patrick.net

mell says

although I am always looking to broaden my knowledge if you can present any meaningful data, so far you haven't.

You are the one claiming that antidepressants are the sole cause of an increase in suicide rate between 1950 and now, that antidepressants take more lives than they save, and that suicide is tantamount to homicide. Therefore, the onus is on you to provide the evidence to support your claim.

Homeboy says

You are the one claiming that antidepressants are the sole cause of an increase in suicide rate between 1950 and now, that antidepressants take more lives than they save

I would agree with that.

That's not to say, that I don't think that there are those that are clinically depressed and anti depressants help them tremendously. Though for most of those people it often takes years of going from one to the next before they find one that in spite the short comings of the pill, makes their life easier to live.

But still how ever, anti depressants are wayyyyy over prescribed, they tried to give that shit to my wife and it made her suicidal and defeated, she just wanted to die. WHY? She wasn't depressed to begin with, she had chronic roving intense muscle pains all over her body, the Doctors couldn't make an acurate diagnosis, so they gave her Ambian and then Cembaltra. In fact Cembaltra is now a common Arthritis remedy prescribed by Doctors. I would follow the statistics of Arthritic suicide rates in this country over the next 5 years.

Homeboy says

You are the one claiming that antidepressants are the sole cause of an increase in suicide rate between 1950 and now, that antidepressants take more lives than they save, and that suicide is tantamount to homicide. Therefore, the onus is on you to provide the evidence to support your claim.

No I didn't, I came in somewhere in between your opinion and what you perceived my opinion is. I'd go with what the Captain said here. I had the same experience after being stuck with a clearly physical condition for a while that was just a bit too complex for the mainstream docs to waste their precious time with, so at the end of the consultation I always saw a bottle of Cymbalta gradually sliding towards my direction. At first I thought it was an outlier, but it was the norm with most docs. I had to research and resolve it myself and with the help of a good functional doc out of my network which I have been paying ever since. Some docs even said "oh wait, it also has pain relieving properties if you don't want to think of it as an anti-depressant" ;) Some SSRIs actually even posses immuno-modulatory / stimulating properties, so by all means keep researching.

CaptainShuddup says

But still how ever, anti depressants are wayyyyy over prescribed, they tried to give that shit to my wife and it made her suicidal and defeated, she just wanted to die. WHY? She wasn't depressed to begin with, she had chronic roving intense muscle pains all over her body, the Doctors couldn't make an acurate diagnosis, so they gave her Ambian and then Cembaltra. In fact Cembaltra is now a common Arthritis remedy prescribed by Doctors. I would follow the statistics of Arthritic suicide rates in this country over the next 5 years.

Most chronic conditions are so tough to figure out and treat that they take the easy way by numbing the patient down with SSRIs. Sometimes they also, prescribe immuno-suppressors, be on the lookout, similar issues as with SSRIs (side-effects). There is a lot of exciting new research going on in the realm of chronic conditions such as arthritis focusing more on pathogens/toxins and assuming the body has a reason to respond like it does instead of just shutting its defenses down with a sledge-hammer. Also there are natural inhibitors of chronic inflammation that are equally potent and have far less side effects such as (concentrated) Turmeric of which you can take a high daily dose without issues. Might not be a total cure, but worth a try. Good luck!

I finally cured her with Flexeril and Tylenol(the two lesser drugs one could take) two chiropractor visits and 3 deep tissue massages. all out of pocket of course. The doctors kept her in writhing pain for 4 months.
She's been pain free or has manageable shoulder twinges now for three weeks.

I think she over did it on the antioxidants and was overly stressed over her false cancer scare. We thought she would be a goner for about two months. Which that's another rant altogether.

Homeboy says

First of all, the warnings on medications are things that could POSSIBLY happen. They are things that have happened in a very tiny number of people in test cases. If bad side effects were occurring in a majority of users of the drug, it would never get approved, or it would be pulled off the market.

If you read the manufacturers' own studies, adverse side effect rates approach 50% vs placebo, while benefit is (at best and according to the manufacturers) around 10%. FDA ordered GSK to stop selling paroxetine to children, because there was no benefit. FDA further required a black box warning, their strongest warning category, regarding the risks of suicidal ideation and possible suicidality. Huge numbers of people have reported adverse effects, but there's also a huge amount of $$$ being made, so they stay on the market. As for the few who claim benefits, it's the placebo effect not the drug; eventually people get better, but they credit whatever drug they happen to be taking at that time. And, contrary to advertisers' and even doctors' assurances, the SSRIs with shorter serum half-lives (e.g. paroxetine) are known to cause physical dependence, more strongly than cocaine. So it's easy to see why Homeboy defends them. Addicts always defend their pushers and rationalize continuing their addiction.

The worst trick is Obamacare, shifting the financial cost of that addiction onto everyone else via mandatory subsidized insurance. And, now that government can make you buy products and submit to involuntary contracts with corporations that bribe the legislators, big PhRMA can gets its hooks into even more people. You don't benefit, but they make $$$ at your expense.

Homeboy calls that a "conspiracy" theory, but the deals were widely reported in plain sight.

She's already getting much better.
What REALLY had her fucked up was the Doctor telling her that she had fibromyalgia then she Googled it, and saw that most that had it, claimed there was no cure, and that she could expect to hurt like that forever.
It seems to me, it's one of those things that if you resign to hurting the rest of your life, while taking the standard prescribed treatment, then that's what you'll get.

I call it the "You're crazy lady" decease or the "it's nothing wrong with you that a good romp in the sack wont cure" but the Doctor can't tell them that. SO they make up absurd names for it.
Like "Restless Leg Syndrome", "Firbromyalgia" and "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome"

And create a revolving door of prescriptions and specialist referrals.

mell says

Most chronic conditions are so tough to figure out and treat that they take the easy way by numbing the patient down with SSRIs. Sometimes they also, prescribe immuno-suppressors, be on the lookout, similar issues as with SSRIs (side-effects). There is a lot of exciting new research going on in the realm of chronic conditions such as arthritis focusing more on pathogens/toxins and assuming the body has a reason to respond like it does instead of just shutting its defenses down with a sledge-hammer. Also there are natural inhibitors of chronic inflammation that are equally potent and have far less side effects such as (concentrated) Turmeric of which you can take a high daily dose without issues. Might not be a total cure, but worth a try. Good luck!

Are you a physician?

mell says

Homeboy says

You are the one claiming that antidepressants are the sole cause of an increase in suicide rate between 1950 and now, that antidepressants take more lives than they save, and that suicide is tantamount to homicide. Therefore, the onus is on you to provide the evidence to support your claim.

No I didn't, I came in somewhere in between your opinion and what you perceived my opinion is.

It's right up there for everyone to read, you can't waffle on it now.

You wrote: "Why don't you educate yourself and pull up the suicide rates in the US between 1950 and 2005 (or any other period) and you can't see any trend at all. I think the best claim anybody can make is that they saved as many as they have taken, which does not bode well as an argument to take any drug"

You cited an increase in suicide rates as supposed evidence that antidepressants cause suicides.

And before that, you wrote: "the word 'suicidal' (which can go hand in hand with homicidal"

So yeah, you did say that stuff.

CaptainShuddup says

That's not to say, that I don't think that there are those that are clinically depressed and anti depressants help them tremendously. Though for most of those people it often takes years of going from one to the next before they find one that in spite the short comings of the pill, makes their life easier to live.

Well, Captain, I wish there was a magic pill that instantly cures depression, but that just doesn't exist. What we have are some meds that help people manage the symptoms, and that's far more than we had 100 years ago, when we just put people into mental institutions and let them suffer. If you want to imagine that they're killing more people than they're saving, and that this is some kind of conspiracy to kill people, go ahead. You don't have any proof of that. This stuff doesn't work for everyone, but it has worked for a lot of people, and saved untold numbers of lives and saved an untold amount of suffering.

Homeboy says

What we have are some meds that help people manage the symptoms, and that's far more than we had 100 years ago, when we just put people into mental institutions and let them suffer.

You haven't listed your other symptoms or mental illnesses, but 100 years ago most people got more exercise, and very few complained of depression. It was at that time called melancholy, and was limited to the few people who could live sedentary lives and who failed to get enough exercise. The best treatment was, and still is, "an afternoon constitutional," i.e. a vigorous daily walk. Today, more than 10% of Americans are on SSRIs. There was never a time when 10% of Americans were in mental institutions.

I couldn't understand before why you became so explosive in attacking me for criticizing Obamacare; you refused to read, and instead you called me all sorts of names. Now I see, you want Obamacare so you can be sure nothing will interrupt your supply of toxic, costly, habit-forming pills, so you won't have to go through withdrawal. Being an addict, you lash out when people try to tell you the truth.

Homeboy says

This stuff doesn't work for everyone, but it has worked for a lot of people, and saved untold numbers of lives and saved an untold amount of suffering.

SSRIs don't work for anyone. People try several different pills until they get better, and along the way they get better on their own. None of the pills worked, but the pushers are paid to tell you they do, and to keep pushing them. It isn't exactly a "conspiracy to kill people," it is instead "a big [something] deal" to make a lot of money.

Homeboy says

Well, Captain, I wish there was a magic pill that instantly cures depression, but that just doesn't exist. What we have are some meds that help people manage the symptoms, and that's far more than we had 100 years ago, when we just put people into mental institutions and let them suffer. If you want to imagine that they're killing more people than they're saving, and that this is some kind of conspiracy to kill people, go ahead. You don't have any proof of that. This stuff doesn't work for everyone, but it has worked for a lot of people, and saved untold numbers of lives and saved an untold amount of suffering.

I don't doubt that, but I bet the numbers are like 50/50 for ever person it helps it makes matters ten times worse for someone else.

Doctors and Pharms should be held accountable for those it doesn't help.
Because as it is, we seem to look at like, well in the trials it helped 10 people, so if it gives you anal warts, high blood pressure, suicidal thoughts, bladder infection, and heart decease, then it's your defect not the pill. And THAT wraps up the whole mentality of the Big Pharm and Doctors that prescribe their poison with impunity. That is why the list of what a drug helps is only three word comment, but the possible side effects are 20 paragraphs. And if you experience any, then it's your defect not the medicine.

What in the hell is wrong with you defending this Shit?

CaptainShuddup says

I don't doubt that, but I bet the numbers are like 50/50 for ever person it helps it makes matters ten times worse for someone else.

That is a completely made-up statistic. It's nowhere close to 50-50, and you don't have the slightest bit of evidence suggesting that it is. And it's simply absurd. If studies had shown that 1 of every 2 people had symptoms "10 times worse" than they did before taking the drug, it would NEVER have been approved. You know perfectly well you're spreading a bald-faced lie.

Do doctors mis-diagnose sometimes? Sure they do. I was diagnosed with asthma because of a lingering cough where they couldn't figure out the cause. I was given an inhaler. It did nothing for me; maybe made me cough a bit more if anything. Now, did I flip out and start ranting about asthma inhalers being poison and that nobody should ever be allowed to use an asthma inhaler? No, because I'm not an idiot.

You admit that SSRIs help people, yet you are siding with the people who say nobody should ever be allowed to take them. So I'll use the same example again: Penicillin "makes things worse" for some people. Should we stop allowing ANYONE to use it?

Homeboy, compare the safety and efficacy studies of penicillin vs SSRIs. If you actually read the numbers, you will find that SSRIs have near zero efficacy compared to placebo: for every 10 people who "got better" on the drug, 9 got better on the placebo. And for every 10 people who took the drug, 5 experienced adverse side effects. These numbers are from the manufacturers' paid studies, the SSRIs are 4x more likely to harm you than to help you. Independent studies find the numbers are even worse. I would post links, but when I did that for you in the past you refused to read and instead you insulted me, which is behavior typical of an addict.

Homeboy says

mell says

Most chronic conditions are so tough to figure out and treat that they take the easy way by numbing the patient down with SSRIs. Sometimes they also, prescribe immuno-suppressors, be on the lookout, similar issues as with SSRIs (side-effects). There is a lot of exciting new research going on in the realm of chronic conditions such as arthritis focusing more on pathogens/toxins and assuming the body has a reason to respond like it does instead of just shutting its defenses down with a sledge-hammer. Also there are natural inhibitors of chronic inflammation that are equally potent and have far less side effects such as (concentrated) Turmeric of which you can take a high daily dose without issues. Might not be a total cure, but worth a try. Good luck!

Are you a physician?

No, but I studied a fair amount of medicine as part of my degree and - more important - continued to keep up with latest research which takes quite a bit of time. And that is the problem with todays physicians, their knowledge is around 20 years old and there is no requirement whatsoever for them to freshen up. It is sad but these days researches (microbiologists, chemists, electro-physiologists etc.) know more about relevant latest data than your standard MD/GP. There are highly trained specialists which are really good and also highly skilled surgeons, but chances are you never meet them unless you would die otherwise and you are lucky enough to get properly diagnosed by your GP. For all the chronic stuff that eventually may lead to a severe enough condition where you will be seen/treated by one of the specialists you are left on your own, often ridiculed and quickly dismissed with anti-depressants in your pocket during the 15 minute (!) consultations.

https://www.medify.com/insights/article/7775364/a-double-blind-multicenter-trial-comparing-sertraline-and-fluoxetine-in-outpatients-with-major-depression

“ CONCLUSION: Sertraline and fluoxetine were equally effective and well tolerated in patients with major depression and associated anxiety. ”

https://www.medify.com/insights/article/15600379/long-term-management-of-major-depressive-disorder-are-differences-among-antidepressant-treatments-meaningful

“ Thus, there is increasing evidence that venlafaxine and SSRIs are effective and well tolerated in long-term therapy. ”

https://www.medify.com/insights/article/19953347/sertraline-treatment-is-associated-with-an-improvement-in-depression-and-health-related-quality-of-life-in-chronic-peritoneal-dialysis-patients

“ Sertraline treatment improved BDI score of patients with depression”

https://www.medify.com/insights/article/9201668/fluoxetine-vs-tricyclic-antidepressants-in-women-with-major-depressive-disorder

“ This study demonstrates that fluoxetine is an effective and tolerable agent for the treatment of major depressive disorder in women. ”

https://www.medify.com/insights/article/11138997/efficacy-and-safety-of-fluoxetine-in-the-treatment-of-patients-with-major-depression-after-first-myocardial-infarction-findings-from-a-double-blind-placebo-controlled-trial

“ In addition, fluoxetine seemed to be particularly effective in patients with mild depression and was associated with a statistically significant reduction in hostility. ”

https://www.medify.com/insights/article/14687320/efficacy-safety-and-tolerability-of-sertraline-in-patients-with-late-life-depression-and-comorbid-medical-illness

“ CONCLUSION: Sertraline was efficacious in reducing depressive symptomatology, regardless of the presence of comorbid medical illness. ”

https://www.medify.com/insights/article/11436952/sertraline-effects-in-adolescent-major-depression-and-dysthymia-a-six-month-open-trial

Generally, sertraline was safe and well tolerated. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity and resolved with no action taken.

Homeboy says

If studies had shown that 1 of every 2 people had symptoms "10 times worse" than they did before taking the drug, it would NEVER have been approved. You know perfectly well you're spreading a bald-faced lie.

http://www.sparkpeople.com/myspark/team_messageboard_thread.asp?board=971x6162x16694070

Here's a good 10 hour read.

Homeboy, look at the actual numbers. When they say "effective," they are referring to 10% of test subjects compared to placebo. If you go with their advertising conclusions, while ignoring the actual numbers, you're kidding yourself with advertising not science.

mell says

No, but I studied a fair amount of medicine as part of my degree and - more important - continued to keep up with latest research which takes quite a bit of time. And that is the problem with todays physicians, their knowledge is around 20 years old and there is no requirement whatsoever for them to freshen up. It is sad but these days researches (microbiologists, chemists, electro-physiologists etc.) know more about relevant latest data than your standard MD/GP. There are highly trained specialists which are really good and also highly skilled surgeons, but chances are you never meet them unless you would die otherwise and you are lucky enough to get properly diagnosed by your GP. For all the chronic stuff that eventually may lead to a severe enough condition where you will be seen/treated by one of the specialists you are left on your own, often ridiculed and quickly dismissed with anti-depressants in your pocket during the 15 minute (!) consultations.

Here's the problem - too many armchair physicians. You read a couple of fringe websites and you imagine yourself to know more than doctors who went to med school and had the extensive training that doctors get in this country. I call bullshit. You've already shown that you have some pretty ridiculous non-scientific ideas. Anyone who thinks that a rise in suicide rate between 1950 and now is proof that SSRIs kill as many people than they save, is just not thinking rationally. You don't seem to even grasp the difference between correlation and causation, yet you believe you know more than all the experts in the medical field. I just don't buy it. Sorry.

mell says

todays physicians, their knowledge is around 20 years old and there is no requirement whatsoever for them to freshen up.

Many are required to endure "Continuing Medical Education," basically PhRMA infomercials, which tend to be worse than useless. PhRMA is forever touting the "new & improved" (patented) drugs, until the patent expires, then you see new studies showing how the "new new super-improved" pill is much better and the old one was lousy. It gives rise to the practitioners' adage, "Always prescribe a new drug in its first two years on the market, while it still works."

CaptainShuddup says

Homeboy says

If studies had shown that 1 of every 2 people had symptoms "10 times worse" than they did before taking the drug, it would NEVER have been approved. You know perfectly well you're spreading a bald-faced lie.

http://www.sparkpeople.com/myspark/team_messageboard_thread.asp?board=971x6162x16694070

Here's a good 10 hour read.

And again, the same problem - too many armchair physicians. You don't even seem to understand the difference between a double-blind study and an internet message board. Plus, we weren't even TALKING about Ambien!

Well at least nobody has ever swallowed a muzzle flash from Pot.

Homeboy says

You don't even seem to understand the difference between a double-blind study and an internet message board.

We do understand that difference.

You don't seem to understand the difference between manufacturers' paid verbiage and actual data. Read the actual numbers, which show only 10% efficacy compared to placebo, with a side effect rate near 50%. If you ignore the numbers and read only the sponsors' paid spin, you're deluding yourself by reading only what you want to hear.

And, regarding Internet message boards, they were the first to report that SSRIs cause physical dependence. Manufacturers had denied that specifically, including in DTC advertising on TV and "education" delivered to physicians. The dependence you're experiencing, which your physician was told to tell you would never happen, is now very widely reported and well documented. Read about SSRI withdrawal syndrome.

Lastly, always check the duration of "studies". Most last only a few months. The study length can be adjusted to report favorable results, like tossing a coin many times until you get a count that makes it look like more heads than tails. If they end early, they issue a press release along the lines of, "the results were so encouraging we had to tell everyone immediately." If the results say the drug is useless, they extend the study or throw $ to a poor doctor in a "rescue country" to re-do it. And after-effects, like SSRI withdrawal syndrome or Vioxx strokes, are excluded because the study "ends" when people stop taking the pills, so the after-effects don't show up at all.

CaptainShuddup says

Well at least nobody has ever swallowed a muzzle flash from Pot.

The problem with marijuana is that a lot of people self medicate with it, and it has a tendency to make depression worse rather than better. Same for alcohol. SSRIs have been shown to be non habit forming.

Great comments on this thread!

Yes, it is amusing how big pharma keeps re branding it's SSRI's, coming out with new names for them to alleviate the stigma. My current final opinion on western medicine is that sickness=profit.

Mother Jones covered this one issue back.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/sugar-industry-lies-campaign

errc says

If you really wanted to gauge effectiveness of these worthless and dangerous drugs, rather than compare them to a placebo, they should be judged relative to an elimination diet.

You really are what you eat, and the majority of these conditions that are "treated" with drugs would likely be cured by eliminating whatever it is that is causing them in the patients diet. That and realizing a healthy macronutrient profille, or at least sumplementing the vitamins. And minerals that you are lacking in.

Fuck all to those physicians, go see a nutritionist that knows what they are doing, or educate yourself with the wealth of information that is at our collective disposal. Of course, forgetting that which you think you know, shedding your assumptions, and replacing your misingormation with good info, is easier said than done

Oh, Jesus Christ - not the "vitamin" thing. What a fucking load of crap.

http://www.rd.com/health/wellness/5-vitamin-truths-and-lies/

No, don't go see a "nutritionist" instead of getting real treatment from a doctor.

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09350.html

"Ten Red Flags for Consumers

Recommendations that promise a quick fix.
Dire warnings of danger from a single product or regimen.
Claims that sound too good to be true.
Simplistic conclusions drawn from a complex study.
Recommendations based on a single study.
Dramatic statements that are refuted by reputable scientific organizations.
Lists of "good" and "bad" foods.
Recommendations made to help sell a product.
Recommendations based on studies published without peer review.
Recommendations from studies that ignore differences among individuals or groups."

Sound familiar?

"It has been reported that in 2007, Americans spent $39.5 billion on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) services in search of short cuts or simple solutions to better health. Health fraud can be defined as misinformation about health, ranging from a self-proclaimed medical expert who has discovered a miracle cure, to a food supplement or drug that is promoted with unproven health claims.

A person who pretends to be able to cure a disease or health problem is defined as a quack. Problems that help promote quackery include:

Lack of laws to prevent someone from selling anything as long as it is called a dietary supplement.
Almost anyone can call himself or herself a nutritionist. Thousands of people who call themselves nutritionists have dubious credentials from nonaccredited schools.
Research scientists who go public with their findings before their study has been published in a peer reviewed journal or duplicated, thus causing Consumer confusion about what to believe.

A product may state that you can eat all you want and still lose weight, or that it can help overcome the aging process, arthritis and even cancer. These products usually do nothing to improve health and often are expensive. Even worse, they can be harmful or delay necessary medical treatment."

"Targets of Questionable Treatments

Alternative treatments are designed to appeal to anyone, but certain conditions and populations are more likely to be targeted:

The unsuspecting who are unable to question things critically. To them, all health claims seem to make sense.
The naive who are looking for a magic cure. They believe that printed or spoken claims must be true.
The desperate who have incurable or potentially fatal diseases and are hoping for a cure that medical science has not yet been able to provide.
The alienated who feel animosity toward medicine or the scientific community."

Does that sound like anyone here on this forum?

Homeboy says

SSRIs have been shown to be non habit forming.

LOL - evidently denial isn't just a river in Egypt. They were advertised as not habit forming, but they've been banned from making that claim in Europe and sued for it here because they do cause physical dependence including withdrawal symptoms:

[SSRI] maker abandons 'no addiction' claim

Withdrawal reactions to selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors appear to be similar to those for benzodiazepines...

"GSK paid an average of about $50,000 per case to resolve approximately 3,200 claims linking [SSRI] Paxil to addiction problems. Plaintiffs claimed that they were not sufficiently warned about the drug’s withdrawal problems and that GSK had specifically advertised the drug as non-habit forming."

And the drug has caused suicidality (leading the FDA to require a black box warning) and homicide:

"The family of David Snell won a $6.4m payout from manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) after Mr Snell was found to have murdered three members of his family, and himself, after taking [paroxetine] for just two days.

Two weeks earlier, in Australia, a judge ruled Sertraline, a drug in the same family, had caused David Hawkins to murder his wife and attempt to kill himself."

It's a high price to pay for drugs that don't even work.

Homeboy says

The problem with marijuana is that a lot of people self medicate with it, and it has a tendency to make depression worse rather than better.

That's because they aren't taking it with Spongebob square pants, and fudgestripe cookies.

CaptainShuddup says

That's because they aren't taking it with Spongebob square pants, and fudgestripe cookies.

Yeah, that should be required.

I would agree that people that are depressed should not smoke pot, if they have never smoked it or not used to smoking it. As for pot heads that self medicate, what difference does it make if it gets the job done for them?

I went through a bout of Dissociation, and at the time, pot only agitated me after smoking. Either that or I was smoking mean green.
That lasted about three months, before I started feeling normal again.

But seriously I'd take depression over Dissociation any day. Nothing gives you pleasure and you want to be left alone, but even that was unbearable as I couldn't stand being my own skin. I never felt suicidal, but it was a bad state to be in. I'd take ten "young love" heart breaks all at once over that.

There are different ways to deal with PTSD, but pills make it worse and talk therapy with a paid licensed person isn't better than spending the same amount of time talking with someone who isn't paid or licensed. Physical exercise is probably the single best thing, but that isn't always apparent in a world where the media and government are always trying to sell you something on behalf of their commercial sponsors.

A common pattern is, young guys running hard in a stressful environment get accustomed to eating and burning two or three times more calories than a normal person would, then come home and keep consuming the same number of calories due to habit. Their metabolisms slow down because they aren't using as much energy and because they're getting older. They aren't getting as much exercise anymore, so muscle turns to fat, so they start getting other medical problems and they don't always get the same - ahem - personal attention that they did at their peak. Often they start drinking, which makes them more depressed. Anxiety and depression are closely linked, so instead of recovering from their stress they add a new layer of anxiety to it.

If you look at the guys who do well, they tend to have solid pre-existing networks of families and friends, they continue to push themselves mentally and physically, and they don't get fat. If you look at the guys who do badly, they tend to come from addictive families, they spend too much time sitting and drinking, and they slide down a spiral.

Despite the claims from various lobbies that try to make you buy what they're selling, they don't really have solutions for sale. Their business model requires turning problems into revenue centers, and that tends to mean finding credible (usually also credulous) salesmen to push products and services that continue the problem instead of solving it.

CaptainShuddup says

what difference does it make if it gets the job done for them?

I don't think it gets the job done. There isn't any good evidence that marijuana use cures depression. There are other treatments that are more effective.

Homeboy says

There isn't any good evidence that marijuana use cures depression. There are other treatments that are more effective.

There isn't good evidence for SSRIs either, but that doesn't stop you from insisting everybody pay for them. Physical exercise is proven to be effective, and it costs nothing.

Homeboy says

There isn't any good evidence that marijuana use cures depression.

Nothing cures depression but time, if it's just a case of the blues, if it's more a chronic brain damage. Then not even Pills "Cure" depression.
I work with a guy that is in his 50's, he says he's been depressed since he was 21. He sits at his desk with blue LED lights shining on his face. He says that actually helps. It looks like a bunch of hooey to me, but he swears by it.

CaptainShuddup says

Nothing cures depression but time, if it's just a case of the blues, if it's more a chronic brain damage. Then not even Pills "Cure" depression.

I work with a guy that is in his 50's, he says he's been depressed since he was 21. He sits at his desk with blue LED lights shining on his face. He says that actually helps. It looks like a bunch of hooey to me, but he swears by it.

If it works, that's great. It's just that the evidence shows marijuana doesn't work that well as a treatment for depression. It's supposedly really good for nausea and glaucoma, but for depression, not so much.

Why are you so hell bent on depressed people smoking weed when there are other treatments that actually show results? Seems like a narrow view to me. Insisting that marijuana is the only good treatment isn't being any more open minded than others insisting pills are the only good treatment. I think that's the main problem with the "alternative" crowd. You just assume anything that you perceive as "alternative" is automatically good, and anything that's "mainstream" is automatically bad. That's actually a much more rigid outlook than the medical profession which you decry.

Smoking weed doesn't cure anything.
How ever Vaporizing it at controlled temperatures, is therapeutic for multiple ailments. Depending on the ailment. At different temps it produces different compounds. at 356 it starts producing antidepressant properties.
Smoking a joint or bong hits, you never get past THC.

Cannabis is made of more than 65 different psychoactive chemical compound.

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) : boiling point -> 157C (315F) flash point -> not sure
Properties: Euphoriant, Analgesic, Antiinflammatory, Antioxidant, Antiemetic

Cannabidiol (CBD) : boiling point -> 180C(356F) flash point -> 207C(405F)
Properties: Anxiolytic, Analgesic, Antipsychotic, Antiinflammatory, Antioxidant, Antispasmodic

Cannabinol (CBN) : boiling point -> 185C(365F) flash point -> 212C(414F)
Properties: Oxidation, breakdown, product, Sedative, Antibiotic

Cannabichromene (CBC) : boiling point -> 220C(428F) flash point -> not sure
Properties: Antiinflammatory, Antibiotic, Antifungal

Cannabigerol (CBG) : boiling point ->not sure flash point -> not sure
Properties: Antiinflammatory, Antibiotic, Antifungal

Tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) : boiling point -> 220C(428F) flashpoint -> not sure
Properties: Analgesic. Anti-inflammatory, Antibiotic, Antimutagenic

Pulegone : boiling point -> 224C(436) flash point -> not sure
Properties: Memory booster, AChE inhibitor, Sedative, Antipyretic

Here is a good pdf about other stuff that is not here, a good read.

http://www.cannabis-med.org/data/pdf/2001-03-04-7.pdf

CaptainShuddup says

Nothing cures depression but time, if it's just a case of the blues, if it's more a chronic brain damage. Then not even Pills "Cure" depression.

Except maybe pot?

CaptainShuddup says

at 356 it starts producing antidepressant properties.

CaptainShuddup says

Smoking weed doesn't cure anything.

How ever Vaporizing it at controlled temperatures, is therapeutic for multiple ailments. Depending on the ailment. At different temps it produces different compounds. at 356 it starts producing antidepressant properties.

Smoking a joint or bong hits, you never get past THC.

What's your point?