Anti depressants and lifting

>don't have a terrible life.
>Lord I hope they work for me.
uhhhh...I'll just say I have been there

Whatever you do don't stop lifting. The crash combined with no exercise has killed people. Remember that next time you feel like skipping a workout. Heads up on the CBT; you won't notice it doing anything until you start thinking back.

maybe you should understand what mania and pre-existing conditions mean. Go now, I'll be here, but not waiting for you.

desu, given that I get chest pains from anxiety and I've had to change my career path to avoid stress due to panic attacks - Sounds like a good idea.

Presumably a lot of people who are on these drugs shouldn't be on them, but I've been dealing with this shit for nearly 10 years and I'm on the edge of a breakdown.

Thanks for your opinion though.

>Just be yourself bro!

And then theres akithesia, another common side effect.

Its what usually leads to suicide or homicide. Its like you feel like youre going in fast foward, and you cant stand to be in your own skin.

These drugs are absolutely terrible.

And im not kidding about the brain damage. They cause mild cognitive disfunction in the frontal lobe and there is a huge correlation between dementia patients and ssri use.

Why are you only talking about side effects? Its like talking about alcohol and only telling people about the side effects and how it will cause the same thing to happen to everyone. Or talking about the side effects of ibuprofen and telling everyone how the side effects are the only things that happen.

Not that I dont believe you but, Source?

Almost all antidepressants have bad long term effects. I have always thought of them as a temporal fix rather than a permanent one.

Most drugs have bad long term effects. But some people need them to supply what the body can't produce anymore. Thats why there are studies done on therapeutic equivalents and therapeutic windows. But for some reason this one user has a huge boner for only the down sides of every drug.

I'm the first reply in this thread and can confirm that "flat" feeling and occasional sexual issues, but you're right that it's a temporary fix. For me it just "backed me off the cliff" so to speak because I was so bad that I couldn't even get out of bed to go to therapy, and now I'm gearing up to come off them.

Because i read the studies, and the companies jnow they dont work.

Theres no such thing as a chemical imbalance.

And no, increasing the available amount of serotonin does not increase receptors. It decreases them because your brain is responding to there being too much.

The opposite happens in antipsychotics with the dopamanergic pathways. They increase the receptors.

Think about this. 20% more women have depression tham men. That should mean, according to how these drugs work, that women have more often have lower serotonin levels than men. They dont.

One anti psychotic causes serotonin to deplete, which should mean people on the drug shiuld get depressed, right?

They dont.

They dont cure a chemical imblance, they create one.

>don't follow advice of your doctor
>trust me, i know more than he does

>been on and off SSRI's like prozac and lexipro for a decade, first starting as a young teen
>finally decided the now-or-never time a year in advance and tapered off until my birthday
>it's been 4 months now being completely off of them and I'm hanging on by a thread everyday, even with rigorous exercise and hygiene
>it's been a constant and nightmarish rollercoaster but no physical withdrawals at least

Does it get better or am I going to have to return to taking (((the pills))) for the rest of my miserable life. God dammit I should've never taken them to begin with. I was conned and deceived and at such a young age, too. It just pissing me the fuck off merely thinking about it.

Doctors recommended ciggarettes.

Since prozac was invented in 1987, the US spent 800 million dollars on pharmaceuticals. Now we spend 40 billion.

And 3hat has happened since they invemted the "drug that cures depression"?

The number pf people in every developed nation that has tried these drugs on mental disability, like its a chronic illness, has gone up 4 pr 5 times.

How is that possible if the drugs cure depression? If its "like a diabetic taking insulin."

By the way, the majority of those people on disability? Being treated for chronic depression or bipolar disorder.

Two thjngs these drugs cause.

They are meant to be a temporary fix. You're at the bottom of a well struggling to survive, so you get a raft thrown down to you. You're still at the bottom but you can breathe and rest down there now instead of thinking of killing yourself. When you're able to do that, you should be starting to find ways of getting out of the well.

A large amount of people don't though. They just keep taking them. Because for most people they'd rather keep taking the medicine than confront their issues. I know a few people personally that ended up like this and are still the same crappy people.

There are a few exceptions to this but those are just that, exceptions, and you shouldn't consider yourself an exception unless you have exhausted every medium for improvement available

Can you provide source to those studies? Also, what do you mean there is no such thing as chemical imbalance? Do you mean to tell me hypo/hyperthyroidism is fake? That goiter doesn't happen because lack of iodine is not true? And doesn't the individual cells respond to increased seratonin levels, not the brain directly? If your cells builds up a tolerance, wouldn't they want to increase sensitivity to them by increasing receptors? Then whats the reason to women being more depressed? And again, you just said chemical imbalance doesn't exist but then go back to saying they do exist and how drugs create them despite there being studies on blood samples to characterize them and look specifically for some substance. I'm not trying to be a dick. Just trying to get things straight. With the things you said, you will have to support yourself with evidence.

>Theres no such thing as a chemical imbalance.

How retarded can you be lmao. You're on Veeky Forums so obviously you must know about test LEVELS, right? How some guys can have horridly low test LEVELS, that need to be supplemented to get into the healthy range? How fucking ignorant do you have to be to recognize that but deny the same can be true for other chemicals produced by the body like serotonin or dopamine?

>im telling you, i know more than doctors
>they tell people to smoke so that you get lung cancer and get you back to the hospital
>its all a conspiracy

this isn't /x/

>no such thing as chemical imbalance
>drugs cause chemical imbalance

wat?

I think is afraid pills are being overprescribed. But if OP is healthy and Veeky Forums with a job and a /gf/ then i'd say pills are an option.
>has a huge boner for only the down sides of every drug.
>permanantely lose the ability to sport an erection.
Kek

I hope you make it.

OP here.

I'm not in the united states.

I'm in the UK, and the NHS aren't as super keen on giving out anti-depressants as in the US

>this drug can cause a chemical imbalance
>oh but there's no way a person could already have a chemical imbalance
>and theres no way a drug could alleviate that imbalance

kek

>doctors recommended ciggarettes

why the fuck are you using medical science of the past to prove yourself right? you realize that there have been advances in medical science right?

That is beside his point. In the future, SSRI's will become the new cigarettes.

>stating the exact same thing in different words
wat?

>FDA will allow SSRI's to be sold OTC
>DEA will allow SSRI's to be sold to people of all ages

yea okay buddy.

Except they're not prescribed indiscriminately in countries that don't have a medical-industrial complex.

Idk I feel like they're really helping for me, I'm on Lexapro
Before I got on it I literally couldn't get out of bed, had no urge to shower or shave or go to classes, no matter what I was doing I was constantly thinking of killing myself or at least how much I hated myself
Now I don't think about killing myself and I actually have energy to live my life and better myself. Sadly I already failed out of college before I got on them.

>missing the entire point AGAIN

autistics really ought to be euthanized.

what are you talking about. I was trying to say how this user seems to think he knows more than a doctor but then tries to dismiss them by using something they used to do to prove himself right.

>im right, i can never be wrong
>i don't need to better convey my message, everyone is just retarded

I can't tell if you are samefagging but it really seems like it. And if you are, you are retarded for using it to try to prove yourself right.

journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00159/full

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21459521

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2564489/#!po=88.0952

Ill find more, i used to have them saved.

Youre conflating what im saying with other condition not involving the brain. Chemical imbalance refers specially to psychiatric medications.

Depression is not a chemical imbalance. The whole idea of a chemical imbalance was used as the metaphor to sell these drugs. Its correcting "an imbalance".

No one knows why depression happens. To say that its because of serotonin levels is absurd.

They essentially saw what the drugs did, and assumed the opposite of that was the mechanism causing depression. That like saying the opposite of what ibuprofen does causes headaches and inflamation. Its crazy.

And yes, im saying that when 40 billion dollsrs is on the line, and these are among the most prescribed drugs in the world, yeah maybe people are lyjng for money. God, what a concept.

Almoat 20% of the population is on these things and they dont fucking work.

>correlation does imply causation

>People on these drugs admit to nomlonger feeling enthused by things they used to love. They cant feel happy, or sad. They just feel "flat".

What if you already feel like this when you've never been on antidepressants?

I don't mean SSRI's will LITERALLY replace cigarettes. I meant that how cigarettes were presented as something healthy and later on were "discovered" (they already knew) to be very unhealthy but the masses were hooked on them by now so it didn't matter if it became common knowledge. They say SSRI's are safe but later on it will be "discovered" again that they are not and they will have some other product to shill for or their patients will be addicted to them for that constant stream of revenue.

>I don't mean SSRI's will literally replace cigs
Thats not what I was saying either. I read your statement as how SSRI's will be as available and easily attainable as cigs....

>and they dont fucking work.

they literally do tho so idk why you keep purporting that

you sound like you have good intentions in that you are (rightfully) fearful of SSRI's being over-prescribed, poor management of use, and are pushed more heavily due to their monetary value for big pharma.

but you're also dumb as fuck and have no clue what you're talking about

Im saying it paints a picture. Shouldnt we see less psychiatric illnesses since the advent pf these drugs?

Do the medical companies not have something to protect if they dont work?

The funny things is, the more they advertise that they do work, the stronger the placebo effect of these drugs.

But that doesnt change the fact people are killong themselves at 700% the rate they would if they werent on them.

Bullshit

It was like pulling teeth trying to get CBT
Getting SSRI's was easy, literally told the Doc symptoms and was prescribed

I first got on prozac at 14 with no history of suicidal tendencies or self-harm (which is for fags anyway). I have to be 18 to buy cigarettes.

I was just a 14-year-old that was very sheltered and bored out of my fucking skull.

So are you suggesting that SSRI's not even be an option? Of course things will change in the future. Science is like that. New studies gives more efficient ways to treat some problem and get rid of old methods. Just like how you are using that cig example. But again, you can't just get rid of an option that gives a solution for a small time. Itd be better to just tell patients about what happens if used for extensive periods of time so that patients know that this is a temporary fix.

at the very least they should've been given out like butterscotch but Dr. Shekelstein Dr. Schlomowitz need their money so that'll never ever happen.

Okay, let me break it dpwn for

If they work in the short term, but increase the vulnerability of a patient to mental illness in the long term AND cause chronic depressive symptoms, then i say yeah, they dknt fuckimg work.

Not to mention again, in the short term they work a statistically negiligible amount better than placebos.

Before hopping on those, look at this:
>examine.com/supplements/hypericum-perforatum/

St. John's Wort is just as effective, natural, and safer. Also look more into cognitive-behavioral therapy. There is so much research out there showing that changing your habits, beliefs, lifestyle, and way of thinking leads to much better results. This is why psychoanalysis has taken the backseat to cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Trust me mate, I've been down your road. You don't want to go on those meds.

In sum:
>take St. John's Wort
>change what you think, believe, and how you live à la cognitive-behavioral therapy

And I was 9 when i first smoked my first cig, I have to be 18 to buy them. And I was 13 when I first drank alcohol, I have to be 21 to buy them.

But you should have gotten a 2nd opinion. And if you did with extensive studies, sorry you have a bad experience with doctors. But things have changed.

*shouldn't

what?

Did a licensed professional give you that cigarette or that booze?

You are fucking retarded.

>Shouldnt we see less psychiatric illnesses since the advent pf these drugs?

Or maybe there's higher rate of diagnosis because of the (EXTREMELY) lowered stigma surrounding mental illness nowadays? Because of the massive improvements in assessing and determining mental illnesses (which modernly has only been around since the 50s-60s)? Jesus dude, we are *literally* at the infancy stage of treating mental illnesses, and basically at the embryo stage of treating them with medication. Of course there are going to be fuckups and risks involved, and of course big pharma has rea$on$, but to vehemently go against medication for stuff like depression is downright stupid

oh... Okay. Im this guyBut you still seem to have some kind of grudge against medical science. You can't expect the right treatments to pop up first try man.
But I do agree that these doctors should inform their patients of side effects if used for too long.

>If they work in the short term, but increase the vulnerability of a patient to mental illness in the long term AND cause chronic depressive symptoms, then i say yeah, they dknt fuckimg work.

You keep saying this shit like it's the normal response and not the outlier response. It's like reading the back of a Tylenol box and claiming everyones eyes are bleeding out because they take Tylenol, just because there's a warning of that potential

You are missing the point man. Im saying how easy it is to obtain anything that is extremely harmful to you. You can't take your angers out on everyone. Nothing is perfect here.

wooooooosh

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26376805

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19512977

diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:267045

Same here.
I've have anxiety from severe illness in my early childhood, reinforced by an abusive parent. I always thought getting chest pain that would even reach out along my left arm during stressful events was normal. Just getting started on the SSNRI meds made that so much better, I don't know how I pulled through this for more than 20 years.

>I want to believe my problems will be fixed by drugs, the thread.

baytallaah.com/bookspdf/51.pdf

Just fucking read this.

Someone linked it yesterday and it's already cured me.

>one in five burgers is on anti-depressants
>we're supposed to believe that ONE. FIFTH. of a nation is depressed to the extent that they need daily drugs despite living in the most comfortable period in human history
>those who take the drugs invariably think that it's other people who don't really need them but they themselves do

You all know that that can't be true, right?

Chances are you're one of the people that don't need it

>abloo bloo muh anxiety

Grow up ffs, maybe stop eating sugar every 15 minutes and see if that works, these drugs should be the absolute, bottom of the barrel last resort

>no one should rely on medical science, the post.

>20% of the United States have a chemical imbalance that they cannot deal with without daily drugs despite no other country having similar issues, the post

>science is a liar sometimes so never trust them

Are we seriously going to go back and forth on why we shouldn't do further studies to improve on current situations?

Hey, OP.

I've been on something called "Wellbutrin XL", for the last 2 years.
I was a loser who smoked too much weed, didn't care about his gf, and didn't have plans for the future apart from my next paycheck.
Just finished my 2nd year of uni (at 26), I have a new gf (who I think loves me), and I care about every last person in my life.
Sometimes the right drugs can help.
Wellbutrin is NOT an SSRI, it is an NDRI. Thus, there is NO weight gain, and NO loss of libido.
We'll all make it, user.
Deus Vult

>salty drug consumer, the post.

Advertisements did not accurately reflect the scientific status of the serotonin theory in the psychiatric research community. Some advertisements were more tentative or clever in their wording than others, but it seemed obvious that the drug companies were at least pushing the boundaries. We thought several of them were going over the line in plain sight of the FDA, which ostensibly regulates direct to consumer advertising. Our goal was to illustrate the clear disconnect between the existing psychiatric science and what the public was being told in these advertisements and we argued that the FDA should issue warning letters to pharmaceutical companies. Of course there were ramifications for clinicians – if it was illegal to claim this in advertisements, wasn't it also an unacceptable thing to be telling vulnerable clients? "

The Problematic Advertisements Disappear
"Newer medications were promoted as "adjusting" or "affecting" neurotransmitter levels, in contrast to "correcting a chemical imbalance"...(...) .. And drugs are now advertised as "affecting" neurotransmitters.
There is no public explanation for why this happened. To our knowledge, the FDA has never sent a warning letter to a pharmaceutical company over claims that antidepressants corrects a chemical imbalance. In our assessment, the promotion of chemical imbalances theory in advertise mince for SSRI drugs was wildly successful for the drug companies in the psychiatric profession alike. Wallace difficult to imagine that they pulled them arbitrarily, we don't know why they largely disappeared."

The authors suggest it may be due to the widespread public criticism of it and emerging transparency of information on the Internet obviously creating problems, or at least a dilemma.

don't take drugs. Havn't been to the hospital since I was a child. But you need to realize there are risks involved when we are at the beginning of studies

I Don't Really Believe It, But I Say It to Patients Anyway
Psychiatrist Daniel Carlat is a practising psychiatrist, a clinical instructor at Tufts University ..(..)...

"I think I say that because patients want to know something. And they want to know that we as physicians have some basic understanding of what we're doing when we are prescribing medications. They certainly don't want to know that a psychiatrist essentially has no idea how these medications work."

...(..)...The consistent lack of difference between SSRI and placebo in the clinical literature is one of the most compelling arguments against the serotonin deficiency theory...(...)... one thing that has happened is that because there's been such a vacuum in our knowledge about mechanism, the drug companies have been happy to sort of fill that vacuum with their own version of knowledge...(..)... in fact scientists have known for a long time that the serotonin theory presented by the drug companies and Carlat is not true.....(...)... the simple alternative would be to tell patients the truth – that the pathophysiology of depression is unknown and that we have no idea how SSRIs work.

The Positive Aspects of Misinformed Thinking
There were many angry comments... Apparently many psychiatric patients never realised they were hearing a metaphor and not science....(...)... some such patients now understandably feel lied to by the clinicians. The claim that presenting the chemical imbalance metaphor is in the best interests of patients needs to be considered in light of the existing empirical research. This in fact is not what the literature shows.

>Does it get better or am I going to have to return to taking (((the pills))) for the rest of my miserable life.

Maybe it does.
For a number of people depression can't be fixed.

I don't need research to tell me that 20% of the US being on this garbage when this happens nowhere else in the world and everywhere else in the world isn't throwing themselves off of cliffs like lemmings makes zero sense

It Wasn't Us It Was the Drug Companies
Ronald Pies is a psychiatrist at Tufts University..

Pies doesn't believe that the chemical imbalance metaphor should be attributed to psychiatry...

" In truth the chemical imbalance notion was always a kind of urban legend – never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists".

...(...)..[Yet]... Among 237 psychology students Francis, Lysaker and Robinson found that 46% had heard the chemical imbalance explanation from a physician ..... Many people reported hearing it's a 'chemical imbalance' from psychiatrists.... If Pies is correct, that is an awful lot of uninformed clinicians.

A Bumper Sticker Slogan to Educate Patients
In subsequent articles Pies moderates his tone...... he claims that it is the result of overbooked clinicians looking for quick explanations to accompany medication, perhaps to reduce self blame on the part of patients(he acknowledges this may backfire). ....(...)... academic psychiatry in general has done a highly effective job of convincing PCPs to diagnose and treat depression with antidepressants.

Academic Psychiatry As Silent Partner in the Promotion of Chemical Imbalance
...Prominent academic psychiatrists could have set the record straight on serotonin imbalance decades ago. Yet to our knowledge no one did so....(...)... is it possible that the flow of money from the pharmaceutical companies to influential academic psychiatrists… has brought with it a certain willingness to remain silent?

[Pies] sounds vaguely critical of the drug industry in his recent articles and never discloses any history of financial conflicts of interest. However Pies has received funding from....[lists many pharma companies]. Pies blames the drug companies for running misleading advertisements about chemical imbalance, belatedly admits he should have said something sooner, but fails to mention that he was paid to help them promote their products at the time the advertisements were running.

Am I seriously supposed to believe that the US is more depressed now than continental Europe was during the second world war?

Is is POSSIBLE that this shit is over-prescribed?

Not every country is the same. Does you country have an obesity problem like ours or is it the same? The fact that you are trying to prevent scientific studies while also using statistical analysis at the same time shows me how biased you are.

But We Never Promoted the Theory

In Table 1 and Table 2 it is apparent that there are often two different conversations occurring. One is the actual scientific discourse. The other conversation is between influential psychiatrists and the public, or between psychiatrists and primary care physicians. In this second conversation the company advertising line about SSRIs correcting chemical imbalances is repeated as fact by psychiatric authorities including the APA.

[i recommend having a read of:
Table 1- Evidence the chemical imbalanced theory of depression is not valid: selected quotations and,
Table 2-Promotion of the chemical imbalance theory of depression as valid: selected quotations].

The Chemical Imbalance Theory Is a Little White Lie
.. By 2014 Pies refers to the use of the chemical imbalance metaphor as "a little white lie"....(...)... how many patients with reservations about SSRIs have agreed to take medication after being told this "little white lie"?

The fact that the US has a high prevalence of obesity suggests that individuals in the US need a lifestyle change, not that everyone needs gastric bypass surgery.

And yes, my country does have an obesity problem

So how do you know your country isn't facing the same problems without the use of same studies? Is our country the first one to try to go through this wall or is everyone just ignoring it? Once again I have to state, there will always be risks at the beginning of studying something that is serious. Give it more time to improve. It can't be perfect right from the start.

>taking antidepressants
>ever
If you need to take pills to keep your mind off suicide, you're already past the point of no return. Deal with your depression like a man or kill yourself. There should be no place in this world for the weak.

The propagation of misleading advertising is only possible in the absence of vigorous government regulation. Or outcry from professional associations. That outcry never came

while we are hesitant to overemphasise conflicts of interest as an explanation for what has occurred, we can't help but notice that the silence of psychiatry regarding chemical imbalance only ended when the profits had been extracted from the SSRI marketplace.

The new narrative will apparently be that psychiatrists recently discovered that the chemical imbalance theory was incorrect. Psychometric researchers are changing their mind based on the data, so the story goes and adjusts took a while to let the public know. This is empirically wrong. The idea that the withdrawal of the chemical imbalance theory was caused by recent data should be rejected.

As the theory has been withdrawn and a dialogue has taken place many mental health clients have reacted negatively to the news that there was never any reason to believe that depression was caused by a serotonin imbalance.

Many mental health clients find it unacceptable, and perhaps a violation of ethical informed consent, for clinicians to give patients metaphorical explanations for their mental health problems and promote them as scientific truth.

Patients who start an SSRI because they have been told it will correct the chemical imbalance, that it is like thyroid medication for hyperthyroidism are likely to eventually conclude that they have simply not been told the truth.

Previously we argued that misleading consumer advertisements for SSRIs should end.

A decade later the serotonin theory of depression is acknowledged to be dead and most SSRI advertising campaigns are now part of history we encourage our colleagues in organised psychiatry to work towards this end by improving medical education and ongoing training, by endorsing shared decision-making, and by ensuring that informed consent is based on the scientific literature.

Survival of the fittest at its finest. lol. I guess scientists are trying to prevent this natural progression

>So how do you know your country isn't facing the same problems without the use of same studies?

Because we're not all killing ourselves?

Where'd you get the idea that I'm opposed to further study? I'm just sceptical of drug research because of vested interests, time problems and the unwillingness of pharmacists to consider non-drug alternatives.

Has there been a single study into the effect of losing weight or cutting out sugar on an individuals' "depression"?

Pharmacists can't prescribe patients. Doctors do. Another bias on your part. You can be the first to study effects of sugar and emotional distress since you seem to think this is the cure. Also, how do you know you don't have suicidal people in your country. Im pretty sure everyone in their life has been "depressed" and thought about just ending it but not actually doing it.

I'm not that guy. It's important to note that these drugs are incredibly addictive and have the potential to kill you if you don't go off them properly. If I was a close friend of OP I'd suggest he finds a new doctor or finds a new goal to attain. It's been proven that trying to learn new things and struggling and overcoming obstacles has helped people who have depression and anxiety. OP should try to learn to play guitar or join a martial arts gym and learn jiu jitsu, or he should start learning a new language. Find something to struggle with to challenge your mind. I know depression is way more complex than 'oh people are just bored' but I think if you find that new hobbies and goals can help, then you can use those instead of SSRIs

There are people who absolutely have chemical imbalances in their brains which cause depression, but we understand so little of brain chemistry that we really need to use these things as a last resort. When I said earlier that they can kill you I didnt mean due to the depression crash. I mean they become so important that your body can actually shut down without them.. Im talking seizures, coma, aneurysms etc. Its fucking terrifying what these things can do to you.

>Pharmacists can't prescribe patients. Doctors do. Another bias on your part.

Uh, pharmacy is the study of drugs you dumb fuck, I'm talking about pharmaceutical researchers, not the lady behind the counter at wallgreens.

You have to be over 18 to post here.

India has the best rste of treatment so far as these drugs are concerned. And why? Because they take people off of them after a short while.

People still do better over all without any drugs in the the long term. Theyre less likely to have depression again, theyre more likely to be in the work force. More likely to get married and have a fsmiky.

People in the west are given these drugs and expected to be on them for life.

Afyer all, you have a chemical imbalance, dont you know?

I think diet has a huge factor in depression. I really wonder how much of the population could be 'cured' from their issues if they had started waking up early in the morning and changed their diet. Shits fucking crazy. We stuff our body full of synthetic sugar and carbs and then our body gets sad because its missing essential nutrients and vitamins. I'd love to see a study of clinically depressed people that began a supervised paleo diet supplemented with some complex carbohydrates when necessary. I'd wager only 1-3% of the population has true chemical imbalances.

Oh sorry, misinterpretation on my part. But again, you can't think the beginning of studies is going to be perfect. Thats like thinking we can develop cure for cancer just within 20 years.

>Also, how do you know you don't have suicidal people in your country

>end result of suicidal people=suicide
>suicide rates therefore decent metric of "suicidal people" for comparative studies
>suicide rate in the US is higher than other industrialised countries
>QED

So this means that not every country is the same. The other user was trying to say he couldn't believe how another country could have different statistics than theirs. This gives us more reasons to study why people do it and how to treat it.

In all fairness your post did say that pharma would look for non drug alternatives, which doesnt make sense because pharma's job is to produce drugs.

if you doctor puts of on antidepressants its just him saying

"take this pills that work 5% of the time or less, and fuck off I have real patients to treat"

Abstract OBJECTIVES:
To reanalyse SmithKline Beecham's Study 329 (published by Keller and colleagues in 2001), the primary objective of which was to compare the efficacy and safety of paroxetine and imipramine with placebo in the treatment of adolescents with unipolar major depression. The reanalysis under the restoring invisible and abandoned trials (RIAT) initiative was done to see whether access to and reanalysis of a full dataset from a randomised controlled trial would have clinically relevant implications for evidence based medicine.
DESIGN:
Double blind randomised placebo controlled trial.
SETTING:
12 North American academic psychiatry centres, from 20 April 1994 to 15 February 1998.
PARTICIPANTS:
275 adolescents with major depression of at least eight weeks in duration. Exclusion criteria included a range of comorbid psychiatric and medical disorders and suicidality.
INTERVENTIONS:
Participants were randomised to eight weeks double blind treatment with paroxetine (20-40 mg), imipramine (200-300 mg), or placebo.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
The prespecified primary efficacy variables were change from baseline to the end of the eight week acute treatment phase in total Hamilton depression scale (HAM-D) score and the proportion of responders (HAM-D score ≤8 or ≥50% reduction in baseline HAM-D) at acute endpoint. Prespecified secondary outcomes were changes from baseline to endpoint in depression items in K-SADS-L, clinical global impression, autonomous functioning checklist, self-perception profile, and sickness impact scale; predictors of response; and number of patients who relapse during the maintenance phase. Adverse experiences were to be compared primarily by using descriptive statistics. No coding dictionary was prespecified.

Yeah, thats why I was a bit confused on what he was saying. But he cleared himself up while also calling me a dumb fuck

RESULTS:
The efficacy of paroxetine and imipramine was not statistically or clinically significantly different from placebo for any prespecified primary or secondary efficacy outcome. HAM-D scores decreased by 10.7 (least squares mean) (95% confidence interval 9.1 to 12.3), 9.0 (7.4 to 10.5), and 9.1 (7.5 to 10.7) points, respectively, for the paroxetine, imipramine and placebo groups (P=0.20). There were clinically significant increases in harms, including suicidal ideation and behaviour and other serious adverse events in the paroxetine group and cardiovascular problems in the imipramine group.
CONCLUSIONS:
Neither paroxetine nor high dose imipramine showed efficacy for major depression in adolescents, and there was an increase in harms with both drugs. Access to primary data from trials has important implications for both clinical practice and research, including that published conclusions about efficacy and safety should not be read as authoritative. The reanalysis of Study 329 illustrates the necessity of making primary trial data and protocols available to increase the rigour of the evidence base.