Culture & Lifestyle

Rant

Anti-depressant doesn’t work!

Posted 32 months ago|10 comments|867 views
Written by
The Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles times report on a study. Anti-depressants have been popular in schools. There are whole industries that find another anti-depressant and pump it into public schools. There is very good reason. The reason is money. Generally, the taxpayer foots the bill for these expensive pills. A psychiatrist, or at least a medical doctor, must prescribe them. But studies don’t show that children learn any better.

The drugs do help children sit still better.

But the latest study shows they sit still no better with Celexa by Forest Laboratories Incorporated than they do with a placebo (a pill without any drug).
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
32 months ago: Terryeo, it is very unethical for you to not mention in your article (you did at least tag) that this is ONLY related to autism!

This study is a major advance in understanding the pathological underpinnings of autism. How? Because the drug, which is highly effective in treating a certain behavior in traditionally obsessive-compulsive individuals, had no demonstrable effect upon autistic children, we can conclude that a different biological origin within the brain is causing this behavior in autistic children.

At least we can rest easy, knowing that you are still devotedly pushing the CCHR agenda (which is the Church of Scientology's agenda) of doing anything possible to destroy psychiatry and all other forms of mental health that are not Scientology.
32 months ago: "and all other forms of mental health that are not Scientology."

Scientology =/= Mental Health

Scientology = Cult.

Scientology, from "Scion", meaning Science, "ology", generally linked to a Science, and they just stole the "t" from "Bull****"
32 months ago: So if I wrote about aardvarks would you all anti-rant about Scientology?
32 months ago: Scientology is protesting aardvarks now? Nifty!
32 months ago: The only way to know is to find out. You write about aardvarks, and I'll see if I want to comment on it. Probably not, because aardvarks are harmless.

Still, scientific experiment for the sake of knowledge and understanding of how the SP mind works would be beneficial, right? So, on the count of three.

1. 2. 3. Go! Aardvark story!
Mark Tomles
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
29 months ago: Well, I would imagine so, if scientology took a strong stand against those that raise ardvarks and pledged towards the destruction of their profession!
Can you tell me honestly that your post here, coming from a very devout scientology apologist, had nothing to do with scientology?
29 months ago: I see you have adjudicated that I am "a very devout scientology apologist". Hmmm. But to respond to your question would require that I agree with your adjudication.

I'm an individual who has found the Scientology Philosophy to be quite useful.
Mark Tomles
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
27 months ago: Boy, blast from the past :) I suppose I missed your last message.

Number 1: a response to this question would not require, nor imply, an agreement with my statement, particularly if caveated. It seems, to me, that it is merely an attempt to deflect a question.

Number 2: what, exactly, do you disagree with? Perhaps some word clearing would help:

A: implies a singular reference- in this case, you.

devout: This adjective means that someone has a strong belief in a religion (is that not true?)

scientology: the subject of your religious system, however you want to define it

apologist: a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution

What part, exactly, is incorrect?
27 months ago: In this article, I post the obvious. A psychotropic drug has been shown to be as effective as a placebo. I further make the point that its effect (when effective) does not increase children's ability to gain education. It does, when effective, cause children to sit still, better.

The reason I am motivated to post this simple but obvious data is because the media wraps them in complexity.

But the simplicity is:

1. the drug is no more effective than a placebo.
2. when effective, it causes children to sit more still.

The point I am making is two-fold, and, perhaps, difficult to follow.

1. This particular psychotropic drug produces an effect all right - as effectively as a placebo.

2. Psychotropic drugs of this sort have never been advertised to help children learn. That is not their intent. That is not what is tested by comparing them with a placebo.

3. Such drugs have an intent, even if this drug fails in intent.

4. The intent of the drug in the first place is to quiet children.
Mark Tomles
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
27 months ago: That doesn't, in any way, answer my question. It avoids it. But I thank you for your very interesting and well numbered side point.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.