4 ms·

Antidepressants, Tap Water, and Autism

32 points by techdog 14y ago

benvanderbeek 14y ago
Long Beach, Calif.: 2 (meprobamate and phenytoin). [1] I'm drinking an anti-epileptic and an anti-anxiety. That sucks. [1] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-10-drugs-tap-water_N.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-10-drugs-...
- DanBC 14y ago
  Epilepsy meds are used as mood stabilisers for people with bi-polar and sometimes for people with personality disorders.
eric970 14y ago
If I'm understanding the logic that this article presents... Apparently after Prozac was introduced, depression became a huge phenomenon in the US. It showed up everywhere. This is evidence to suggest that antidepressants caused depression. Wat?
- josscrowcroft 14y ago
  I suspect the implication (I've heard a few notions like this) is similar to the way in which reports of alien abductions rose sharply after the Roswell UFO thingy in 1947.
- DanBC 14y ago
  Prozac was the first SSRI. It was introduced with a lot (really, even in the UK there was a lot) of hype. It was described as "A medication to make you feel better than well. It was an outrage that this med was only available to people with a diagnosis, and we should be campaigning to change the laws about prescription meds to make it available to everyone." (Edited to make quote clear.)
  - josscrowcroft 14y ago
    "we should be campaigning to change the laws about prescription meds to make it available to everyone" Did you read the article about tap water?
    - DanBC 14y ago
      Yes. I'm just telling you what the attitude of some members of the public was when Prozac was introduced. (I'll edit to put it in quotes.)
      - josscrowcroft 14y ago
        Ah, gotcha. My mistake.
slapshot 14y ago
There's some weird causality here, seemingly suggesting that Prozac caused an increase in depression. >"Prozac was introduced in 1988, and we all know what happened then. Depression went from a relatively rare condition (affecting well under 100,000 people in the 1950s) to an epidemic disease affecting 27 million Americans. " I'm pretty sure more than 100,000 people suffered from depression in the US in 1950. They might have just gone undiagnosed and self-medicated with alcohol rather than (non-existent) pharmaceuticals. Given that the mental health state of the art in 1950 was an icepick to the frontal lobe, I can hardly blame them for not seeking treatment. I would imagine that the increase in _diagnosed_ depressed patients occurred because of an increase in both awareness and viable treatment options.
- tlrobinson 14y ago
  The same author wrote an article called "Lung Cancer and the Power of Suggestion" recently, which would suggest his hypothesis: http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2013/02/lung-cancer-and-power-of-suggestion.html http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2013/02/lung-cancer-and-power...
- senorprogrammer 14y ago
  As you note the article does really a very poor job examining that connection. Interestingly, your assumption differed a bit from mine. My assumption about that line was this: the availability of drugs for depression, and thus likely drug reps and salespeople, increased, providing greater incentives for profit through prescription, and thus increased diagnosis. Our biases at work.
josscrowcroft 14y ago
This seriously scares my shit out – are there any viable (domestic) water filtration systems that could reliably pull pharmaceuticals out of your drinking water?
- dribnet 14y ago
  http://www.amazon.com/Water-Distiller-Countertop-Enamel-Collection/dp/B00026F9F8 http://www.amazon.com/Water-Distiller-Countertop-Enamel-Coll...
  - ars 14y ago
    That may not work - organic compounds often will travel with the water vapor. Distilling is really only for inorganic compounds. For organics you want a regular carbon filter.
- jami 14y ago
  Pur claims to remove 99% of pharmaceuticals and Brita something like 97%. Whether autistic fish have implications for human children or not, getting unnecessarily dosed with hormones, antibiotics, and psychiatric drugs doesn't seem like a good thing.
- ars 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure any ordinary carbon filter will do it.
SigmundA 14y ago
"This is actually some of the strongest evidence yet that psychiatric medications are connected with the sharp rise in autism that began in the 1980s." Couldn't possibly be the huge rise in awareness of Autism in the 80's, Rainman anyone? Or the rise in parents age could it? Nah obviously pharmaceutics in the water. There are detectable levels of many things in all water including say arsenic: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/index.cfm http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/index.c..., it's all a matter of how much, which his sources seem not to mention.
zzzeek 14y ago
Useful link: https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=techdog https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=techdog (note the blog - it is the same! note the days - they are every! note the comments (when present) - they are like "this is bunk!") I'm beginning to flag these posts.
- DanBC 14y ago
  I agree. http://imgur.com/a/MQR8d http://imgur.com/a/MQR8d
- DVassallo 14y ago
  > I'm beginning to flag these posts. Why? Some seem to have been highly voted.
- ars 14y ago
  BTW, there is nothing wrong with someone submitting his own stuff. Vote or flag submissions on their own merit, not because of the submitter.
tokenadult 14y ago
From an earlier Hacker News comment http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5196734 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5196734 on a submission from this blog: > > It appears you've made some sort of resolution to publish and promote a blog entry per day in 2013. 40 entries in 41 days this year vs. 46 in all of 2012. You should reconsider - whatever your reasons were, I doubt they included a desire to develop a reputation for presenting topics that were sensationalized and thinly researched [1] produced with a pace that ensures discredited theories dont get reviewed. [1] http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2013/02/drug-companies-stop-hiding-your-data.html%E3%80%80 http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2013/02/drug-companies-stop-h... > Wow, nice spot and they have all been submitted to HN. I have never seen anyone's submission history be so hell bent on self promotion: https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=techdog https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=techdog The Hacker News welcome message http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html gives an overview of the community experiment here, summarizing the site guidelines. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html The Hacker News FAQ http://ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html http://ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html gives some additional details about how Hacker News is administered. The welcome message distills the basic rules into a simple statement: "Essentially there are two rules here: don't post or upvote crap links, and don't be rude or dumb in comment threads."

32 points by techdog 14y ago

Long Beach, Calif.: 2 (meprobamate and phenytoin). [1] I'm drinking an anti-epileptic and an anti-anxiety. That sucks. [1] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-10-drugs-tap-water_N.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-10-drugs-...

DanBC 14y ago
Epilepsy meds are used as mood stabilisers for people with bi-polar and sometimes for people with personality disorders.

eric970 14y ago

If I'm understanding the logic that this article presents... Apparently after Prozac was introduced, depression became a huge phenomenon in the US. It showed up everywhere. This is evidence to suggest that antidepressants caused depression. Wat?

josscrowcroft 14y ago
I suspect the implication (I've heard a few notions like this) is similar to the way in which reports of alien abductions rose sharply after the Roswell UFO thingy in 1947.
DanBC 14y ago
Prozac was the first SSRI. It was introduced with a lot (really, even in the UK there was a lot) of hype. It was described as "A medication to make you feel better than well. It was an outrage that this med was only available to people with a diagnosis, and we should be campaigning to change the laws about prescription meds to make it available to everyone." (Edited to make quote clear.)
- josscrowcroft 14y ago
  "we should be campaigning to change the laws about prescription meds to make it available to everyone" Did you read the article about tap water?
  - DanBC 14y ago
    Yes. I'm just telling you what the attitude of some members of the public was when Prozac was introduced. (I'll edit to put it in quotes.)
    - josscrowcroft 14y ago
      Ah, gotcha. My mistake.

slapshot 14y ago

There's some weird causality here, seemingly suggesting that Prozac caused an increase in depression. >"Prozac was introduced in 1988, and we all know what happened then. Depression went from a relatively rare condition (affecting well under 100,000 people in the 1950s) to an epidemic disease affecting 27 million Americans. " I'm pretty sure more than 100,000 people suffered from depression in the US in 1950. They might have just gone undiagnosed and self-medicated with alcohol rather than (non-existent) pharmaceuticals. Given that the mental health state of the art in 1950 was an icepick to the frontal lobe, I can hardly blame them for not seeking treatment. I would imagine that the increase in _diagnosed_ depressed patients occurred because of an increase in both awareness and viable treatment options.

tlrobinson 14y ago
The same author wrote an article called "Lung Cancer and the Power of Suggestion" recently, which would suggest his hypothesis: http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2013/02/lung-cancer-and-power-of-suggestion.html http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2013/02/lung-cancer-and-power...
senorprogrammer 14y ago
As you note the article does really a very poor job examining that connection. Interestingly, your assumption differed a bit from mine. My assumption about that line was this: the availability of drugs for depression, and thus likely drug reps and salespeople, increased, providing greater incentives for profit through prescription, and thus increased diagnosis. Our biases at work.

josscrowcroft 14y ago

This seriously scares my shit out – are there any viable (domestic) water filtration systems that could reliably pull pharmaceuticals out of your drinking water?

dribnet 14y ago
http://www.amazon.com/Water-Distiller-Countertop-Enamel-Collection/dp/B00026F9F8 http://www.amazon.com/Water-Distiller-Countertop-Enamel-Coll...
- ars 14y ago
  That may not work - organic compounds often will travel with the water vapor. Distilling is really only for inorganic compounds. For organics you want a regular carbon filter.
jami 14y ago
Pur claims to remove 99% of pharmaceuticals and Brita something like 97%. Whether autistic fish have implications for human children or not, getting unnecessarily dosed with hormones, antibiotics, and psychiatric drugs doesn't seem like a good thing.
ars 14y ago
I'm pretty sure any ordinary carbon filter will do it.

SigmundA 14y ago

"This is actually some of the strongest evidence yet that psychiatric medications are connected with the sharp rise in autism that began in the 1980s." Couldn't possibly be the huge rise in awareness of Autism in the 80's, Rainman anyone? Or the rise in parents age could it? Nah obviously pharmaceutics in the water. There are detectable levels of many things in all water including say arsenic: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/index.cfm http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/index.c..., it's all a matter of how much, which his sources seem not to mention.

zzzeek 14y ago

Useful link: https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=techdog https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=techdog (note the blog - it is the same! note the days - they are every! note the comments (when present) - they are like "this is bunk!") I'm beginning to flag these posts.

DanBC 14y ago
I agree. http://imgur.com/a/MQR8d http://imgur.com/a/MQR8d
DVassallo 14y ago
> I'm beginning to flag these posts. Why? Some seem to have been highly voted.
ars 14y ago
BTW, there is nothing wrong with someone submitting his own stuff. Vote or flag submissions on their own merit, not because of the submitter.

tokenadult 14y ago

From an earlier Hacker News comment http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5196734 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5196734 on a submission from this blog: > > It appears you've made some sort of resolution to publish and promote a blog entry per day in 2013. 40 entries in 41 days this year vs. 46 in all of 2012. You should reconsider - whatever your reasons were, I doubt they included a desire to develop a reputation for presenting topics that were sensationalized and thinly researched [1] produced with a pace that ensures discredited theories dont get reviewed. [1] http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2013/02/drug-companies-stop-hiding-your-data.html%E3%80%80 http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2013/02/drug-companies-stop-h... > Wow, nice spot and they have all been submitted to HN. I have never seen anyone's submission history be so hell bent on self promotion: https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=techdog https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=techdog The Hacker News welcome message http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html gives an overview of the community experiment here, summarizing the site guidelines. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html The Hacker News FAQ http://ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html http://ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html gives some additional details about how Hacker News is administered. The welcome message distills the basic rules into a simple statement: "Essentially there are two rules here: don't post or upvote crap links, and don't be rude or dumb in comment threads."