5 facts Everyone Gets Wrong About Depression

[Miller0700]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-facts-ever...epression/

[Gwedin]

Eh. Nothing new here.

But that last one... WHAT?? I've never heard that one before.

[James Comey]

Epic win article.

[James Comey]

(01-22-2014 09:52 AM)Gwedin Wrote:  Eh. Nothing new here.

But that last one... WHAT?? I've never heard that one before.

I hate the stupid "macho-man" stereotype. I've already explained the "whiny teenager", but the "macho-man" is another one that grinds my gears, and it's impressive how people still perpetuate this. "Oh, your a man, expressing your feelings is for women and pussies!". Yeah, good job at bottling up emotions! That'll help!

[Gwedin]

Erm... What?

When I said "nothing new here", I meant to imply that I didn't learn anything form the article. Displaying emotion is perfectly healthy.

EDIT: Oh, shit. I see why you're pissed now. I misread that last title and interpreted it as "Only old people get depression".

[Duelix3]

#3. Antidepressants Don't Work

MORONS. My entire life goal is based on creating euphoriants that improve the mental wellbeing of humanity. As such, I've thoroughly researched antidepressants. THEY ARE IDIOTIC. If you don't trust me, I could provide a MOUNTAIN of evidence that comes from my research. The SSRI's (the antidepressants I believe she refers to) have been shown by a meta-analysis to have almost no effectiveness. Any slight gains I envision would come from the placebo effect (because SSRI's cause side effects, people infer that some change is happening and that they will leave their depression compared to an ineffective placebo) and minor down-regulation of the 5-ht2c receptors.

The person doesn't even bother to provide any sort of evidence (defense by ignorance?). The Guardian article was pitiful.
******
The rest of the points were inane. Anyone who believes in these "myths" (with the exception of the third) is an idiot. As usual, another shitty "list" article catering to short-attention-span morons.

[James Comey]

(01-25-2014 10:24 AM)Duelix3 Wrote:  The rest of the points were inane. Anyone who believes in these "myths" (with the exception of the third) is an idiot. As usual, another shitty "list" article catering to short-attention-span morons.

You definitely sound very constructive and convincing with that kind of statement.

[Gwedin]

Duelix3: Get off your high horse. I've noticed most, if not all of your posts here have a condescending tone.

omg every1s so stupid y cant they just take drugs like me

[isolatedsystem]

See the movie 'suicide room" like I've said in my recent post and you'll see what is depression

[Duelix3]

That's pretty much my attitude towards life.

Although I don't recall asking people to take drugs.

I guess that the better word is LAZY. People aren't stupid; they're just too lazy to bother getting a clue (and thus propagate Buzzfeed and Cracked and other such poor-quality unscientific cancer).

[Potato]

(01-25-2014 10:24 AM)Duelix3 Wrote:  If you don't trust me, I could provide a MOUNTAIN of evidence that comes from my research.

pls do

(01-25-2014 10:24 AM)Duelix3 Wrote:  Any slight gains I envision would come from the placebo effect (because SSRI's cause side effects, people infer that some change is happening and that they will leave their depression compared to an ineffective placebo) and minor down-regulation of the 5-ht2c receptors.

1. it doesn't matter if it's placebo or not as long as it's effective in reducing depression, because that's the whole point

2. if the drug has already gone through a double blind trial and has been shown to be more effective than a placebo, what more evidence do you ask for? is there anything that would convince you? why is your conclusion that it's the side effects that are enhancing the placebo effect- more valid than the conclusion that the drug actually works?

Quote:My entire life goal is based on creating euphoriants that improve the mental wellbeing of humanity.

we already have plenty of very effective euphoriants- marijuana, ecstasy... what we don't have are effective nootropics

[Ky]

I never thought I'd say this (again) but I agree with Potato. Sort of.

I do not question the validity of psychiatry (although there are many questionable elements). Do not confuse my preference for therapy over the effective prescription of drugs with acceptance of what Duelix has to say, because the two are very different. Depression is very idiosyncratic; it does not surprise me that many people would not have known most of these things if not for the Cracked article, and that isn't due to stupidity - more likely, a lack of experience is to blame.

[Duelix3]

"1. it doesn't matter if it's placebo or not as long as it's effective in reducing depression, because that's the whole point"

Cool let's prescribe sugar pills to everyone. Perhaps the effectiveness of what should be an ineffective medicine invalidates the whole premise of the article that you can't "just snap out" of depression.

" if the drug has already gone through a double blind trial and has been shown to be more effective than a placebo, what more evidence do you ask for?"
-They haven't (really)
-There is no plausible mechanism for SSRI's having any sort of success besides 5-ht2c downregulation, which has a small effect
-SSRA's (selective serotonin ENHANCERS) have ALSO been shown to have an antidepressant effect. If that's the case, then two medicines with opposite actions both have exactly the same positive result. Seems fishy?

Evidence:
SSRA: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...4700861150
Selective Publication: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa065779
A Widely Cited Meta-analysis: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx...eid=185157
^ The Guardian Article the Cracked writer provided did not really look at the data. Take a look at the data yourself and tell me if it shows and efficacy. Note that there is barely any difference between either protocol. Also note that the production of side effects by SSRI's are responsible for a "negative symptom" placebo effect where side effects give the impression that the medication works.

Lack of plausible mechanism: One of the most important ways to weed out pseudoscience is to find certain observations that have no tenable explanation given current scientific knowledge. The "Monamine Theory" of depression is outdated and unsupported by any evidence of serotonin function.

"we already have plenty of very effective euphoriants- marijuana, ecstasy... what we don't have are effective nootropics"
NO. These are TEMPORARY agents with major REBOUND effects. Marijuana is impairing and gradually loses its euphoriant properties over repeated use. With "ecstasy" (presumable MDMA) this is even a bigger concern. My goal is to create a euphoriant that continues to work day in and day out. None of this barely-any-effect SSRI crap.

Here's David Pearce, who mentions SSRI's in his (extremely well-researched) "Good Drugs Guide"
http://www.biopsychiatry.com/

[Potato]

Quote:SSRA's (selective serotonin ENHANCERS) have ALSO been shown to have an antidepressant effect. If that's the case, then two medicines with opposite actions both have exactly the same positive result. Seems fishy?

indeloxazine is a SRA (serotonin releasing agent) (not "SSRA") according to wikipedia (i can't read ur link). releasing more serotonin should have the same effect as inhibiting its reuptake.

Quote:Take a look at the data yourself and tell me if it shows and efficacy. Note that there is barely any difference between either protocol

more people respond positively to the drug than to placebo and that means efficacy even though the difference is small.

Quote:Also note that the production of side effects by SSRI's are responsible for a "negative symptom" placebo effect where side effects give the impression that the medication works.

the view that the "negative symptom placebo effect" can account for all the difference between the SSRIs and placebo is just an opinion, and you can make that same argument for every successful drug trial for anything that has side effects.

Quote:One of the most important ways to weed out pseudoscience is to find certain observations that have no tenable explanation given current scientific knowledge. The "Monamine Theory" of depression is outdated and unsupported by any evidence of serotonin function.

neuroscience is still in an early state, and "observations that have no tenable explanation given current scientific knowledge" are what lead to new theories and progress. and there is no disputing the observation that SSRIs give better results than sugar pills, you can dispute the explanation and say that it's just a stronger placebo effect but that's another matter

[1312]

Article makes me think and realize that I was depressed for majority of my life.. Maybe last 2 years I have been getting out of depression and very slowly, almost at a snail crawl getting my life fixed, today it's better than all previous years and it's getting better. It was such a tough battle, but thankfully I survived... o_o

Still not sure if I do get depressed or it's just those one-day-depressions.

[Duelix3]

(01-29-2014 03:13 AM)Potato Wrote:  

Quote:SSRA's (selective serotonin ENHANCERS) have ALSO been shown to have an antidepressant effect. If that's the case, then two medicines with opposite actions both have exactly the same positive result. Seems fishy?

Quote:indeloxazine is a SRA (serotonin releasing agent) (not "SSRA") according to wikipedia (i can't read ur link). releasing more serotonin should have the same effect as inhibiting its reuptake.

My apologies. I was up late for a while. I was referring to Tianeptine, a SSRE (selective serotonin reuptake enhancer)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2902922

Sorry about that. You can also check the wikipedia page on Tianeptine.

Now the only plausible mechanism for SSRI's to have their (majorly delayed) effect is 5-ht2c downregulation. This has been shown to increase expression of nopinephrine and dopamine receptors in the cortex. Note that both of these medications downregulate 5-ht2c receptors in the long term. However, immediate antagonism of 5-ht2c produces an extremely modest effect.

Quote:Take a look at the data yourself and tell me if it shows and efficacy. Note that there is barely any difference between either protocol

Quote:more people respond positively to the drug than to placebo and that means efficacy even though the difference is small.

There is an EXTREMELY SMALL efficacy that comes from SSRI's through the downregulation of 5-ht2c receptors, as I explained. When there is an extremely small difference, a medication can be considered ineffective. Some things have an extremely minor but almost insignificant positive effect. Eating broccoli probably helps diabetes slightly but no doctor in the right mind would prescribe broccoli to treat diabetes.

Quote:Also note that the production of side effects by SSRI's are responsible for a "negative symptom" placebo effect where side effects give the impression that the medication works.

Quote:the view that the "negative symptom placebo effect" can account for all the difference between the SSRIs and placebo is just an opinion, and you can make that same argument for every successful drug trial for anything that has side effects.

No. When a difference is major (as in beta-blockers, caffeine, or statins) actual efficacy is an adequate explanation. However, when a minor difference is shown to exist, where the supporting theory for a medication (monamine theory of depression) has been shown not to be true(%1) and massive pharmaceutical bias exists to promote its efficacy, I would adopt a skeptical attitude.

Quote:One of the most important ways to weed out pseudoscience is to find certain observations that have no tenable explanation given current scientific knowledge. The "Monamine Theory" of depression is outdated and unsupported by any evidence of serotonin function.

neuroscience is still in an early state, and "observations that have no tenable explanation given current scientific knowledge" are what lead to new theories and progress. and there is no disputing the observation that SSRIs give better results than sugar pills, you can dispute the explanation and say that it's just a stronger placebo effect but that's another matter

Just barely. As I said, 5-ht2c downregulation is the culprit. That's the only tenable explanation.

%1 Monamine Theory of Depression: Evidence Against: see:

http://www.touchneurology.com/articles/l...hypothesis

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/516262

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...ltext.html

[James Comey]

This entire thread has turned into a drug debate between Duelix and Potato.

[Ky]

(01-29-2014 09:38 AM)Hansgrohe Wrote:  This entire thread has turned into a drug debate between Duelix and Potato.

Thank you, Captain Exposition.

But seriously, what the actual heck is up with that?

(Good thing both of them are on my ignore list. Lol)

[Duelix3]

Thank god. I respect Potato (a hell of a lot) because he is not a lazy thinker. I don't call people stupid if they disagree with me; I call them stupid if they mouth platitudes and avoid firing a single neuron to think through something difficult. The same frustration I feel when people blatantly ignore details is the frustration you feel when your parents give you bullshit reasons to stick through a bureaucratic education system.

[Duelix3]

Keep reading Buzzfeed and rotting your brain, Doa.

Fucking idiot.

[James Comey]

Hello assumptions without evidence. Welcome to my ignore list.

[Gwedin]

(01-29-2014 01:34 PM)Duelix3 Wrote:  Keep reading Buzzfeed and rotting your brain, Doa.

Fucking idiot.

Erm... what? What are these assumptions even based on? Why is DoA a "Fucking idiot."?

EDIT: Dammit! Once again Hans has beaten me to pressing the post button.

[Duelix3]

"This entire thread has turned into a drug debate between Duelix and Potato.

Thank you, Captain Exposition.

But seriously, what the actual heck is up with that?"

Evidence for Doa being a fucking idiot:

1) Fails to read article and notice that one of the five points is that antidepressants actually work
2) Fails to realize that an article shouldn't be posted for a circle-jerk of "I'm depressed omgg so sad it's so bad guys" but for actual discussion
3) Ignores a poster because said poster has a tendency to insult people too lazy to bother thinking
4) Has had a history of being a long-term unemployed stoner
5) Has a history of many many contentless posts
6) Judging by his posting history, Doa has a penchant for "easy-level" (aka content free) information.
7) I'm not sure if he reads buzzfeed, but I just used the buzzfeed reading as a general insult.

Evidence that Hansgrohe is a fucking idiot:
1) "Epic win article." Note the use of idiotic internet memes (rather than using a word like interesting, informative, or insightful. The article is none of these)
2) "You definitely sound very constructive and convincing with that kind of statement."
Mmmm yes because this article has about as much useful information as a Subway Napkin

[Potato]

Quote:Now the only plausible mechanism for SSRI's to have their (majorly delayed) effect is 5-ht2c downregulation. This has been shown to increase expression of nopinephrine and dopamine receptors in the cortex. Note that both of these medications downregulate 5-ht2c receptors in the long term. However, immediate antagonism of 5-ht2c produces an extremely modest effect.

i found out from wikipedia that suicide victims have a high number of 5-ht2c receptors- and that its increased expression reduces the release of dopamine, while its antagonism increases the release of dopamine, and SSREs' effect in treating depression is immediate while the delayed effect of SSRIs "is usually paralleled by the downregulation of the 5-HT2C receptors." so your position that SSRIs work through 5-ht2c downregulation seems very reasonable. but the efficacy of a drug still depends only on it's trial results, the supporting explanation given by drug companies or whomever is irrelevant in determining efficacy

Quote:There is an EXTREMELY SMALL efficacy that comes from SSRI's through the downregulation of 5-ht2c receptors, as I explained. When there is an extremely small difference, a medication can be considered ineffective.

i'll concede to that

Quote: Some things have an extremely minor but almost insignificant positive effect. Eating broccoli probably helps diabetes slightly but no doctor in the right mind would prescribe broccoli to treat diabetes.

that's only because we have better medication than broccoli, if we didn't then prescribing broccoli would make sense

[Duelix3]

Broccoli has no side effects. There are numerous superior alternatives to SSRI's (but all with downsides/poor efficacy which is why I'm diligently working on this problem.

[Ky]

(01-30-2014 03:48 AM)Duelix3 Wrote:  "This entire thread has turned into a drug debate between Duelix and Potato.

Thank you, Captain Exposition.

But seriously, what the actual heck is up with that?"

Evidence for Doa being a fucking idiot:

1) Fails to read article and notice that one of the five points is that antidepressants actually work
2) Fails to realize that an article shouldn't be posted for a circle-jerk of "I'm depressed omgg so sad it's so bad guys" but for actual discussion
3) Ignores a poster because said poster has a tendency to insult people too lazy to bother thinking
4) Has had a history of being a long-term unemployed stoner
5) Has a history of many many contentless posts
6) Judging by his posting history, Doa has a penchant for "easy-level" (aka content free) information.
7) I'm not sure if he reads buzzfeed, but I just used the buzzfeed reading as a general insult.

Evidence that Hansgrohe is a fucking idiot:
1) "Epic win article." Note the use of idiotic internet memes (rather than using a word like interesting, informative, or insightful. The article is none of these)
2) "You definitely sound very constructive and convincing with that kind of statement."
Mmmm yes because this article has about as much useful information as a Subway Napkin

Evidence that Duelix3 is a "fucking idiot":
1. He clearly used unproven assumptions in place of evidence, as seen in DoA, subsections 1, 2, 4, and admittedly 7. Doing so is utterly fallacious and this error is one of either willful or unintentional ignorance, which implies that the person in question would be considered a "fucking idiot".

I indeed read the article in question and noticed that particular point. I also understood that this thread was intended for discussion of said article; what confused me was that this particular tangent was so heavily discussed. Never have I been a "stoner" for I have not used illegal drugs nor abused legal ones, and I am unemployed more as a result of my age and lack of means of transportation than laziness. Finally, I have not read buzzfeed.

Were it not that someone had quoted your previous insult, I would never have seen this horrid comment - that is time I will not get back.

Good luck better employing the scientific method, and have fun remaining on my ignore list.

Bitch.

[Potato]

^you're using the ignore list wrong

[Duelix3]

Sorry Doa. I haven't been here for several years and confused you for the stoner idiot (forgot the exact name). And the reason this particular tangent is being discussed is that there is some controversy; the rest are so inane that merely reading the DSM V definition of depression would validate them.

[Duelix3]

Scientific method doesn't apply to insults. An insult by definition has little factual basis. If they did, they would be statements rather than insults.

[Duelix3]

"Everyone gets wrong" yeah right. Only a fucking idiot would believe this shit.

So the article is implying the following
1) Everyone is stupid and fails to understand a basic diagnosis or definition of a mental disorder
2) The person who wrote this article is stupid

^^^
By re-posting an article that is idiotic, the OP is also showing that he is an idiot.
By supporting this article (Hansgrohe and co) they are proving their idiocy.

Massive fest of stupidity!!!!!!