Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 53

Thread: Is Depression a Disease?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    164

    Default Re: Is Depression a Disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by Count Bobulescu View Post
    So what about people who don't claim to have had a stressful or traumatic experience? You can't even label those effers with PTSD.
    What about them? Some people are depressed without being traumatised? Everyone has been traumatised?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    231

    Default Re: Is Depression a Disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerd Muller View Post
    Health is an ideal state?
    And if you can define health, must there not be, by definition, disease?
    “Me, poor man, my library
    Was dukedom large enough.”

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    164

    Default Re: Is Depression a Disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by statsman1 View Post
    And if you can define health, must there not be, by definition, disease?
    Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
    http://www.who.int/suggestions/faq/en/

    Corolloary innit?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    231

    Default Re: Is Depression a Disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerd Muller View Post
    Not merely, but including, I'd have thought.
    “Me, poor man, my library
    Was dukedom large enough.”

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    164

    Default Re: Is Depression a Disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by statsman1 View Post
    Not merely, but including, I'd have thought.
    There's disease and dis-ease.


    Let's say there's a par state- functional to actualised. Falling below one's personal criteria for this par state could be considered to be the depressed state. Is this "caused" by a depletion of neurotransmitters or is it a "mood thing", not a disease but the human condition.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    164

    Default Re: Is Depression a Disease?

    I See A Darkness:


  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    231

    Default Re: Is Depression a Disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerd Muller View Post
    There's disease and dis-ease.


    Let's say there's a par state- functional to actualised. Falling below one's personal criteria for this par state could be considered to be the depressed state. Is this "caused" by a depletion of neurotransmitters or is it a "mood thing", not a disease but the human condition.
    I take a very simple view; ultimately, everything in your body is chemical, including, especially, your responses to external events.
    “Me, poor man, my library
    Was dukedom large enough.”

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    164

    Default Re: Is Depression a Disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by statsman1 View Post
    I take a very simple view; ultimately, everything in your body is chemical, including, especially, your responses to external events.
    That's probably true chemical or mech & elec. The interesting thing is how the same stimuli affect different people in markedly different ways. Not every soldier suffers PTSD but a significant number do. I understand everyone has differnt physical & mental attributes (not everyone can score the winning gooal in a world Cup Final). I suppose where I'm at is, the linkage between Dopamine, Serotonin, Oxytocin, and Endorphins sufficiently understood to say x amount of SSRI will cure depression i.e. rebalance the chemical imbalance. Its certainly not everyone's experience.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    231

    Default Re: Is Depression a Disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerd Muller View Post
    That's probably true chemical or mech & elec. The interesting thing is how the same stimuli affect different people in markedly different ways. Not every soldier suffers PTSD but a significant number do. I understand everyone has differnt physical & mental attributes (not everyone can score the winning gooal in a world Cup Final). I suppose where I'm at is, the linkage between Dopamine, Serotonin, Oxytocin, and Endorphins sufficiently understood to say x amount of SSRI will cure depression i.e. rebalance the chemical imbalance. Its certainly not everyone's experience.
    But diseases don't cease to exist if we can't cure them. Not everyone benefits from an antibiotic, or at least not to the same degree, but pneumonia is still a disease.
    “Me, poor man, my library
    Was dukedom large enough.”

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    8,484

    Default Re: Is Depression a Disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerd Muller View Post
    What about them? Some people are depressed without being traumatised? Everyone has been traumatised?
    I guess logic isn't your strong suit. If as you say Everyone has been traumatised, how can there be depressed people who haven't been traumatised?

    I'll add trolling to your list of sins.

    You know we really do have higher standards here. When we ask someone why they claimed a 17 year old book was a new book, we expect an explanation, not an ignoring of the question.

    As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    164

    Default Re: Is Depression a Disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by Count Bobulescu View Post
    I guess logic isn't your strong suit. If as you say Everyone has been traumatised, how can there be depressed people who haven't been traumatised?

    I'll add trolling to your list of sins.

    You know we really do have higher standards here. When we ask someone why they claimed a 17 year old book was a new book, we expect an explanation, not an ignoring of the question.

    I didn't state anything I asked some questions. I'm not going to quibble over a small editing error.

    From the OP

    [depression is more suited to an emotional rather than a disease perspective., in their now 13 y.o book:]...

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    8,484

    Default Re: Is Depression a Disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerd Muller View Post
    I didn't state anything I asked some questions. I'm not going to quibble over a small editing error.

    From the OP

    [depression is more suited to an emotional rather than a disease perspective., in their now 13 y.o book:]...
    You put question marks after statements..........

    You said:
    Some people are depressed without being traumatised? Everyone has been traumatised?

    https://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/qMarks.asp
    As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    The fence, the capital, the other bits and occasionally the foreign bits
    Posts
    198

    Default Re: Is Depression a Disease?

    I believe most of us suffer from depression (thankfully mild for the bulk of us) at some stage or other of their lives. I think it can be classed as a disease, and have seen first hand the actual, physical debilitation that depression can cause. It may well be a chemical imbalance, that when coupled with psychological (or psychiatric) frailty, causes the tip over the edge.

    Certain things do help - for certain sufferers - such as excercise, diet, routine and so on, but for others their may not be a "cure". I've known one or two people who hid their depression, but ultimately took their own lives, so for sure, therapy can help. But I'm not so sure that drug treatment can help long term, and I'm aware of casess that have been exacerbated by long term drug treatment and/or loss of efficacy.

    I suppose what's really at the heart of the question is what constitutes disease, rather than asking is maladay X, Y or Z a disease.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    53

    Default Re: Is Depression a Disease?

    The chemical imbalance theory is just that, a theory, that has never been proved.

    Yet it was leapt upon by pharmaceutical companies in the late 80's as a way of marketing a new class of drugs that were developed to replace the outdated monoamine inhibitors in the hope that they would be better tolerated. Not to mention the small matter of drug patent expiry which dominates r&d and the business models of the pharmaceutical industry.

    In fact, the researchers who originally came up with the theory about serotonin deficiency later rejected their own findings.

    Long term studies, with results made known over two decades ago, have shown the benefits over a placebo to have about a 2% differential in success rate.

    Also, as is often the case with pharmaceuticals, even effective ones, they don't fully understand the mechanism of action.

    https://davidhealy.org

    However, the APA who are responsible for the DSM are a) the largest single lobbyist group on Capitol Hill and b) are funded primarily by the five largest pharmaceutical companies in the US/world.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amer...ic_Association

    http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbyi...ence-campaigns

    No conflict of interest there then when drawing up diagnostic criteria and recommended treatment models based on drugs receiving FDA approval.

    That's before we get to all the scandals related to ghost writing of clinical trial results, supreme court cases and literally billions of dollars paid out in compensation for documented adverse events ranging from suicide to homicide.

    Yet they keep making them and doctors keep prescribing them. Why?

    Glad you asked.

    Firstly, from the pharmaceutical companies perspective there is no downside. No matter how much they pay out, they take in billions more.

    If you think this is some tin-foil hat conspiracy theory, read John Virapen's book Side Effects: Death. Virapen was a senior VP in Eli Lilly and responsible for bringing Prozac to market:

    https://www.amazon.com/Side-Effects-.../dp/1602645167

    The second part is much trickier and has its roots in the social causes and history of dis-ease and the desire for the medical model on the part of patients suffering from mental distress.

    Firstly, the pill solution really does work in terms of offering relief. Long term studies on the placebo effect by have shown that even when knowingly taking a placebo patients find relief. Irving Kirchner, Professor of Placebo Studies at Harvard Medical School, conducted a series of studies on the placebo effect in relation to anti depressants:

    https://www.amazon.com/Emperors-New-.../dp/0465022006

    Secondly, doctors want a simple solution that can reassure their patients. They don't want to waste valuable surgery time talking to someone about why they may be depressed. It isn't good for their business model or their patient workloads.

    Thirdly, and this is possibly the most crucial reason why so many patients and doctors are willing to believe the hokey science behind the medical model of depression, is that is has helped enormously to remove the traditional stigma for those suffering from it.

    If it is seen as an illness with a model of treatment available, it removes the traditional, but erroneous, assumption that the sufferer is somehow responsible.

    That is not to say that depression is not real and often a completely valid response by the body and mind to distress, with real physical symptoms, simply that applying the medical model at best provides temporary relief that allows people to navigate themselves out of a distressing situation.

    However, the fact that it fails to work in quite a significant percentage of cases, or that people can suffer recurring bouts or that even the models of dealing with it rely heavily on the supplementation of therapy or even offer it as an alternative should give most pause to think.

    After all, if you were offered talk therapy as an alternative to insulin or blood pressure medication or chemotherapy, or brain surgery would you be entirely confident about the outcome?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    8,484

    Default Re: Is Depression a Disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by rua eile View Post
    The chemical imbalance theory is just that, a theory, that has never been proved.

    Yet it was leapt upon by pharmaceutical companies in the late 80's as a way of marketing a new class of drugs that were developed to replace the outdated monoamine inhibitors in the hope that they would be better tolerated. Not to mention the small matter of drug patent expiry which dominates r&d and the business models of the pharmaceutical industry.

    In fact, the researchers who originally came up with the theory about serotonin deficiency later rejected their own findings.

    Long term studies, with results made known over two decades ago, have shown the benefits over a placebo to have about a 2% differential in success rate.

    Also, as is often the case with pharmaceuticals, even effective ones, they don't fully understand the mechanism of action.

    https://davidhealy.org

    However, the APA who are responsible for the DSM are a) the largest single lobbyist group on Capitol Hill and b) are funded primarily by the five largest pharmaceutical companies in the US/world.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amer...ic_Association

    http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbyi...ence-campaigns

    No conflict of interest there then when drawing up diagnostic criteria and recommended treatment models based on drugs receiving FDA approval.

    That's before we get to all the scandals related to ghost writing of clinical trial results, supreme court cases and literally billions of dollars paid out in compensation for documented adverse events ranging from suicide to homicide.

    Yet they keep making them and doctors keep prescribing them. Why?

    Glad you asked.

    Firstly, from the pharmaceutical companies perspective there is no downside. No matter how much they pay out, they take in billions more.

    If you think this is some tin-foil hat conspiracy theory, read John Virapen's book Side Effects: Death. Virapen was a senior VP in Eli Lilly and responsible for bringing Prozac to market:

    https://www.amazon.com/Side-Effects-.../dp/1602645167

    The second part is much trickier and has its roots in the social causes and history of dis-ease and the desire for the medical model on the part of patients suffering from mental distress.

    Firstly, the pill solution really does work in terms of offering relief. Long term studies on the placebo effect by have shown that even when knowingly taking a placebo patients find relief. Irving Kirchner, Professor of Placebo Studies at Harvard Medical School, conducted a series of studies on the placebo effect in relation to anti depressants:

    https://www.amazon.com/Emperors-New-.../dp/0465022006

    Secondly, doctors want a simple solution that can reassure their patients. They don't want to waste valuable surgery time talking to someone about why they may be depressed. It isn't good for their business model or their patient workloads.

    Thirdly, and this is possibly the most crucial reason why so many patients and doctors are willing to believe the hokey science behind the medical model of depression, is that is has helped enormously to remove the traditional stigma for those suffering from it.

    If it is seen as an illness with a model of treatment available, it removes the traditional, but erroneous, assumption that the sufferer is somehow responsible.

    That is not to say that depression is not real and often a completely valid response by the body and mind to distress, with real physical symptoms, simply that applying the medical model at best provides temporary relief that allows people to navigate themselves out of a distressing situation.

    However, the fact that it fails to work in quite a significant percentage of cases, or that people can suffer recurring bouts or that even the models of dealing with it rely heavily on the supplementation of therapy or even offer it as an alternative should give most pause to think.

    After all, if you were offered talk therapy as an alternative to insulin or blood pressure medication or chemotherapy, or brain surgery would you be entirely confident about the outcome?
    The APA are not even in the top fifty

    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/to...=a&indexType=s
    As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Share us
Follow Us