![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 71 to 95 of 106. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on September 22, 2015, at 22:16:27
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by hello321 on September 22, 2015, at 21:58:43
> But no, I haven't personally seen a baby regress around the time they received vaccinations. And I'm not certain about the idea of vaccines actually causing autism. But I have read on the effects of vaccines and how they interact with the immune system. And how our immune system interacts with the brain and I've decided autism being a result of vaccines is a reasonable suggestion.
I agree. It is a reasonable suggestion.
- Scott
Posted by hello321 on September 22, 2015, at 23:06:26
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by baseball55 on September 22, 2015, at 21:12:34
Oh and you asked what my comments about poverty and crime had to do with antidepressants.
Well, just look at the emotions poverty can result in. That the situations you described can result in. Poverty can cause one to feel anxiety, panic attacks, trouble sleeping, impulsive, irritable, agitated, hostile, aggressive, restless, etc...
That reminds me of something, hmm what was it.. Oh yeah! Some of the side effects on that Lexapro list.
> I think it comes down to how one feels about science in general and psychiatry and psychiatric drugs in particular. I have had mostly wonderful interactions with psychiatrists (I know I may be unusual) and I have seen a lot, because I have been hospitalized a lot (including for unilateral and bilateral ECT). My experience has been that they want very badly to help, care very much, but are only able to offer drugs or treatments that are often not effective. This is not their fault. They don't design the drugs anymore than primary care doctors design the often useless drugs they prescribe. If you want to think about a medical speciality that routinely lies about or overstates the effects of or manipulates patients into taking dangerous drugs that are just barely helpful - I give you -- ONCOLOGISTS! I know it is the thing on p-babble to diss p-docs, and I know there are a lot of mediocre doctors out there (as in any medical specialty) but I have great respect for p-docs. I believe they do their best with a very limited armament of drugs. The good ones, whom I have seen, do therapy and the therapy in itself often does more good than the drugs.
>
> I have also had a fairly good experience with psych drugs. Not that they've always worked, but when they didn't, I have had no bad side effects and no discontinuation syndromes. The drugs that worked best for me had the most disturbing side effects (AAPS which caused unbelievably rapid weight gain). My p-docs were always upfront about the risks.
>
> But science itself. Is not anecdote. You may have had a bad reaction to drugs, or you may have had bad things happen while or after you took drugs. Your reactions may have been due to the drugs, or may have just happened contemporaneously with your taking the drugs. Correlation is not causation. This is why studies need to be double-blinded and replicated, a basic tenet of medical science, the so-called gold standard for medical research. Look at RX list on side effects - 2% report memory problems, but so do 1.8% of people on placebo. This is the kind of thing you find all the time. Sometimes things just happen.
>
> Then there's the issue of the validity of medical research, given the undue influence of the pharmaceutical industry. This is a problem and the information doctors are using is often unduly influenced by studies paid for by drug companies. But at this point, most SSRIs are.generic and have been studied to death by independent researchers. To imagine that there are studies out there showing a correlation and possible causality between murder and SSRIs that have been suppressed by Big Pharma just isn't credible to me.
>
> Finally, yes, crime is strongly associated with poverty and also with race. Young black men are miserable, harassed by police, incarcerated for nothing, discriminated against in jobs, grow up without the example of working fathers. My heart breaks for them. But what does this have to do with SSRIs? For that matter, how many of the many mass murderers in recent years -- all young men -- were on SSRIs?
>
>
> > Baseball, the things I write about often take into account my
> experience. This is only an sectoral experience, but I have experienced homicidal thoughts induced by a few psychiatric treatment. I feel like these thoughts I felt were the result of more intense helpless emotions the treatment caused. Basically a worsening of depression caused by treatment.
> >
> > You see it on the news often, more crimes being committed in cities with a high poverty rate. Poverty can obviously lead to helpless and hopeless, emotions.
> >
> > But I also think if you look at the areas of the brain these treatments alter, these areas are described as playing major roles in aggression, irritability, impulse control and pretty much any emotion we experience in our lives. I believe it for every benefit a psychiatric med can have, there is also an opposite negative reaction that can occur. I have experienced this myself on more than one occasion with treatments being a huge benefit at first, only to have them start having the opposite effect. I think what causes this for me are certain compensatory actions in the brain that adjust after chronic treatment. I've taken treatments that have brightened my mood, increased libido, motivation and energy. Some treatments that even helped my problems with movement. But after too long, the effect of treatment reversed and the opposite. Mayb my brain is just sensitive to psych treatments. But I doubt I'm the only one with such a sensitive brain.
> >
> >
> > But if one just looks at the list of negative effects the treatment is recognized to have on mood. Look at what the parts of brain these meds affect and the role they play in emotions. Such as aggression that I listed above. And I feel a picture is painted for anyone wanting to understand the possibilities of what they can lead to (good or bad).
> >
> > And if these chemicals affect what goes on in parts of the brain that affect aggression, irritability and impulse control, what human actions can these emotions sometimes play a role in? Crime in general, right? One crime in particular is homicide. And knowing this, one would have expected "studies" that have been already replicated over and over to have been released after all the time these treatments have been on the market. Why aren't there any? Or are these studies already done and replicated, but just haven't been released for our viewing for certain reasons? And if studies do get released, you have to know who did them and what their conflicts of interest are. But you still can't really trust them when it comes down to it. You can really only trust yourself. Next in line, hopefully you can trust your family and maybe friends. But I myself don't need anymore info on the possibility of homicidal thoughts from treatment because of my experiences with it, I know it's possible.
> >
> > Also, knowing that these chemical treatments affect the brain areas in that play a role in the emotions that are precursors to crimes, it might be good to require proof that they can't actually result in crime behavior. Rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt. It is after all, a one size fits all approach to altering these brain areas and the emotions they have a role in. "One size fits all" might be good for bandaids used for a paper cut on a finger. But not with the human brain.
> >
>
Posted by SLS on September 23, 2015, at 2:46:10
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by hello321 on September 22, 2015, at 23:06:26
> Poverty can cause one to feel anxiety, panic attacks, trouble sleeping, impulsive, irritable, agitated, hostile, aggressive, restless, etc...
So can almost any kind of extreme or chronic stress.
I would be interested to see something addressing the occurrence of the things listed here as being the consequences of poverty when not the symptoms of a psychiatric disorder.
Anyway, getting back to SSRIs and violent crimes...
What are the brain structures or circuits that might be involved in the precipitation of violent crimes in young people who are taking SSRIs?
- Scott
Posted by europerep on September 23, 2015, at 10:13:11
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by hello321 on September 22, 2015, at 21:58:43
> But no, I haven't personally seen a baby regress around the time they received vaccinations. And I'm not certain about the idea of vaccines actually causing autism. But I have read on the effects of vaccines and how they interact with the immune system. And how our immune system interacts with the brain and I've decided autism being a result of vaccines is a reasonable suggestion.
I'm an "anti-spherer". I don't have conclusive evidence that the Earth is flat. But based on what I see when I look outside the window and when I walk on the street, the idea that the Earth is flat seems to be a reasonable suggestion to me.
Seeing your own reasoning, you must accept this kind of statement if you don't want to be hypocritical.
It is virtually impossible for a normal human being to verify all the things "they" tell us are true. So what makes more sense, in my view, is to target our (critically important) skepticism at methods. How are the facts we are told are true are established, who continuously checks back whether we have not made mistakes in the process, etc.?
So let's see: how has the knowledge of today's medicine been established, and by whom? Were it fairly ignorant non-conformists who "thought for themselves" and "came to their own conclusions"? Or were it medical professionals who learned and studied the (by definition incomplete or partially false) state of medical science at their time, applied it to patients in the real world and then, after years if not decades of doing that, kicked our knowledge of medicine a step farther by making a great discovery? I think the answer is obvious.
With all due respect, based on your posts here over the past few years, your knowledge of neurobiology is, at best, basic. (So is mine by the way, but then I don't go out and make absurd quasi-speculations which I claim are filling the gaps of "incomplete" science.) So if you now try to point out the gaps and limits of our understanding of neurobiology and medicine, I cannot take that seriously even for a second. Spend thirty years studying the stuff, and then go to talk to the guys (and girls) who have done the same. Until then, you are not more qualified to discuss this stuff than I am qualified to discuss the shape of the Earth based on my personal life experience.
And, just in case you now go back to your supposed analogy of how people are allowed to have their own thoughts about politics even though they are not the experts: there is a huge difference between facts and opinions. Anyone can have an opinion. But what you are explicitly trying to do with your posts about psychiatry is tell us that the *facts* are wrong. And for those kinds of claims there exists a burden of proof. You not only never deliver this proof, you seem to be unwilling to even acknowledge that the burden of proof is actually there. You have to do that, because you would fail spectacularly at meeting it.
And the same goes for the whole vaccine stuff: study it for years and then attack the knowledge that we have on the issue. Or don't do that and point out that you are just stating opinions, which will carry the same weight as my speculation on the shape of the Earth at the beginning of this comment.
Posted by SLS on September 23, 2015, at 14:23:40
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes? » hello321, posted by europerep on September 23, 2015, at 10:13:11
Most scientists are adamant in concluding that vaccinations like MMR do not cause autism. So far, this conclusion is based on empirical studies of association.
Here is a mega study:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2275444
The causes of autism have yet to be elucidated. There are some ongoing studies to identify any genes that may be involved. So, there is a lot of work to do.
The one thing that I find striking is that there is an association between autism and brain inflammation. I was wondering if the MMR vaccinations were the cause of this inflammation. I read that brain inflammation is indeed a consequence of MMR if one has problems with their immune system. It is conceivable that MMR leads to brain inflammation, which leads to regression autism. Of course, just because something is conceivable doesn't make it true.
Brain inflammation also occurs with depression and bipolar disorder. Some researchers are looking at inflammation as being involved in the cause of these disorders. I tend to believe that inflammation is the result of, rather than the primary cause. I wonder, though, if inflammation, once induced, doesn't help drive the illness. It is conceivable.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25128861
I am leaning in the direction of believing that brain inflammation is the result of autism rather its cause.
- Scott
Posted by europerep on September 23, 2015, at 14:53:05
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by SLS on September 23, 2015, at 14:23:40
> Of course, just because something is conceivable doesn't make it true.
Exactly, that's what I was trying to get at with my example about the shape of the Earth.
The difference is of course that questions about the shape of the Earth came up when people noticed "anomalies" that shouldn't be observable if the Earth was indeed flat. The supposed anomalies in the case of vaccinations stem, as far as I know, from a later-retracted paper by a fraudulent scientist, and the claims have now been thoroughly discredited. So to me it doesn't really make sense to think about the possible causes of a phenomenon that is not observed in reality.
If one does not believe this, I really see no other option than to study the subject matter, become an expert and then contribute to the scientific debate. And in this case, this wouldn't even be about settling the "correlation vs causation" question, it would require finding even just an association between MMR vaccines and autism in the first place.
Until one does that, anything one has to say on the matter is nothing more than the equivalent of "well, the Earth looks flat to me".
Posted by SLS on September 23, 2015, at 15:12:12
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes? » SLS, posted by europerep on September 23, 2015, at 14:53:05
> So to me it doesn't really make sense to think about the possible causes of a phenomenon that is not observed in reality.
That's a good point.
- Scott
Posted by Lamdage22 on September 23, 2015, at 15:23:25
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes? » SLS, posted by europerep on September 23, 2015, at 14:53:05
Oh please.
Have you ever been on a plane from europe to the US or back??
Did you notice that the day is either longer or shorter?
This "earth is flat" b*llsh*t is bothering me. My own brother talked about this crap.
Posted by Lamdage22 on September 23, 2015, at 15:26:39
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Lamdage22 on September 23, 2015, at 15:23:25
Maybe i just completely misunderstood.
Posted by SLS on September 23, 2015, at 16:02:07
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Lamdage22 on September 23, 2015, at 15:26:39
I think the analogy was meant to highlight how man's understanding of the Universe evolves using the scientific method rather than pure conjecture. The analogy also demontrates how change is sometimes hard to accept. I try to keep an open mind. I am not always successful.
- Scott
Posted by Hello321 on September 23, 2015, at 16:07:08
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes? » hello321, posted by europerep on September 23, 2015, at 10:13:11
Europrep, why are you only attacking me when SLS agreed with my thoughts on any suggestion there is a link between autism and vaccines being reasonable? I guess i must have touched a nerve? So are you saying any thoight there is a connection these two is just plain wrong? I used the words "reasonable suggestion" because i dont knpw of it is fact or myth. To suggest you could have brown hair and brown eyes is reasonable. And i call it reasonable because it is possible. Do i know it for a fact that you have this skin and eye color? Heck no! But i guess your stance on the vaccine issue is cemented in its position on what is presented as the factual science to you? I just dont want to buy into everything simply because it is presented as factual science to us.
The politics example i used may not have been the best. But i used others as well that do havevto do with "science". Dont cherry pick my words so that you can criticise them on the whole. I just know what ive experienced on multiple occasions with psychiatric treatments. I got my emotional in a hole with my first round in 2005 and in some cases made a bad decision with certain other meds to try "digging" myself out. And a treatment i actualky tried once was, on the whole, actually helpful (tho it isnt technically a psych med being Cyproheotadine).
Do any of your thoughts/stances on anything go against "science"? Are you a christian? Do you buy into the thougt of humans causing global warming? Or flouride causing health problems? Hormones injected into cows not causing any health difference in the consumer? "Experts" always go on about whole grain bread basically being the best choice for consumers. But what about the phytates ("antinutrients") that whole grains contain in higher amounts that inhibit absorotion of certain menerals. On a tooic concerning psychiatry, what about when an expert, such as a colkpsychiatrist, prescribes amphetamines to elementary school on a regular basis? Might you have any concerns with this in any situation even though the expert decided it was for the best after a 30 minute appointment? Has a college educated doctor ever had ideas about something concerning you personally that you disagreed with?
Or on a topic not science based, like americas military role in the world. Do you fully agree with it? Or do you have some criticisms?
You might not like all the examples i posted. If not, choose at least one that you do think is a good example instead of picking which one/`s you dont. I
Or do you buy into every bit of "science" that is presented to you as fact?
Posted by Hello321 on September 23, 2015, at 16:19:57
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Hello321 on September 23, 2015, at 16:07:08
But of course if anyone a comment, go ahead with it.
Posted by hello321 on September 23, 2015, at 17:09:40
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Hello321 on September 23, 2015, at 16:07:08
Sometimes I experience this to various degrees. And it has been a result of the long term effects I've experienced with psychiatric meds.
Posted by baseball55 on September 23, 2015, at 19:53:04
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by hello321 on September 22, 2015, at 21:58:43
> In the sense that you say corellation is not causation, then how can you be sure any medical treatment you've taken or had done has helped you in any way with its effects. There are other reasons you could have improved. There are other reasons you could have suddenly gained weight while on an AAP, even if the weight gain stopped or even went away after you stopped taking it. Right?
> In that sense a most of the experiences on meds written all over the internet could just be mistaken thoughts.Yes, but I am far from the only person who experienced this and placebo-controlled, double-blinded, replicated studies have found weight gain to be a side-effect of AAPs. Does this correlation equal causation? Well, given that the mechanism is not understood, it's impossible to "prove" causation. But there are well-established rules in scientific research to claim causation. For example, we don't know the mechanism by which smoking causes lung disease. We can speculate, but the fact remains that some smokers never suffer from lung disease. Does this mean smoking does not cause lung disease? Large scale comparisons of smokers and non-smokers, replicated again and again and again, find strong correlations. So it is now widely accepted that smoking causes lung disease, even if the exact mechanism (which could prove causality) is unknown.
Other examples in chemistry, physics, biology abound. We don't know, for example, that human characteristics evolved over millennia. It can't be proven. It is a theory. But it is a theory that has been confirmed by evidence again and again and again and has not been falsified by other evidence. So it is now accepted that evolutionary processes led to the development of homo sapiens.
Posted by baseball55 on September 23, 2015, at 19:55:18
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by SLS on September 22, 2015, at 22:16:27
> > But no, I haven't personally seen a baby regress around the time they received vaccinations. And I'm not certain about the idea of vaccines actually causing autism. But I have read on the effects of vaccines and how they interact with the immune system. And how our immune system interacts with the brain and I've decided autism being a result of vaccines is a reasonable suggestion.
>
> I agree. It is a reasonable suggestion.
>
> Really? Even after study after study after study have found no correlation and the journal that published the one (and only) article making this claim retracted the study?
> - Scott
Posted by baseball55 on September 23, 2015, at 20:14:01
In reply to And yes, I see my typing is horrible today., posted by hello321 on September 23, 2015, at 17:09:40
I will add that I was trained as a scientist and have great regard for the scientific method, which was the greatest gift of the enlightenment, though fought tooth and nail by the church and monarchy of the time, who much preferred using anecdote and prejudice and superstition (not to mention common sense) as a means to maintain their power. People sought the truth, developed methods to seek the truth and methods to assess the truth of claims, despite intense persecution.
Democracy (which allows people to argue) and the scientific method are the basis for our high standard of living today, in my opinion.
Democracy also was attained by individuals who sought truth and justice despite persecution.
Posted by hello321 on September 23, 2015, at 21:39:19
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by baseball55 on September 22, 2015, at 21:12:34
It can be difficult to replicate results when each and every brain affected by psychiatric drugs uniquely. I'd say this is particularly true in my case since I had encephalitis in 2001 that resulted in a coma. Over 75% of my brain was infected and my immune system was attacking the infection as well as my brain. This could have altered my brain in more unique ways. But it didn't take too long after waking from the coma before I seemed to fully recover and was able to live a normal life. Now I'm guessing any of my experiences I've had with medications are going to be blamed on the encephalitis instead. I'd say that could be partially correct. But my thoughts are that I react to psych meds in the way I do because of the encephalitis I had. A month before I stepped into a psychiatrists office for the first time, my mental health was majorly different and *better. One manor thing I can point out is I had absolutely zero problem staying in school a whole day. I could also have better relationships with friends and family. But everything changed about a month after starting my first meds. So naturally I stopped the meds to see if I'd improve, and I didn't. So I figured it likely wasn't psych meds that caused my situation and went a year off them with zero improvement. I decided to go back to the psychiatrist and tried a few antidepressants over some months. Long story short, I ended up worse off.
But still, it may be simple to replicate results of research in a lab under controlled conditions. Even with more simple organisms. But every human brain starts out in.the womb as unique, and the more it develops, the more unique and complex it becomes. and the way it is affected by the world throughout life is unique. Every brain is exposed to different stresses, toxins and trauma as we make our way through the world. And I'm sure these can also affect how our brains are effected by something like Prozac in minor or major ways. I don't know how common it is for someone's brain to react to the chemicals used to alter brain function in a similar manner to my brain. It doesn't seem all that common, but you can find terrible experiences similar to mine posted on various sites. You can also discount these too, if you'd like. But will we keep progressing with psychiatry if the less common experiences with it are ignored? At some point I think it will be a road block.
Posted by hello321 on September 23, 2015, at 21:57:56
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by hello321 on September 23, 2015, at 21:39:19
Do any of your thoughts/stances on anything go against "science"? Are you a christian? Do you believe any higher being created the Universe? Do you buy into the thought of humans causing global warming? Or flouride causing health problems? Hormones injected into cows not causing any health difference in the consumer when consuming products that come from cows? "Experts" always go on about whole grain bread basically being the best choice for consumers. But what about the phytates ("antinutrients") that whole grains contain in higher amounts that inhibit absorption of certain menerals. On a topic concerning psychiatry, what about when an expert, such as a psychiatrist, prescribes amphetamines to elementary school children on a regular basis? Do you agree with this?
Maybe there are topics where you'd disagree if you understood them more?If you've any stance that goes against widely publicized "science", I'm curious about what it is.
Posted by Lamdage22 on September 24, 2015, at 11:54:07
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes? » Lamdage22, posted by SLS on September 23, 2015, at 16:02:07
> I think the analogy was meant to highlight how man's understanding of the Universe evolves using the scientific method rather than pure conjecture. The analogy also demontrates how change is sometimes hard to accept. I try to keep an open mind. I am not always successful.
>
>
> - ScottOh ok. I thought he wanted to explain that the earth was flat;) My brother did :(:(:( Like seriously.
And i dont know what to say to him honestly.
Maybe the craze is a family thing-
Posted by Lamdage22 on September 24, 2015, at 11:58:26
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Lamdage22 on September 24, 2015, at 11:54:07
Sorry for the off topic.
Posted by hello321 on September 24, 2015, at 15:23:26
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Lamdage22 on September 24, 2015, at 11:58:26
LMAO Lamdage that cracks me up about what your brother said. Lol :D
Posted by baseball55 on September 24, 2015, at 20:32:10
In reply to I'll ask you the same » hello321, posted by hello321 on September 23, 2015, at 21:57:56
Probably people's brains differ more than, say, their lungs or kidneys do. But given our poor understanding of how the brain, in general, works, it's hard to fault science for not being able to fully address how one individual's brain, in specific works or differs from the brains of others. I imagine your encephalitis altered your brain in some ways, but does anyone know how? A neurologist, for example.
Also, I'm curious why, if things were going well for you before you started seeing a p-doc and got on psych meds, why did you go to a p-doc and go on psych meds.
I'm not discounting your experience or contesting your own reactions to drugs. I'm just disagreeing that a warning that SSRIs may cause young adults to become homicidal is warranted by evidence.
Posted by hello321 on September 24, 2015, at 20:42:35
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by hello321 on September 24, 2015, at 15:23:26
I thought this convo was getting somewhere and having a bit of new life breathed into it just when
babblers stopped posting on it. I'm interested in the thoughts of others on topics like the ones I listed. I was criticized for not buying into everything that's "scientifically proven" *cries* but I'm okay now.But we gotta stand for something even if it is something scientists don't agree with. A step in the right direction of taking a stand for your beliefs is to be open about them when asked about them.
And it's just the internet, what's the worst that could happen if we are open about our beliefs on here? Another unscientific belief I have is in the God that is written about in the Christian Bible.It'll be okay.
Posted by hello321 on September 24, 2015, at 21:04:09
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Hello321 on September 23, 2015, at 16:07:08
Besides, who says psych meds like antidepressants can't cause the taker of them to become more prone to violence? Anyone more trustworthy than the makers of Paxil? Gosh I hope so. I just had my experience with them. And I see the side effects they can have on someone's emotions, that make them more likely to experience emotions that are often experienced leading up to violent acts by people. And then you hear of people committing violent crimes on an AD that's very different from their personality. Some groups blame it on the med. You can't exactly prove it, especially in every case. But when is it going to at least get too hard for the average person to ignore?
Posted by baseball55 on September 24, 2015, at 21:08:57
In reply to I'll ask you the same » hello321, posted by hello321 on September 23, 2015, at 21:57:56
> Do any of your thoughts/stances on anything go against "science"? Are you a christian? Do you believe any higher being created the Universe?
I am not Christian and do not believe in a sentient creator. I am sympathetic to Buddhism and meditate daily. I do not believe in an afterlife.
Do you buy into the thought of humans causing global warming?
I don't "buy into" this. I think it has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt. The IPCC consists of hundreds of scientists, none with an ax to grind. The causal links are clear. CO2 traps heat. This is an established fact. CO2 levels have increased due to fossil fuel use. This is an established fact. The planet has been warming. This is an established fact. Connect the dots. The ONLY scientists who reject this are bought and paid for by the coal and oil industry.
Or flouride causing health problems?
I am unfamiliar with the science here.Hormones injected into cows not causing any health difference in the consumer when consuming products that come from cows?
I don't know much about this. I think scientists believe it is a problem. I have read that girls are entering puberty at earlier ages than in the past and some believe hormones in the diet cause this. Others think the picture is muddied by girls weighing more and having a more secure food supply. I don't read up on this. For myself, I only fed my daughter organic, hormone free meat.
"Experts" always go on about whole grain bread basically being the best choice for consumers. But what about the phytates ("antinutrients") that whole grains contain in higher amounts that inhibit absorption of certain minerals.
I am not knowledgeable about nutrition science. I myself avoid bread and, when I eat it, eat whole grains. Maybe this is wrong. I don't know. The anti-refined grain stuff is more about glucose spikes and how that might affect insulin levels. I find nutrition information confusing. It seems like every couple of years, new studies come out questioning the claims of previous studies. But this is fine. This is the scientific method at work. Science is fluid and dynamic. If one scientist says A causes B, others try to replicate or falsify the result.On a topic concerning psychiatry, what about when an expert, such as a psychiatrist, prescribes amphetamines to elementary school children on a regular basis? Do you agree with this?
It bothers me. Prescribing any psychoactive drug to small children bothers me. And it bothers me that ADHD diagnoses skyrockets and the age of diagnosis has fallen. On the other hand, I was at a party once and this woman started talking about how ADHD was just a wastebasket diagnosis for children who were rambunctious and couldn't sit still in school. After all, she said, what did they do with high-energy children before ritalin and adderall. A child psychiatrist at the party replied, before ritalin and adder all, they had corporal punishment. And I am old enough to remember when teachers routinely beat and humiliated children who couldn't sit still.
> Maybe there are topics where you'd disagree if you understood them more?
Well, that goes without saying.
>
> If you've any stance that goes against widely publicized "science", I'm curious about what it is.
I try to keep up with things, but I can't know everything. I have faith in the scientific process and I know that widely publicized "science" is often cautious, tentative conclusions seized upon by the media and presented as "facts". I am always skeptical of what the mass media says. It is almost never what scientists themselves say. Good scientists publish in peer-reviewed journals and make their data available to other scientists. I am also skeptical about scientific studies done by drug companies for drugs still under patent or recently developed. The entire medical profession, psychiatrists included, is corrupted by this. Even when individual practitioners are not themselves corrupt, they read journals whose articles have been financed by big pharma, without this being sufficiently disclosed. Marcia Angell wrote a very good book about this several years ago. She was a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.I had a conversation about this with my p-doc a few years back. He said that he tries to be skeptical, but most of the educational resources and journal articles are paid for by drug companies. That no matter how hard they try to be absolutely ethical, they are influenced by drug companies. He actually tried to organize events in his home that were not funded by drug companies and to get speakers who were not paid by drug companies, but he complained that few people came. Many people come when the event is being held at an expensive restaurant and paid for by a drug company. It's sad and worrisome. But it is not unique to psychiatrists.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.