Posted by Squiggles on May 16, 2006, at 16:08:37
In reply to Re: Statistical question on SSRIs - ADDENDUM » Squiggles, posted by Larry Hoover on May 16, 2006, at 11:44:42
...........
> We got rid of asylums. They used to be state of the art. Icepick lobotomies. Insulin shock. What people need is care.
>
> Lar-----------------
-----------------
It looks like we're going around and around and around.
Look what i found from two years ago: From LAXAT.com http://www.laxat.com/Effexor-can-enlarged-lymph-nodes-be-side-effect-1502549.html
You can follow the thread here at the above url.[Example of discussion:]
Larry Hoover Apr 14, 2004 07:29I'll answer the other question, too. Genotoxic means that a substance
affects either the "data" stored in DNA, or interferes with the DNA's
ability to be "translated" into RNA. It's a functional interference with DNA
(usually caused by chemical or conformational changes in the DNA structure).
It's conceivable that germ cells (those specialized cells that become sperm
or egg) may also be affected, but interference with that DNA would almost
exclusively lead to failed reproduction, not survivable mutation.
The C-6 glioma concept refers to a commercial laboratory cell line, a
so-called "immortal" cell culture that you can buy from suppliers. It's one
of the "stardard" cell cultures. Gliomas are cancer cells, arising from
aberrant glial cells (support cells for neurons, such as astrocytes). The
C-6 refers to a specific culture, and the origin is rat brains. This
particular cell culture, although it arises from a cancer, is stable. It is
a curiousity of science that we can say that a certain drug will induce
cancerous changes in cells that are already cancerous, non?
It takes an extraordinary leap of inference, IMPNSHO, to extrapolate from in
vitro studies of (cancerous) rat brain cells, most often employing
concentrations of a potential toxicant (e.g. a tricyclic antidepressant)
never found in human brains at normal therapeutic dosage, and conclude that
the toxicant is a threat to human health.
I'm going to climb on to a soapbox now.
Major depression is associated with a direct mortality of about 15%
(lifetime morbid risk), via suicide. Indirectly, it is also associated with
substantially increased risk for heart disease, stroke, cancer, endocrine
disturbances, immune dysfunction, and a variety of comorbid psychiatric
disturbances with their own health risks. The social and familial financial
burdens associated with major depression are difficult to assess accurately,
but must be quite large. Serious dysfunction requires serious medicine, and
serious medicine often entails serious risk. But, a percentage of a
percentage is always smaller than the original number.
Much of the negative propaganda being circulated today arises from a
mistaken assessment of the actual risk and benefit of medical intervention.
A classic example is the "popularity" today of foregoing vaccination. There
may conceivably be an increased risk of some rare disorders arising directly
from vaccination (the evidence is absent in studies in Denmark, where the
medical histories of every citizen are known to the government), but people
rejecting that form of protection against disease are overlooking the
effects of the disease itself. Measles can be fatal, or confer lifelong
disability. Mumps, whooping cough, polio......these are not trivial
common-cold-like disorders. The vaccines were developed to protect people
from debilitating illness. Governments and scientists didn't invest so much
effort and expense into protecting the population for no good reason. Where
is the true risk here?
I'm happy to discuss the evidence, but conspiracy theories, and lawyers
chasing lawsuits, really piss me off. Drug companies haven't been totally
ethical, but we can deal with that. Ford wasn't totally ethical with the
Pinto, either. We got over it.
We cannot gain knowledge without taking risks. Let's not let the risk keep
us from gaining knowledge.
Lar"
> > ..............
You say that what mentally ill people really
need is *care*. What do you mean by care? Certainly we cannot get rid of drugs. You state above that:"Much of the negative propaganda being circulated today arises from a
mistaken assessment of the actual risk and benefit of medical intervention."What kind of medical intervention are you
referring to? What would we have left if
we got the risk/benefit assessment right?Squiggles
poster:Squiggles
thread:640557
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060515/msgs/644829.html