Holy Shit! Robbin Williams died!!!

[moralist]

Chocolate fixes that !

That's my drug of choice.

Greg

[william.scherk]

His self destruction teaches a valuable lesson:

Depression can kill.

Depression is only a symptom, not a cause.

Traced back to its source, you find anger.

I assume you have never suffered a serious bout of depression, Greg.

[william.scherk]

Yes serotonin figures in somewhere, too.

Yeah, Bob... that's the monkey paradigm. If people could only ingest just the right combinations of pharmaceuticals, heck, they'd be just fine.

You have been corrected on 'the monkey paradigm' but you persist ... it is funny that you pretend depression is some aspect of being ungodly. Who knows what aphorism you would trot out for mania or bipolar. Or post-partum depression. Or any other crippling condition that afflicts people godly and not.

[Backlighting]

Chocolate fixes that !

That's my drug of choice.

Greg

Ah, count me in.

Lindt Excellence 90% Cocoa Supreme Dark Chocolate

[Jules Troy]

Yes serotonin figures in somewhere, too.

Yeah, Bob... that's the monkey paradigm. If people could only ingest just the right combinations of pharmaceuticals, heck, they'd be just fine.

You have been corrected on 'the monkey paradigm' but you persist ... it is funny that you pretend depression is some aspect of being ungodly. Who knows what aphorism you would trot out for mania or bipolar. Or post-partum depression. Or any other crippling condition that afflicts people godly and not.

[Jules Troy]

Irony:

In the old days these people became prophets,mystics and oracles of Delphi.

Now Greg just pushes it all under the rug as if this is something to be combatted with "if only they found religion and became good people.."

There is a REASON it is described as "battling depression". It IS a daily battle just to feel normal, and that battle is often lost.

Btw in some cases depression can be a normal thing. Often people that have had heart attacks go through a period of depression. It is a physical way of the body making a person slow down and sleep more so they can actually heal.

[BaalChatzaf]

Irony:

In the old days these people became prophets,mystics and oracles of Delphi.

Now Greg just pushes it all under the rug as if this is something to be combatted with "if only they found religion and became good people.."

There is a REASON it is described as "battling depression". It IS a daily battle just to feel normal, and that battle is often lost.

Btw in some cases depression can be a normal thing. Often people that have had heart attacks go through a period of depression. It is a physical way of the body making a person slow down and sleep more so they can actually heal.

Severe persistent clinical depression is a serious matter. People who suffer from this untreated run a high risk of self destructive behavior including suicide. It is not a "mental illness". It is a dysfunction of the brain and nervous system which can often be treated successfully by anti-depressent medication and drugs which inhibit serotonin re-uptake.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[moralist]

Had a neighbor who exhibited extreme depression. He had a wife who was bedridden whom he cared for. It was quite a task, he said, and very depressing. Add to that he was on stimulants, sedatives & antibiotics. I had urged him to try some aerobic activity (swimming, treadmill etc.) to relieve his stress. I suggested he might feel better as a result. Just 2 days after I spoke with him he shot himself.

Looking back I wished I could have done more to help. Maybe he was just beyond help.

-J

There is no way to get between a person and the consequences of their own actions.

Greg

[moralist]

Irony:

In the old days these people became prophets,mystics and oracles of Delphi.

Hey, this is supposed to be a rational empirical Objectivist forum.

Now Greg just pushes it all under the rug as if this is something to be combatted with "if only they found religion and became good people.."

My approach is actually the opposite of your description, Jules.

It's drugs that push everything under the carpet...

...because they allow people to continue to function by suppressing symptoms without addressing causes. This is tremendously powerful driving societal force today:

Narcoculture.

It's what people demand. Belief in the power of drugs is tantamount to a religion. The gigantic pharmaceutical industry is built upon a deeply religious faith in them that they possess the power to remove symptoms. People literally put their lives into the hands of that industry while demanding: "Take my pain away."

In contrast to the narcoculture, my approach is to be more interested in causes than in symptoms. And the beginning of that process is to first properly identify symptoms for what they are... to be able to look beyond them to see the causes. Once causes are seen for what they are, they can be faced and resolved. Then the symptoms take care of themselves with no need for treatment, because they are totally dependent upon causes for their existence.

Can you see the huge difference in leverage between resolving a cause and merely suppressing a symptom? There's just no comparison. One is beneficial cleansing and healing... while the other only covers a festering malignancy with perfume.

There is a REASON it is described as "battling depression". It IS a daily battle just to feel normal, and that battle is often lost.

Of course you are absolutely correct. Fighting against a symptom as if it was a cause can literally become a dead end.

Btw in some cases depression can be a normal thing. Often people that have had heart attacks go through a period of depression. It is a physical way of the body making a person slow down and sleep more so they can actually heal.

I totally agree. Sometimes depression is beneficial. It's like a traffic sign that says:

Wrong Way

Do not Enter

It's can be a beneficial warning to give a person the opportunity to stop and to change direction.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Depression is only a symptom, not a cause.

Traced back to its source, you find anger.

I assume you have never suffered a serious bout of depression, Greg.

Greg is correct. The anger is repressed. You don't know you are angry. The problem gets worse when you don't understand this and you get depressed about being depressed and the thinking that made you angry continues piling it on. At the root of the anger is victimhood. You think you're a victim--maybe you are--but you refuse not to be a victim when you have that option. Temporary relief from some depression can come in the form of a flash of anger.

--Brant

living well is the best revenge

[moralist]

His self destruction teaches a valuable lesson:

Depression can kill.

Depression is only a symptom, not a cause.

Traced back to its source, you find anger.

I assume you have never suffered a serious bout of depression, Greg.

Just enough to make its connection to unresolved anger.

Everyone has a choice:

To become aware by a gentle tap on the shoulder... or a two by four over the head.

Take your pick.

The easy way... or the hard way.

Either way... you will go... even if its kicking and screaming.

Greg

[moralist]

Yes serotonin figures in somewhere, too.

Yeah, Bob... that's the monkey paradigm. If people could only ingest just the right combinations of pharmaceuticals, heck, they'd be just fine.

You have been corrected on 'the monkey paradigm' but you persist ...

Because monkeys are not my model of behavior. I also don't buy into the narcoculture religion where the solution to every problem known to mankind can be solved as long as you can find just the right drug to ingest.

it is funny that you pretend depression is some aspect of being ungodly.

Depression is simply a consequence of unresolved anger... and I'm not pretending.

Who knows what aphorism you would trot out for mania or bipolar. Or post-partum depression. Or any other crippling condition that afflicts people godly and not.

In my opinion, they're all variations on the same theme.

The narcoculture first labels a symptom of unresolved anger as a medical syndrome... then they come up with a new pharmaceutical drug to mask the symptoms without ever coming close touching on the cause... and then the gullible public laps it up like a pack of dogs on vomit.

Consider this...

Managing symptoms without ever addressing causes assures the pharmaceutical industry of an INFINITE supply of needy dependent customers FOREVER.

Big business is amoral.

It just chases profit.

Greg

[Jules Troy]

Or.....

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Greg,

Black and white "all drugs are evil" thinking is way too oversimplified. And I speak as a former drug addict who doesn't even like to take aspirin anymore.

I've known little kids with severe chemical imbalances in the brain and depression. It's easy to generalize from the armchair, but you haven't lived until you have seen and tried to deal with an autistic kid melting down in a tantrum, or wasting away in apathy. (I have.) These are not because of any anger issues.

I'm not a big fan of tampering with the brain with chemicals because of the frequent misdiagnosis and abuse, but that doesn't alter the reality of those who suffer organic deformity and/or degradation. Morality alone doesn't cure that.

Also, there is a lady named Tory Magoo who has a YouTube channel where she frequently posts videos against Scientology. This is a cult that preaches all psychologists are evil and people are being enslaved by them in a narcoculture and so on. In my view, they have a point in many cases.

But Tory has epilepsy. During her time in the cult (which was over thirty years), she had to fight them tooth and nail in order to take her meds. They constantly pressured her to not take them and even treated her grand mal seizures as manifestations of a weakened spirit. She almost died there several times.

Let's put it in religious terms for you. If God made chemicals that could alter the brain, and made humans who could discover those chemicals and uses, that means He intended them to be used for good at times, not just evil. Brain chemicals are like nuclear power, which can be used to light a city or blow it up.

Michael

[algernonsidney]

deleted

[Brant Gaede]

(You cannot blow up a city with nuclear power.)

Greg did over-simplify the drug problem, but that's nothing compared to how modern medicine has over-simplified the general situation. The absolute worse is psychiatry (not psychology). Greg didn't even mention the over use of vaccinations in the extremely young and the possible link of that to the exponential growth of autism, etc. We do not have socialized medicine in this country, we have fascistic medicine. Either directly government to medicine or indirectly through the drug companies. Doctors are all but slaves. It's hard, though, to argue against the use of anti-depressants considering the possibility of suicide. Drugs are like automobiles: don't let yourself be run over.

--Brant

say it again, Sam: "FASCISM!"

[moralist]

Greg,

Black and white "all drugs are evil" thinking is way too oversimplified.

Good point. I need to clarify that I'm referring primarily to psychotropics... taking drugs to mask the symptoms of emotion and behavior as a substitute for addressing the causes of emotions and behavior. It's like stretching a rubber band. Everything appears to be just fine until it snaps.

I've known little kids with severe chemical imbalances in the brain and depression.

In my opinion, they have been labeled "chemical imbalances" by the narcoculture whose existence is based upon finding just the right drugs to make people behave normally while still in an abnormal state. This particular topic opens the issue of how children can become the literal manifestation of parents' emotional problems, and I'd rather leave that one be and instead just address the pharmaceutical industry's role in emotion and behavior control through chemicals.

It's easy to generalize from the armchair, but you haven't lived until you have seen and tried to deal with an autistic kid melting down in a tantrum, or wasting away in apathy. (I have.) These are not because of any anger issues.

As I see it, melting down in a tantrum is an anger issue, but again that is just an emotional behavioral symptom driven by a cause which lies yet unobserved and so remains unaddressed.

I'm not a big fan of tampering with the brain with chemicals because of the frequent misdiagnosis and abuse, but that doesn't alter the reality of those who suffer organic deformity and/or degradation. Morality alone doesn't cure that.

Also, there is a lady named Tory Magoo who has a YouTube channel where she frequently posts videos against Scientology. This is a cult that preaches all psychologists are evil and people are being enslaved by them in a narcoculture and so on. In my view, they have a point in many cases.

But Tory has epilepsy. During her time in the cult (which was over thirty years), she had to fight them tooth and nail in order to take her meds. They constantly pressured her to not take them and even treated her grand mal seizures as manifestations of a weakened spirit. She almost died there several times.

I'm quite familiar with Scientologists and their beliefs. Years ago I wired one of their CCHR offices which occupied one floor of a leased building, so I could tell you a story or two! (Even this parenthetical reference will be read by them as they spend incredible amounts of time monitoring the media and internet.) I don't agree with most all of their beliefs except perhaps the drug issue..

Let's put it in religious terms for you. If God made chemicals that could alter the brain, and made humans who could discover those chemicals and uses, that means He intended them to be used for good at times, not just evil. Brain chemicals are like nuclear power, which can be used to light a city or blow it up.

Michael

I agree. Chemicals are totally morally neutral. Only how we use them can be good or evil. In my opinion, it's a terrible mistake which sets into motion far reaching destructive consequences when people use drugs to feel right without being right.

It's the ultimate self deception.

Greg

[moralist]

(You cannot blow up a city with nuclear power.)

Greg did over-simplify the drug problem, but that's nothing compared to how modern medicine has over-simplified the general situation. The absolute worse is psychiatry (not psychology). Greg didn't even mention the over use of vaccinations in the extremely young and the possible link of that to the exponential growth of autism, etc. We do not have socialized medicine in this country, we have fascistic medicine. Either directly government to medicine or indirectly through the drug companies. Doctors are all but slaves. It's hard, though, to argue against the use of anti-depressants considering the possibility of suicide. Drugs are like automobiles: don't let yourself be run over.

--Brant

say it again, Sam: "FASCISM!"

There are so many other interlinked issues, which is why I try to keep focused on just one at a time. So I'll just say that in my opinion, the drug companies exist only to give their customers what they demand.

Greg

[william.scherk]

Greg didn't even mention the over use of vaccinations in the extremely young and the possible link of that to the exponential growth of autism, etc.

What do you know about the link between vaccination and autism?

[Brant Gaede]

Greg didn't even mention the over use of vaccinations in the extremely young and the possible link of that to the exponential growth of autism, etc.

What do you know about the link between vaccination and autism?

Not much. There appears to be some correlation, but causation is another kettle of fish.

Babies need to be vaccinated. What and how much--and all at once?

I once saw a baby just before it died of tetanus. So tetanus vac. (and diphtheria and pertussis) is not controversial to me.

I see a big problem with piling it all on almost at once and think it's overwhelming to the baby's immune system. I'd want it spread out more if I were a father.

Babies need to be exposed to germs to develop their immune systems naturally, but if you go all the way back to the old days, they died like flies sometimes.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Black and white "all drugs are evil" thinking is way too oversimplified.

Good point. I need to clarify that I'm referring primarily to psychotropics...

You can make a case against (most) psychotropics by invoking religious and moral dicta: "Your body is a temple. Do not defile God's house with poisons" "Psychotropic drugs merely mask symptoms" "Psychotropic drugs harm more than they heal" "Only bad things can come from psychotropic drugs."

This case is made in Christian Science, Scientology and other religious traditions. The case is not built on systematic, comprehensive study of pharmacology or particulars of therapeutics. It does not and need not examine the psychotropics one by one. It does not need empirical support to be held true. (it need not exclude so-called botanicals or homeopathy or 'supplements').

taking drugs to mask the symptoms of emotion and behavior as a substitute for addressing the causes of emotions and behavior.

If we are talking only about suicidal depression, you can make a case against the use of SSRIs or other families of anti-depressants. You can argue that understanding and alleviating serious depression needs no drugs, that many episodes of serious depression resolve themselves within six months. You can further argue that 'natural' means are the best means.

You could probably find support for the 'natural means' (eating well, sleeping well, exercizing) of alleviating depression in most instances (in self-help, education and awareness, self-assessment tools, public information, best-practice guidelines, official AMA announcement, the literature on depression treatment, etc). You can find much support for cognitive-behavioural therapy. You can make a fair case that 'talk' therapy should be first and foremost in any active response to serious depression.

So, I'm not too bothered by a rejection of drugs as useful, reliable or necessary to treating depression on moral or religious grounds. What I am interested in now are the next steps in Greg's notion of therapeutic alleviation of depression, how he suggests the underlying anger be dealt with. Ie, what are the mechanics, how would it work?

If he has faith in his understanding of depression and depressive syndromes -- potentially self-healing, deadly serious but perhaps not chronic or intractable -- it would be cool to see what kind of conversations or dialogues he would recommend for the sufferer, how he would humanely handle someone in the midst of this state of pain. It could be that his interventions would accord with the most common and useful non-drug interventions. I think there would be a lot of overlap with recommendations made by mainstream medicine.

-- Greg, you suggest you have indeed seen enough (or felt enough) real serious depression to understand it well. What were the outcomes, were any successful outcomes due to your intervention or handling? How did you manage to beat your own depression, if you were referring to your own?

I'll put off discussing your puzzling comments about manic-depression/bipolar and post-partum depression. And perhaps some time in the future we may get around to solutions to brain/mental disorders or states like schizophrenia, epilepsy, obsessive-compulsion, sociopathy, phobias

Edited August 13, 2014 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

What do you know about the link between vaccination and autism?

Not much. There appears to be some correlation, but causation is another kettle of fish.

If you mean a simple correlation between a purported increase in vaccinations and a rise in cases of autism, this is not clear. Autism may be more rigorously identified (recall how recently has western medicine become aware of autism as a distinct disorder) and so we may not be seeing what some call an 'epidemic' or unusual increase in prevalence at all.

In the stricter general sense, nobody has demonstrated a persistent correlation between actual vaccinations and actual cases of autism. By this I mean a particular parent may claim a correlation between her own child's early vaccinations and a following diagnosis of autism. This correlation may be (probably is) spurious, but not in and of itself. It is spurious when the correlation is generalized to the cohort of vaccinated children. Say for argument's sake, in the mother's case, she cannot be convinced that the two things are not necessarily related, that vaccines are not causative. It may be that she is right about her child's acquiring autism as a result of vaccination (though the mechanism is obscure, unproven or absent in all models), but the proper test is to examine the larger cohort.

Even if vaccination carries only a slight risk of potentiating autism, the relation between vaccination and autism should be apparent, starkly apparent in the aggregate.

And it isn't.

The latest study to find an absent correlation between the two was published this year in Vaccine. It was the largest and most comprehensive attempt to find a pattern between vaccinations and autism. It found no correlation whatsoever.

From the study's highlights:

• There was no relationship between vaccination and autism (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.06).
• There was no relationship between vaccination and ASD (autism spectrum disorder) (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.20).
• There was no relationship between [autism/ASD] and MMR (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.01).
• There was no relationship between [autism/ASD] and thimerosal (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.31).
• There was no relationship between [autism/ASD] and mercury (Hg) (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.07).
• Findings of this meta-analysis suggest that vaccinations are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder.

I see a big problem with piling [vaccinations] all on almost at once and think it's overwhelming to the baby's immune system.

Can you point to where other informed folks see the big problem? I mean, is there strong evidence that current vaccination schedules do not do what what they are supposed to -- immunize against full-blown diseases -- or evidence that babies' immune systems are 'overwhelmed' in any way?

IOW, what do you know about vaccine-overwhelmed infant immune systems, and can you share?

Edited August 13, 2014 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Greg didn't even mention the over use of vaccinations in the extremely young and the possible link of that to the exponential growth of autism, etc.

What do you know about the link between vaccination and autism?

Deirdre Imus is cutting edge on this issue.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/10/deidre-imus-hos.html

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Is "Vaccine" a peer reviewed scientific journal? Why have a publication with a name like that if it wasn't a shill for the vaccination industry?

What I do is approach the subject as a would-be parent wondering what I'd do respecting childhood vaccinations, especially for babies. I'd probably say yes to some and no to others after a lot of research. I might also move to a rural area and consider delaying some vaccinations a few years. In an urban area I probably do many of them sooner. For me it's just another reason not to have children at all. I'm also not keen on mercury adjuncts in some vaccines. I had a DTP booster a few years ago. It's the last I'll likely ever have. I don't get flu shots or for pneumonia or Shingles. Right now if I had a kid there'd be no chickenpox vaccination either. Measles? I dunno.

--Brant

not pretending any expertise here, unlike intimidating doctors

[william.scherk]

Is "Vaccine" a peer reviewed scientific journal?

To find out the answer, you need to click on the link provided.

Why have a publication with a name like that if it wasn't a shill for the vaccination industry?

Okay, Brant. If you refuse to consider findings published in a specialist scientific journal sight unseen -- without bothering to read anything of the study, then my arguments and questions are wasted on you.

Using a term like 'shill for the vaccination industry' is poisoning the well, evasive and fallacious.