4 ms·

> ECT is very useful for some things: ECT's cheerleaders promote their machines. The ECT-resistance claims there is considerable evidence against the use of el

> ECT is very useful for some things: ECT's cheerleaders promote their machines. The ECT-resistance claims there is considerable evidence against the use of electrically-induced brain damage [0]. Who am I to believe? I'm biased towards the detractors, as I have personally witnesses the harm perpetrated under the mental health industry's usual practices. Dr. Breggin says there was recently a breakthrough in class action lawsuits against ECT manufacturers [1]. [0] http://www.ectresources.org/ http://www.ectresources.org/ [1] https://www.madinamerica.com/2018/10/huge-breakthrough-ect-lawsuit/ https://www.madinamerica.com/2018/10/huge-breakthrough-ect-l... > (aka treatment resistant depression (TRD)), which is major depression which doesn't respond to drug therapy There are some drugs that are somewhat useful for helping people out of their depressed state, while the actual causes of their condition are addressed. These drugs fell out of favor as their patents expired, and as less-effective "anti-depressants" were patented. Each generation of anti-depressant is less effective than the generation which preceded it. The SSRIs are the least-effective anti-depressants of all - these drugs might help some patients not because of their effect on Serotonin, but on the neurosteroids [2]. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosteroid#Role_in_antidepressant_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosteroid#Role_in_antidepre... Depression is partially a case of 'exhaustion' due to 'biological stress' (with 'emotional stress' as the usual contributing factor). Its causes and appropriate treatments have been discussed in the scientific literature, but the actual findings are incompatible with the patent medicine industry's business model. Thanks for your comment, as the process which culminated in this response was quite worthwhile for me.

msla 8y ago
> These drugs fell out of favor as their patents expired That's literally the opposite of what happens: Patent-expired drugs can be made more cheaply, and become more popular, precisely because there's no patent holder exerting a pressure to keep prices up. Really, your whole post reads like a screed with no scholarly foundation to it.
- tcj_phx 8y ago
  > That's literally the opposite of what happens: Patent-expired drugs can be made more cheaply, and become more popular, precisely because there's no patent holder exerting a pressure to keep prices up. The parents who got ripped off by the Epi-Pen manufacturers would probably disagree with this assessment of "what happens". As a counter-point, I offer Wikipedia's assessment of the current usefulness of the old drugs: New research into MAOIs indicates that much of the concern over their supposed dangerous dietary side effects stems from misconceptions and misinformation, and that it is still underutilized despite demonstrated efficacy. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_inhibitor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_inhibitor I emphasize, "misconceptions and misinformation". Robert Whitaker got his start writing about the harm done on patients by the SSRIs when they first launched. These drugs should be "last resort", not first. > Really, your whole post reads like a screed [...] I have some personal experience witnessing patients' struggle against professionals who think their patients require palliative drugs. My aunt's friend is dying of anti-psychotic-induced liver failure -- she was always a little 'off' to me, now I know why. My friend was misdiagnosed by industry and is forced to take harmful drugs. I am confident that my reading of these situations is basically correct. Medicine has come a long way since the days of bloodletting and calomel (mercury) therapies. It has further yet to go. It's hard for all of us to attain perspective on whatever field we're studying. Here's a neat HN comment I just ran across: "One of our group leaders in our research institute learned physics at the dawn of quantum mechanics, saw theory translate into practical applications (e.g. laser technology), and then boost and transform theory again. She is 90+ now. It was great to hear from her how long it took for the right theories to overcome the barriers of adoption, how fashion works in science, and how many things we think as new are actually really old stuff in new clothes." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13998273 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13998273 (emphasis added) > [...] with no scholarly foundation to it. you're cute. I have actually made many trips to the science library to check references. Sometimes I buy copies of these books for my own personal library. I try to provide references and links for all my comments which challenge the status-quo. I can state with confidence that the core of "mental illness" was figured out decades ago, and was in the science libraries by late 1970's. Everything the scientists knew then should have leaked into practice by now. But our medical professionals are still being trained with theories that are demonstrably false and harmful (e.g. anti-dopamine drugs for "psychosis", SSRIs as first resort rather than withdrawn from use, etc). Maybe you think modern medicine is marvelous, but from my perspective I see a lot of my friends and family's doctors "missing the forest for the trees". Sanity will eventually prevail, but there is a monetary bias against its implementation.

msla 8y ago

> These drugs fell out of favor as their patents expired That's literally the opposite of what happens: Patent-expired drugs can be made more cheaply, and become more popular, precisely because there's no patent holder exerting a pressure to keep prices up. Really, your whole post reads like a screed with no scholarly foundation to it.

tcj_phx 8y ago
> That's literally the opposite of what happens: Patent-expired drugs can be made more cheaply, and become more popular, precisely because there's no patent holder exerting a pressure to keep prices up. The parents who got ripped off by the Epi-Pen manufacturers would probably disagree with this assessment of "what happens". As a counter-point, I offer Wikipedia's assessment of the current usefulness of the old drugs: New research into MAOIs indicates that much of the concern over their supposed dangerous dietary side effects stems from misconceptions and misinformation, and that it is still underutilized despite demonstrated efficacy. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_inhibitor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_inhibitor I emphasize, "misconceptions and misinformation". Robert Whitaker got his start writing about the harm done on patients by the SSRIs when they first launched. These drugs should be "last resort", not first. > Really, your whole post reads like a screed [...] I have some personal experience witnessing patients' struggle against professionals who think their patients require palliative drugs. My aunt's friend is dying of anti-psychotic-induced liver failure -- she was always a little 'off' to me, now I know why. My friend was misdiagnosed by industry and is forced to take harmful drugs. I am confident that my reading of these situations is basically correct. Medicine has come a long way since the days of bloodletting and calomel (mercury) therapies. It has further yet to go. It's hard for all of us to attain perspective on whatever field we're studying. Here's a neat HN comment I just ran across: "One of our group leaders in our research institute learned physics at the dawn of quantum mechanics, saw theory translate into practical applications (e.g. laser technology), and then boost and transform theory again. She is 90+ now. It was great to hear from her how long it took for the right theories to overcome the barriers of adoption, how fashion works in science, and how many things we think as new are actually really old stuff in new clothes." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13998273 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13998273 (emphasis added) > [...] with no scholarly foundation to it. you're cute. I have actually made many trips to the science library to check references. Sometimes I buy copies of these books for my own personal library. I try to provide references and links for all my comments which challenge the status-quo. I can state with confidence that the core of "mental illness" was figured out decades ago, and was in the science libraries by late 1970's. Everything the scientists knew then should have leaked into practice by now. But our medical professionals are still being trained with theories that are demonstrably false and harmful (e.g. anti-dopamine drugs for "psychosis", SSRIs as first resort rather than withdrawn from use, etc). Maybe you think modern medicine is marvelous, but from my perspective I see a lot of my friends and family's doctors "missing the forest for the trees". Sanity will eventually prevail, but there is a monetary bias against its implementation.