“Serotonin is an ancient chemical. It’s intimately regulating many different processes, and when you interfere with these things you can expect, from an evolutionary perspective, that it’s going to cause some harm,” Andrews says.
We're moving towards evolutionary psychiatry at a blistering pace, this is just more of it. Critics of evolutionary psychology and evolutionary medicine, whether creationist or "philosophical" are literally holding back the species.
We're moving towards evolutionary psychiatry at a blistering pace, this is just more of it. Critics of evolutionary psychology and evolutionary medicine, whether creationist or "philosophical" are literally holding back the species.
Stupid crap!
"The primary benefit of antidepressants is thought to be the reduction of depressive symptoms, a view that presupposes depression is the result of brain malfunction. An alternate view is that current diagnostic criteria do not accurately distinguish between true instances of disorder and normal, evolved emotional responses to stressors"
As though there is a difference between endogenous and exogenous depression, just stupid.
Double stupid
"This latter view suggests that the pharmacological disruption of depressive symptoms could negatively affect the ability to cope with or manage stressors."
Made up ********.
" In any event, we reviewed several findings indicating that the depressed brain pushes back against the symptom reducing effects of antidepressant medications (in patients meeting diagnostic criteria for MDD) in ways indicating that depressive symptoms are under homeostatic control. Thus, even by the debatable metric of symptom reduction, antidepressants are of limited benefit."
Epic stupid.
"The limited symptom reducing effects of antidepressants, and the large number of adverse health effects, suggests that antidepressants could generally do more harm than good – though they may be helpful for certain populations (e.g., those with brain cancers or recovering from stroke). "
Gosh is this person just stupid or going for totally moronic, any medication has benefits and costs.
What about the *********** population with depression?
"Three recent, large, prospective epidemiological studies have found that, even after controlling for depressive symptoms, antidepressant use is associated with an increased risk of death in the elderly (Smoller et al., 2009; Almeida et al., 2010; Coupland et al., 2011)."
"In postmenopausal women, there were no significant differences between SSRI and TCA use in risk of CHD, stroke, or mortality. Antidepressants were not associated with risk of CHD. Tricyclic antidepressants and SSRIs may be associated with increased risk of mortality, and SSRIs with increased risk of hemorrhagic and fatal stroke, although absolute event risks are low. These findings must be weighed against quality of life and established risks of cardiovascular disease and mortality associated with untreated depression."
Two lies by the author http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0011266
Almeida et al., 2010
"The mortality associated with depression increases with the severity of depressive symptoms and is largely independent of comorbid conditions. The use of antidepressants does not reduce the mortality rates of older men with persistent symptoms of depression"
Why not have a triple crown of lies! http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4551
Coupland et al., 2011
"Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and drugs in the group of other antidepressants were associated with an increased risk of several adverse outcomes compared with tricyclic antidepressants. Among individual drugs, trazodone, mirtazapine, and venlafaxine were associated with the highest risks for some outcomes. As this is an observational study, it is susceptible to confounding by indication, channelling bias, and residual confounding, so differences in characteristics between patients prescribed different antidepressant drugs that could account for some of the associations between the drugs and the adverse outcomes may remain. Further research is needed to confirm these findings, but the risks and benefits of different antidepressants should be carefully evaluated when these drugs are prescribed to older people."
So I don't see what this authors problem is, they can't even state their case is careful language and they misrepresent the papers they quote.
We're moving towards evolutionary psychiatry at a blistering pace, this is just more of it. Critics of evolutionary psychology and evolutionary medicine, whether creationist or "philosophical" are literally holding back the species.
Well David you appear to have taken the word "widespread" out of context. 11% of Americans take anti-depressants. 4% of adolescents, as of Late 2011. source. You mentioned pregnancy. No one said widespread idiotic use of these drugs ignoring the warnings and recommendations from the FDA on pregnancy and SSRIs.
"The primary benefit of antidepressants is thought to be the reduction of depressive symptoms, a view that presupposes depression is the result of brain malfunction. An alternate view is that current diagnostic criteria do not accurately distinguish between true instances of disorder and normal, evolved emotional responses to stressors"
As though there is a difference between endogenous and exogenous depression, just stupid.
Well David I suggest you take a long, hard look at what people like Randolph Nesse and other evolutionary medicine proponents have to say about depression. To put it simply, depression can be an evolved function that serves a purpose, that sometimes doesn't work, or becomes disordered. This is a huge debate happening right now, with some people claiming that depression cannot be an evolved function because it makes people suffer, even when it leads to increased adaptability. I say those people don't understand evolutionary theory.
Double stupid
"This latter view suggests that the pharmacological disruption of depressive symptoms could negatively affect the ability to cope with or manage stressors."
This appears to be a symptom your baseless rejection of this evolutionary theory.
" In any event, we reviewed several findings indicating that the depressed brain pushes back against the symptom reducing effects of antidepressant medications (in patients meeting diagnostic criteria for MDD) in ways indicating that depressive symptoms are under homeostatic control. Thus, even by the debatable metric of symptom reduction, antidepressants are of limited benefit."
Why is it stupid? And why do you think anyone would take this post seriously with comments like that?
"The limited symptom reducing effects of antidepressants, and the large number of adverse health effects, suggests that antidepressants could generally do more harm than good – though they may be helpful for certain populations (e.g., those with brain cancers or recovering from stroke). "
Gosh is this person just stupid or going for totally moronic, any medication has benefits and costs.
What about the *********** population with depression?
I think the point that you missed was that the costs were more than the benefits when they added it up.
"Three recent, large, prospective epidemiological studies have found that, even after controlling for depressive symptoms, antidepressant use is associated with an increased risk of death in the elderly (Smoller et al., 2009; Almeida et al., 2010; Coupland et al., 2011)."
"In postmenopausal women, there were no significant differences between SSRI and TCA use in risk of CHD, stroke, or mortality. Antidepressants were not associated with risk of CHD. Tricyclic antidepressants and SSRIs may be associated with increased risk of mortality, and SSRIs with increased risk of hemorrhagic and fatal stroke, although absolute event risks are low. These findings must be weighed against quality of life and established risks of cardiovascular disease and mortality associated with untreated depression."
Yes you don't speak very good scientese I see. The "may be" is a strong enough maybe to be "associated". As you'll see next...
Two lies by the author http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0011266
Almeida et al., 2010
"The mortality associated with depression increases with the severity of depressive symptoms and is largely independent of comorbid conditions. The use of antidepressants does not reduce the mortality rates of older men with persistent symptoms of depression"
From the results: "Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) use was associated with increased stroke risk (hazard ratio
,1.45, [95% CI, 1.08-1.97]) and all-cause mortality" Get it?
Why not have a triple crown of lies! http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4551
Coupland et al., 2011
"Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and drugs in the group of other antidepressants were associated with an increased risk of several adverse outcomes compared with tricyclic antidepressants. Among individual drugs, trazodone, mirtazapine, and venlafaxine were associated with the highest risks for some outcomes. As this is an observational study, it is susceptible to confounding by indication, channelling bias, and residual confounding, so differences in characteristics between patients prescribed different antidepressant drugs that could account for some of the associations between the drugs and the adverse outcomes may remain. Further research is needed to confirm these findings, but the risks and benefits of different antidepressants should be carefully evaluated when these drugs are prescribed to older people."
It's strong enough to say associated despite these caveats. If you've ever read a Cochrane review on some serious woo only to find in the conclusion that "more research is needed" and bang your head against the wall because you know the woos will take that as some kind of vindication or opening, you know what I'm talking about.
So I don't see what this authors problem is, they can't even state their case is careful language and they misrepresent the papers they quote.
I can see what your problem is, you presupposed these people have some kind of agenda against what you believe in. A lie means "To lie is to hold something which one knows is not the whole truth to be the whole truth, intentionally." And sadly you don't have any evidence they are lying, or even wrong.
Well David you appear to have taken the word "widespread" out of context. 11% of Americans take anti-depressants. 4% of adolescents, as of Late 2011. source. You mentioned pregnancy. No one said widespread idiotic use of these drugs ignoring the warnings and recommendations from the FDA on pregnancy and SSRIs.
Nope, I took widespead as its common usage.
And developmental concerns would only apply in the limited populations of pregnancy and the young.
Well David I suggest you take a long, hard look at what people like Randolph Nesse and other evolutionary medicine proponents have to say about depression. To put it simply, depression can be an evolved function that serves a purpose, that sometimes doesn't work, or becomes disordered.
And when they show more than vague philosophical rambling, then they have something.
Circadian rhythms, attention and arousal all have possible routes of evolutionary benefit.
But just because of some evolved trait, that does not mean someone who can't sleep is doing well, that someone who is dull and inattentive is doing well, or someone that is psychotic from mania is doing well.
Just because a trait may be evolved does not mean that you should not address its dysfunction.
This is a huge debate happening right now, with some people claiming that depression cannot be an evolved function because it makes people suffer, even when it leads to increased adaptability. I say those people don't understand evolutionary theory.
Because it is not true of many people with depression and is a broad statement made with no reference to the actual metrics and data in the studies involved.
It is not true for most people who get treatment for depression.
I think the point that you missed was that the costs were more than the benefits when they added it up.
Nope this is outrageous and make your argument look as very silly.
May be does not equal associated. And the fact that you stated that this is good scientese is an outrageous false assertion of your conclusion.
From the results: "Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) use was associated with increased stroke risk (hazard ratio
,1.45, [95% CI, 1.08-1.97]) and all-cause mortality" Get it?
It's strong enough to say associated despite these caveats. If you've ever read a Cochrane review on some serious woo only to find in the conclusion that "more research is needed" and bang your head against the wall because you know the woos will take that as some kind of vindication or opening, you know what I'm talking about.
No it isn't not without the standard deviations and comparison to them.
I can see what your problem is, you presupposed these people have some kind of agenda against what you believe in. A lie means "To lie is to hold something which one knows is not the whole truth to be the whole truth, intentionally." And sadly you don't have any evidence they are lying, or even wrong.[/QUOTE]
Other than a lack of evidence, I will sate that for now, you are wrong.
may be does not equal associated.
So please stop the nonsense. Hiding behind evolutionary concepts doesn't help either.
If someone is unable to function in their daily life then it does not matter is the origins of depression are in some cross benefit. The person can still not function in their daily life.
Some stupid moralizing about the origin of depression does not change the fact that the individual has had a decrease in functioning.
But just because of some evolved trait, that does not mean someone who can't sleep is doing well, that someone who is dull and inattentive is doing well, or someone that is psychotic from mania is doing well.
I agree. The idea is here is that depression is not dysfunction. The depression trait can become dysfunctional. Endless rumination isn't good, but sustained rumination can be for example.
I would say that there is no route of adaptability, you either benefit reproductive success or your don't.
I am sure that insulin regulation is an evolved trait as well, that does not mean diabetes should go untreated.
No one is saying anything like that here on in that study. To be clear, you can benefit from depression, and sometimes you clearly are not and it's time to do something. The central theory though is that at it's core depression is not dysfunction.
Or a huge strawman and ignorant argument without basis.
What I meant was that you appear to think that depression cannot be functional and adaptive and work for people based on your reading of this study.
Because it is not true of many people with depression and is a broad statement made with no reference to the actual metrics and data in the studies involved. It is not true for most people who get treatment for depression.
Hiding behind evolutionary concepts? What the hell are you talking about?
If someone is unable to function in their daily life then it does not matter is the origins of depression are in some cross benefit. The person can still not function in their daily life.
They have a made a clear case that messing with serotonin levels has a negative overall effect on the total well-being of a person using many facts, figures and examples. No one is saying that these drugs don't appear to work for people some of the time, this is about the total phenomenon, that may be where you're missing the point.
As to the quality vs quantity debate, its entirely anecdotal, but my wife started a small dose of anti-depressants about a year ago. Now, maybe its the pills or maybe its something else, but her quality of life, and by extension that of the rest of the family, has improved dramatically. Before the meds I was pretty sure she was a few months away from doing herself in and I was hiding the guns, getting rid of any medicines one could easily OD on, etc... Today she is downright joyful most of the time. She says she feels grounded for the first time in her life, at peace and able to think more clearly. She is better at her job and more engaged in the community. And, um, significantly more, um, *playful* every night.
Not long ago I used to scoff at anti-depressants and considered them as much a scam by the pharmaceutical companies as useful medicine. I still suspect they are over-prescribed, but in my family's case they were literally a life saver. In my wife's case they've improved her quality of live AND quantity.
As to the quality vs quantity debate, its entirely anecdotal, but my wife started a small dose of anti-depressants about a year ago. Now, maybe its the pills or maybe its something else, but her quality of life, and by extension that of the rest of the family, has improved dramatically. Before the meds I was pretty sure she was a few months away from doing herself in and I was hiding the guns, getting rid of any medicines one could easily OD on, etc... Today she is downright joyful most of the time. She says she feels grounded for the first time in her life, at peace and able to think more clearly. She is better at her job and more engaged in the community. And, um, significantly more, um, *playful* every night.
Not long ago I used to scoff at anti-depressants and considered them as much a scam by the pharmaceutical companies as useful medicine. I still suspect they are over-prescribed, but in my family's case they were literally a life saver. In my wife's case they've improved her quality of live AND quantity.
Cool. I've got dozens of similar stories in my "Truehope/EMPowerplus" folder. Are you against that product or convinced it's effective only in the same way you assessed your reality?
Get into google and search "pig pills" and "health canada truehope" for a story that's sure to make you sick.
she was a few months away from doing herself in and I was hiding the guns, getting rid of any medicines one could easily OD on, etc... Today she is downright joyful most of the time.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
