences” while social sciences are called the “soft sciences.” A very good reason exists for this distinction, and it has nothing to do with how difficult, useful or interesting the field is. Instead, it has to do with how scientifically rigorous its research methods are.

Well say what you mean then.
Say I wish that we could move away from the distinction that science is just (put dictionary definition here) and move to requiring that science must be rigorous.

Depression is a product of industrial-technological society. Obviously, when people are put into very stressful situations, they will react negatively. People in modern society have essentially no control and no power over their life, and are also under more stress than previous generations. When mass-entertainment fails to mollify them for whatever reasons, they become "depressed." By calling a natural response to unhealthy living conditions a "mental illness", psychiatrists make the experiences of the "mentally ill" illegitimate; if you're not happy in this utopia, there's something wrong with YOU, not the society. Anti-depressants work so poorly because they assume the symptoms are caused by a magical "chemical imbalance" and attempt to treat the "imbalance", when really the only solution is return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

This is my conclusion after having "been depressed" for several years and having "sought help" (i.e. be jewed out of thousands of dollars).

>>6669402
> Editor’s Note: This article is a follow-up to one previously written by Tom Hartsfield titled, "NSF Should Stop Funding Social 'Science'".
He's saying that social science isn't science.
It is by every definition besides his own.

> Is this necessary for science?
NOOOOOOOO

>>6669409
>hitting f5 that fucking fast

Get out.

>>6669412
Lol. I've always been a faster poster.
It drives me nuts how slow this board is.

> be on /sci/ (not today ofc)
> last posts in 5 of the threads our yours
> so bored
> so lonely
I actually saw a fellow fast poster the other day.

File: Didn'.png (245KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 480x360px

>>6669409
godfuckingdamn
Pic related.

>>6669419
>being proud of posting fast

;_;

>>6669426
Spoiler % I think I have a huge ego, but then I remember that ego is psychology and psychology doesn't exist so I continue to be a badass because I observe it to be so.

i tried a couple of different SSRIs and they did absolutely nothing to help beat my depression

OP's post is a very accurate description from my experience

>>6669404
great post

I treated my depression by dropping my toxic friends and exercising daily (5+ hours a week). That's the only thing that's had any lasting impact.

American companies are not your friends. They don't do what they do to help you. They do what they do so that you pay them as much money as possible.

>>6669404
*hi5*

We're not alone, mang.