Psychiatric Meds

I've had a friend and a close family member go through the available offerings; akin to nuclear war imo. when used well and carefully do great things, but can have huge collateral damage. and required dosages seem to change monthly for no apparent reason.

I know Paxil's been prescribed heavily - generic and non-generic, not sure what all the rest of the armament's been.

both under the care of a psychiatrist - which is a whole other topic! If all you have is a hammer, every symptom sure looks like a nail.

In 20 years we're going to look back at psychiatric care in 2010's as obsolete as many healthcare practices 100+ years ago.

 

Where's Tom Cruise when we need him ???

 

It depends on who your psychiatrist is. Your garden variety psychiatrist usually isn't up to date on the latest drugs and treatments. The absolute best are at major universities. Stanford, Emory, U Miami, Harvard etc....
The best guys on the planet are the chairs of the departments at Stanford and U Miami.

 

Seeing how Karen just got a 6 month ban, maybe she will have time to get her meds adjusted.

 

Just say neigh.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Neigh.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Why do you think? For every script an MD writes out, they get a nice kick back from the big pharma. The more scripts they write out, the more patients will buy the drugs, the more money doc and Mr Pfizer will make.

If you are relying on drugs from pharmacies then you are a fool. Drugs have never cured anything or anyone, they simply make the symptoms go away, they dont eve treat the cause of the disease.

For instance, when a child is hyper and can't concentrate, they diagnose him with ADHD and prescribe Ritalin.
The doctors don't care that the child is consuming too much sugar and artificial colours that cause this state of behavior. Diet is a crucial part to a healthy child, not Ritalin!

But the parents are lazy and quiet happy to pop pills into their kids' mouths.

 

LOL sure enough

 

Wait.

Docs get kick backs? I missed that memo.

Wait.

Drugs never cured anything?

I guess I better put those cancers back into all those people I thought I cured.

 

What about antibiotics? That kill the offending bacteria. Or the leukemias that are cured with chemo. There you can actually show the elimination of the cancerous cells.

You're right that there some drugs are over prescribed. But there are definitely diseases that are cured by drug treatment.

 

Anyone believing that pile of garbage is a fool.

Sincerely,
Andrew.

 

Well, that about sums it up.

I still want my kickback.

 

YOU wait....

You'd better be veeeeery careful if you claim to have a "cure" for cancer. If you did, you'd be a billion...no, a trillionaire, and your's would be a household name. Never, EVER in my life have I heard that there is a "cure" for cancer. Sure you can perform a surgery to remove cancerous cells (not a 100% success rate) but you're trying to make a point that the drug(s) cured it, which they, assuredly, did not. Why is it that chemotherapy is always "only" administered with claims of it being an effective "treatment", but never a cure? Because it's NOT, gotcha. So sorry. My 3 y/o niece is undergoing chemo and radiation, both HIGHLY toxic, right now, and I've done benefits to help raise money for research to develop a "cure". So if you have one, you'd better get your hiney down to Dallas right now, ok? Furthermore, the cancer is a SYMPTOM of imbalances in the body, which is why the cancer cells develop. It's like treating a fever with a fever reducer. The fever is not the illness, it is the symptom of the illness, and simply reducing the fever does not mean that the illness that caused it is gone. ANY doctor worth their salt at least knows that. If you don't, then I call BS on you even being a doctor at all.

Here's a good source with a couple of study references:

http://www.naturalnews.com/023689_chemotherapy_cancer_disease.html

 

Wow, do they really do that??? I don't know which one is more wrong. Docs getting paid a commission, or the drug companies being allowed to advertise to lay people.

 

BTW, I had a friend years ago that was a pharma rep. I know this side of it, so don't think for a second that because you might not have gotten anything, that it doesn't happen.

Tell me sir, what kind of research do you do when a rep comes in promoting something new? Do you ask for the research, etc? Or, do you see FDA approval and think it's ok? BTW, how's that FDA working out for us, anyway? Wheels greased in the 70's and 80's to approve toxic aspartame. Mercury levels in fish and vaccinations too high? Just raise the acceptability level. Fukushima radiation levels too high? Just raise the acceptability level. No need for research, that stuff is for pansies.

 

In your definition of "cure", you obviously want a magic bullet that will remove a cancerous growth and prevent the cancer from reoccurring. That's a pretty tall order. In a medical environment, "cure" is often applied to patients who survive for a further 5 years beyond declared remission. I am confident that, as a real medical doctor, this is what UroTrash means.

What many chemotherapy drugs do is they put cells of the body under collective stress. The idea is that the cancerous cells will be unable to adapt to that stress and die out. If they die out before the rest of the body fails to cope, then the patient sees their condition move into the status of remission. Similarly, radiation is targeted to a smaller area to put cells under stress and hopefully the cancerous cells will die before the normal cells nearby do.

In the article you linked for us, they're citing studies published in The Lancet that are from 1991. Medical research moves fast and often an opinion on current medical capability from only 10 years ago - let alone 20 years ago - is very out of date. As to the opinions of Dr. Ulrich Abel, famed for his 1991 Lancet paper saying chemotherapy didn't do any good... well, Dr. Abel really does write papers in this field, but the paper in question was published in 1992 in Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy (a far lower impact factor publication). Here's the link to the abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1339108 I would note that it was written alone, he never followed it up with a repeat report, and has since mainly concentrated on techniques for diagnosis and evaluation of cancer progression rather than critiquing treatment techniques. In short, the article you cite picks out one review by one researcher that doesn't even represent the sum of that one researcher's life's work and represented it as the sum of all the medical knowledge on cancer to date - completely ignoring the vast availability of reviews and papers saying the opposite to what they want to convey to their readership. I'd say Natural News and it's parent company Truth Publishing International, Ltd. have been hawking crap.

The author of the article you favour and author of the book under recommendation is Andreas Moritz, who describes himself thus:

Image Unavailable, Please Login
"I am a medical intuitive; a practitioner of Ayurveda,
iridology, shiatsu, and vibrational medicine; a writer; and
an artist. I specialize in detecting the root causes of disease
and how to address them without creating harmful side-effects."​

There is also evidence on the web that he is trying to silence his critics with various lawsuits to shut down free speech blogs that refute his claims. He also says cholesterol does not cause heart disease. What he's doing is spreading disinformation in order to sell more copies of his books. Treating cancer is a viscous battle and he's debilitating patients' ability to fight it in order to cash in for himself. He is an insidious and evil man praying upon the sick, weak, frightened, and vulnerable and promising them an easy way out of their ill health rather than allow them to confront the reality of their predicament.

You go ahead and place your faith in "Your Trusted Source of Natural Healing Methods" (as he purports to be on his blog) if you want to, but if I ever get prostate cancer for instance, the first call I'll make will be to a man like UroTrash - a real doctor with real solution.

I am very sorry to hear about your niece, I hope her medical team are able to help her.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

You're not making any sense. I have a Phd in Cell Bio and Genetics. I worked for 20 years at one of the best cancer hospitals in the U.S. doing research. So I think I know a little about how progress is made in the fight against cancer and other diseases.

You sarcastically say that "research is for pansies." And you ask if Uro asks the pharma reps about the research supporting their new drugs.

How do you think Uro and others doctors get their drugs? You think that evil Genentech just makes the drugs in their labs and then bribes the FDA and doctors to use them-even though they don't work?

These drugs usually get their start in university labs. Years and years of research happen before they are even tested in animals. Then they might be licensed or further developed by Merck or other pharmaceutical/biotech companies for testing in humans. Only after all this testing is the data submitted to the FDA.

Uro and thousands of other doctors go to meetings each year where they see these drugs in their development stages. They hear about placebo controlled double blind studies etc. He hears about a lot more failures than successes. But most importantly, he knows of the drugs way before some rep walks into his office.

Research is where Uro gets the drugs he uses in his practice. Not a pharma rep. So I don't understand why you would joke that "research is for pansies."

And by the way doctors and researchers rely on peer reviewed journals, do you know what the peer review process is about? Not journals you quote like naturalnews.

Also, if your friend claims that he convinces doctors to use a drug that is less efficient because he gives them free notepads you should contact the New York Times, they would love to hear his story.

 

Fine and well for you. I'd agree that there are some that have ulterior motives, but in the same way that you are attempting to make a fasle claim on my intention of pulling out one source from one guy is the be-all, end-all of the entire medical community, is merely the flip of what you ARE trying to do with the link that I posted, which is, to discredit the ENTIRE community of researchers and white papers written on the negative effects of cancer treatments, simply because I posted a link you didn't like. Citing this also does not mean that I agree with everything the guy says, nor does it mean it's the best source. But, thank you for the well thought out rebuttal, at least you put some effort into it.

 

Well, you did say it was a "good source" so I think it's fair to give it my own assessment. Every one of the homoeopathic-type of sites I have ever encountered struggles to correctly cite medical literature and borrows (or, to be more accurate, steals) credibility by throwing out the names of legitimate scientists into their blogs.

In the event that they get the name of the researcher right, they will often get the year wrong, the journal wrong, or will misinterpret (deliberately?) the entire findings of legitimate research by latching on to a single phrase in a paper. Evidence to support their claims/agenda is often presented in anecdotal form only and lack any rigorous experimental design or peer review prior to publication. Next time you read one of these articles, actually get onto a search engine for scientific publications to see if it really exists (they bet on people not being able/willing to find out for themselves) and at least try to read the abstract of the paper they're citing:

PubMed

ISI Web of Knowledge

ScienceDirect

Wiley Online Library

Scirus - for scientific information​

Disinformation of the sort you linked isn't just amusingly wrong without consequences, it's positively dangerous when patients rely upon it and that is why I put so much effort into the rebuttal.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

This quote of mine was directed squarely at the FDA, actually, so sorry for any confusion. What should be noted is that the FDA almost never actually conducts their own studies. They rely on what is brought to them by a manufacturer, weigh the risks and benefits, and make an approval decision. What this creates is a moral hazard, as the public is generally not aware of the fact that just because something is "approved" for sale, does not make it inherently safe. Therefore, someone sees a marketing campaign for whatever-the-new-drug-is, and they go to their doctor clamoring for it. I get it. Now, not to lambaste the entire pharma industry, or doctors, or researchers, but, when you have a combination of a few unscrupulous companies, a lot of marketing dollars, a complicit gov't agency, and generally uninformed public asking their extremely busy doctors for a drug, the stage is not set for a good outcome.

Of course I do. Geez, this pushed a hot button for me, and I grabbed a link really fast. It's not like I do this for a living.

 

Fair enough, and yes, I wish that some of these sites weren't so "hokey", as they do sometimes diminish the credibility of the underlying practice. You do realize that ND is a real profession though, right? http://www.naturopathic.org/content.asp?contentid=59

As to "positively dangerous", show me the documentation that proves more people as a percentage die from attempting to rid themselves of disease through naturopathy, homeopathy, chiropractic, diet and exercise, than of those who die from pharmaceutical complications. Wating........ While you're searching, just google something like, "girls die from cervical cancer vaccine", and open your eyes.

Thank you for those links.

 

More and more bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics, it's very common because bacteria mutate rapidly and antibiotics become useless. Most antibiotics are powerless against MRSA yet natural remedies such as colloidal silver and garlic have been known to kill these pathogens without any resistance build up.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/health/article1279834.ece

http://www.anousta.co.uk/silver-shield/colloidal-silver-can-kill-mrsa-can-this-be-true

http://www.greenplanet.com/colloidal-silver-pathogen-killer/


You do not CURE cancer, leukemia with chemo, you simply destroy the tumors that come back somewhere ELSE in the body within a year or two. Chemo and radiation has never cured anyone from cancer, it simply made the tumors go away, destroyed the immune system of the patient and simply burning out a tumor does not cure the patient from cancer.

At best, chemo and radiation will kill the tumor, while the patient still has the cancer in other parts of the body. In fact chemo will speed up eventually other tumors to grow throughout the body, metastases. At worst, the patient will die from chemo while suffering terribly from the toxic effects of chemo and radiation.

Please name ANY diseases which are CURED by drugs from the pharmacy, please don't list drugs that relieve the symptoms.

I mean MDs claim that there is no cure for type 2 diabetes, YES there is! It's called "eating raw, natural foods low in sugar and salt and high in vegetables, minerals and vitamins".

You are what you eat!

Mind you, if they had drugs that cured people, the big phrama would be out of business.

Please no bull**** replies because I know MDs in real life and how the whole process works.

 

With regards to blase` & ubiquitous anti-depressant/psych prescriptions, at times it seems like medical practitioners are trying elicit a placebo effect w/ what is seemingly an inert/innocuous prescription. I'm being very generalist w/ this assertion.

Psychological conditions are so multi-dimensional & complexly varying in each independent case, that a concerted effort needs to be taken towards addressing, social / physiological / physical / psychological factors.

With that said, there are chemical imbalances which develop (or have already been present) that require pharmaceutical involvement. It is what it s & there is nothing more to it. No way around it.

wut

huh

 

Is it just me or have F-chat been overrun by lunatic nut-burgers of late?

I thought this was a rare outpost of sanity on the interweb... now I see the kooks hidden in the shadows. -- For the last week it's been one nutty conspiracy theory after another.

sigh.

======================

EDIT: DUH! What did I expect with the subject of this threat eh? My bad.

Funny thing is when I started reading this thread I would have said that Psychiatric Meds were over prescribed... Apparently I was wrong. Very. Very. Wrong.