Anti-depressant scandal

Note: I think it's important to remember that anti-depressants do seem to work for some percentage of the population and apparently can be life-saving for at least some people and this is not necessarily easily predictable - certainly not across screens by lay persons!

All to say an internet message board shouldn't contradict the advice of medical professionals. Get a second opinion if need be.

I know one person with intermittent depression.

The other side of the coin, is that people with depression do go to doctors, and perhaps they expect to get treated effectively. However, when they find themselves no better, they become disillusioned with medicine. If someone manages to persuade them to have another go, presumably they fare no better when put back on the class of pills (SSRI) that failed the previous time.

I would rather encourage them to explore alternative therapy in various forms, or to make practical changes to their lives, such as to get a pet.

I think this is an issue of quite deep complexity. I personally would hesitate to tell someone to not go to the doctor even if I knew them personally, but giving that kind of advice to people I only know online is just beyond my sense of moral responsibility. Hence that disclaimer!

I would rather encourage them to explore alternative therapy in various forms, or to make practical changes to their lives, such as to get a pet.

I think this is an issue of quite deep complexity. I personally would hesitate to tell someone to not go to the doctor even if I knew them personally, but giving that kind of advice to people I only know online is just beyond my sense of moral responsibility. Hence that disclaimer!

It is difficult, I agree, but when you read Robert Whitaker's article, doesn't it make you feel that doctors have feet of clay? As I pointed out, the terrible truth is that a considerable amount of medical advice is based on disproven science which nevertheless keeps the money flowing to Big Pharma.

David

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this story is that yet again materialistic science can't make any real inroads into consciousness, which I strongly suspect is non-material.

It is like taking a (traditional) radio and trying to fix it so as to make its news coverage less strident, the music it played more sensitively interpreted, or improve its the science coverage!

Unfortunately, even if we had such a service, given human nature, it would soon become corrupted. The corruption probably goes up roughly as the log of the amount of money flowing in these systems.

The most valuable parts of the medical information internet are run by doctors or senior people involved in medical research. Does it make sense to ignore such people just because GOOGLE has determined in some unspecified way that they are peddling "misinformation" - NO, I don't think it does!

I've been interacting with you for years now.  As I'm sure you feel about me, I have gained a sense of your biases and potential blindspots.  Its on full display here.

You seem to select your preferred authorities and then employ double standards to the (typically mainstream) counter authorities.  We've covered this at the other forum where there was some authority you propped up.  I did a quick search and found that this "authority" had at least as much of an economic conflict of interest as the big pharma punching bag.

Just look at your quote above.  No matter what the mainstream medical community is corrupt.  However, the "doctors or senior people involved in medical research" of your personal choosing are not.  It is they, and only they, who are the arbiters of truth.  Conflict free, mistake free, and truth tellers.

At best, David, its a crapshoot to find anything of actual authenticity on the internet.  If the recent activity on Twitter tells us anything, it is this.  The people who invest time and money creating online authority (i.e., "content creators") should be questioned.  Most, the vast majority it seems, are charlatans.  Doesn't mean the mainstream is any better, but let's not put their critics on a moral pedestal.  That's just silly.

Unfortunately, even if we had such a service, given human nature, it would soon become corrupted. The corruption probably goes up roughly as the log of the amount of money flowing in these systems.

The most valuable parts of the medical information internet are run by doctors or senior people involved in medical research. Does it make sense to ignore such people just because GOOGLE has determined in some unspecified way that they are peddling "misinformation" - NO, I don't think it does!

I've been interacting with you for years now.  As I'm sure you feel about me, I have gained a sense of your biases and potential blindspots.  Its on full display here.

You seem to select your preferred authorities and then employ double standards to the (typically mainstream) counter authorities.  We've covered this at the other forum where there was some authority you propped up.  I did a quick search and found that this "authority" had at least as much of an economic conflict of interest as the big pharma punching bag.

Just look at your quote above.  No matter what the mainstream medical community is corrupt.  However, the "doctors or senior people involved in medical research" of your personal choosing are not.  It is they, and only they, who are the arbiters of truth.  Conflict free, mistake free, and truth tellers.

At best, David, its a crapshoot to find anything of actual authenticity on the internet.  If the recent activity on Twitter tells us anything, it is this.  The people who invest time and money creating online authority (i.e., "content creators") should be questioned.  Most, the vast majority it seems, are charlatans.  Doesn't mean the mainstream is any better, but let's not put their critics on a moral pedestal.  That's just silly.

+1

You seem to select your preferred authorities and then employ double standards to the (typically mainstream) counter authorities.

I prefer the accounts of whistleblowers, particularly when nobody from the mainstream seems willing to debate the issue in question.

Remember, I did not post the original article, Sci did. I like his many posts, they are invariably well chosen. Perhaps you should read his top link and tell us your views about it.

I prefer the accounts of whistleblowers, particularly when nobody from the mainstream seems willing to debate the issue in question.

You shouldn't "prefer" any particular source.  (Hint: That was my point.)

You shouldn't "prefer" any particular source.  (Hint: That was my point.)

So you think everything is best decided by a consensus of experts?

The history of science - including medical science - is littered with single individuals who came up with new ideas, or who recognised that old ways were not effective. Think for example of Professor Barry Marshall. He has a Nobel Prize now, but he certainly started out as a maverick. There are, of course, plenty of other examples.

Did you read Ski's link? I'd love to read your considered reaction to its contents - after all that is the subject of this thread, not my shortcomings - real or imagined!

On the other hand, for many like myself, the feeling of powerlessness and the inability to make my own choices without Big Brother looking over my shoulder can contribute heavily to depression and anxiety.  I don't believe there is  one solution that fits all situations.

I now believe this to be the most accurate summation of my world view at the moment. 

Everyone is different, there is no one size fits all, beware of those who are sure of themselves for we really know nothing at the end of the day. A quick look at history makes this crystal clear, along with my own historical opinion and worldviews which change all the time (think of Robert Anton Wilson's "Prometheus Rising", a book I frequently come back to after "cycles" in my life).

Still, there's something to be said for "trying on" a worldview and exploring it. The problem I guess is that sometimes it affects others negatively....

Brian, could Big Brother have any redeeming features?