f13.net

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44147493/ns/health-addictions/#.Tkl_J4JIkec

Addiction now defined as brain disorder, not behavior issue.

Oh goody.

I agree with the article. Why is this not in politics ?  :awesome_for_real:

I could have sworn it already was.  :headscratch:

Its a money grab.

Annnnd we're off!  :awesome_for_real:

That depends. If countries with sane healthcare systems pick up on this then no, it's progress through improved scientific understanding.

I didnt bother reading the article, but since it's now a disorder and not a behavior issue, why come put people in jail for it?

5......4.........3.......2.........1..............

Because the only way to save society from them is to hide them away.  Just like lunatics, the poor and the homosexual.

Duh.

I like to post in things before they get moved to Politics.

So. Yeah.  :grin:

People don't get put in jail for being addicted, they get put them in jail for being caught with an illegal substance.  Not sure what could be remotely confusing about it.  

Off to politics we go.

So I'm gonna go to jail for all that plutonium in my trunk?

If you followed the state of the art in addiction research you wouldn't be surprised.

There is a huge correlation between addiction and attempted self-therapy. Addiction often is a coping strategy for other underlying disorders or diseases.

This is nothing new. It is common knowledge that some addicts turn to illegal substances, alcohol or other addcitive behaviours to treat depression or other disorders.

There is also a huge correlation between addiction and AD(H)D (30 - 40 % depending on the study), not because of the attention deficit but because of the low dopamine or norepinephrine levels that cause AD(H)D. There is huge correlation between addiction and bipolar disorder (which is also a neurological condition and not a behavioral issue) or other brain disorders.

Most EU drug treatment programmes now test for neurological issues like bipolar disorder, AD(H)D or atypical depression before they decide on a treatment.

This is because if the addiction is not a behavioral issue but a neurological one treating the underlying issue is a much more succesful way to treat the addiction than self-help programmes or psychotherapy.

Until today though you are very limited in the way you are allowed to treat addicts because most antidepressants, neuroleptica or other medication is off limits for addicts even if it might help treat their underlying condition.

The more I learn about neurology and psychology (to understand my own disorder better) the more I realize that a lot off stuff that is considered to be accepted knowledge today is stuff from 60 or 80 years ago.

Classifying addiction as a behaviroral disorder and not realizing that there might be underlying neurological issues is one of them.

The EU addiction treatment program with the highest success rate is the one that screens its patients for underlying neurological conditions and treats them.

Very true, but I added the bit in bold.  Reminds me of a phrase I heard during my counseling training:

"Depression existed before they came up with a label for it around 1960.  It was called 'alcoholism.'"

This makes me very sad about my MSW program. Addiction was framed entirely in the simplistic terms of the 12 step programs.

And now it will soon come with a magic pill.  :oh_i_see:

Look I wasn't trying to deny that there are behavioral or situational causes for addiction (the life situation thing you bolded). I was just pointing out that addiction therapy and counceling so far mainly focused on occupational, situational and behavioral factors and flat out ignored the fraction of cases where addiction was the result of self-therapy to treat underlying neurologiocal disorders.

The DSM even acknowledges the distinction between neurological and situational causes of e.g. depression. The therapy programmes to treat obsessive behavior or addictions don't though.

So, my smoking is REALLY about some repressed issue I have. Not the highly addictive chemicals.

Got it.

Now you're touching on the real issue. An issue nobody has a clean cut and simply answer to. The nature of addiction.

Queue the discussion of physical addiction vs. psychological addiction!

I'm not sure why this is shocking.  Addiction is almost 100% related to responses elicited by a receptor-ligand interaction somewhere in the body, e.g. opiates or barbiturates.  Sure, alcohol isn't as well understood and appears to act as a membrane destabilizer, but the effect is essentially the same in the end-  it leads to a specific effect in the body which alters the milieu, thus creating compensations within the body.  Even compulsions like gambling or risk taking are essentially substance addiction, it's just that the substance is produced within the body.  Any of the coping mechanisms that we have as humans have a biochemical basis somewhere down the line.

Does this mean that we should abandon all forms of psychologically based treatments?  No, but for the most highly addicted those forms of treatment are not often effective, predominantly because those folks have a different physiology that is hindering them from getting better.  

This.

Addiction is a biochemical process with reinforcing psychological/habitual stimuli.  Treatment requires both the adjustment of neurotransmitters as well as counseling. 

Nah, you see that's not what this is about.

How addiction works is somewhat understood. See Nebu's or ghost's post. Why people get addicted, why some people get addicted and others don't and why some substances even elicit a response in the brain that's where it get's tricky.

Also it's never a vs. Every addiction has a physical and a psychological component. Even someone who is addicted to a certain behavior (like work, sex etc.) is because he/she wants to elicit the physical response the activity usually brings.

It doesn't explain though why not everybody on earth is an addict. Why can the majority of people deal with work, sex, alcohol, sports, driving, the lot but some can't.

The most popular explanation is that addicts have psychological issues or live in depressing situations and addiction is a coping mechanism for that. "The addicts are weak-minded" behavioral explanation.

You pointed out instances where people were "self treating" for problems like depression, etc.  That is still a biochemical interaction, but may blur the lines on what is addiction and what is not.  It is very, very common for folks with PTSD to be alcoholics.  Why?  Because they can't fucking sleep without going bonkers and this is their method of dealing with it.  Are they still alcoholics?  Sure.  They have the same problems quitting as anyone else.  Everything can be explained by biochemical interactions.  Some of those interactions we don't fully understand yet, but behavior, while complex, is based on chemical interactions within the body.  Hell, we may get to the point where "free will" is disproven. 

I wasn't trying to disagree with you here or put down what you said - I was just expounding on the fact that people self-medicate for all sorts of reasons (yes, even me), which can lead to addiction depending on a variety of factors that you and lots of others have already hit on.

I'm not debating this just for kicks. I have my own experiences. I've never been a full blown addict but I know what a formidable and outright devious enemy your own brain can be.

The amount of sheer willpower and concentration necessary to not give in to certain things was so high that I was even burned out and physically exhausted at one point. This is no issue of mere discipline. The fight against my own brain left me emotionally and physically completely exhausted.

This is why I simply cannot subscribe to the behavioral explanation - at least completely. The compulsion to act in a certain way is as strong as it must be for a person suffering from OCD. As soon as my neurological and chemical imbalances were treated all of my debilitating and bad behaviors simply vanished.

I didn't become obessive because I was depressed, I became depressed because I was obsessive and ran out of options to control it. If a simple treatment option can make all of these issues simply vanish and not over a few months but instantly. By using a certain mechanism that cures a certain chemical imbalance in my brain then the issue cannot simply be behavioral. Which is sad if everything anybody ever tried attacked my behavior or a subset of my symptoms.

Quite frankly in my own studies I've never found anybody that can explain what is cause and what is effect in this interaction.

What came first the erratic behavior or the depression? Addiction or something that led to it? It is only now that people actually try to find an answer to those questions because the assumption about what is cause and what is effect has been out there for so long.

Well, in your case you got rid of obsessive behavior and it cured your depression (if I'm hearing you correctly).  This is very clearly a biochemical interaction.  I may be misunderstanding you, but it appears if you are suggesting that there is some nebulous psychological reason behind addiction/behavior or what have you, and then you are providing evidence that would suggest otherwise. 

I'm not debating you at all.

The point I'm failing to make is that I don't believe the "addiction is a psychological issue" explanation at least not completely. Alas it is the accepted explanation for most medical and psychological professionals.

The OP also seems to believe in that explanation because he seems to be outraged that doctors are now trying to "fix" a psychological issue with pills and not with "dealing" with the underlying psychological issue.

It's basically the first argument people bring to the table to argue against antidepressants or AD(H)D medication or a number of other psychopharmaka. Why are you prescribing pills instead of really helping those people? Pills are a cop out for people that don't want to face their real issue. It's an invented disease so that big pharma can make a profit.

State of the art in medical research contradicts that, though.

Well, you're right and so am I... kinda.  They pretty much get put in jail for being addicted.  All a state needs to put your ass in jail for imbibing ANYTHING illegal is the fact that it's still flowing through your veins.  i.e.  intoxication is the same thing as possession.  MaryJ is becoming a special case finally, where you only get nabbed if you have it on you and not if you're high - as long as you're not underage, disorderly, driving, etc.  But if you're acting foolish enough whilst on something like Meth (which is now a DISORDER and not a BEHAVIOR) they can easily throw you in jail if they want.

So basically you get a court date (instead of a clinic, psych. eval, etc.) for being physiologically addicted (note: now not simply behaving badly) to something and having it flow through your veins.   :oh_i_see:    And we taxpayers get to pay for it...  the cops' time on the beat, the processing, most of the legal fees, your meals while incarcerated, your bond if you jump, etc.

This is why they need to separate stuff like this from y'know, actually doing something wrong.  I'd rather spend my tax monies on a specialized section of a jail or a clinic that people will get sent to rather than having them shuffled through the criminal system.

Reply to JeffK-  Very much so.  Psychology is extremely limited in efficacy for many disorders.  It can help a lot with milder problems, but when you get to the extremes there is usually an imbalance that needs to be addressed biochemically as you've stated.  I think that a lot of people that tend to pontificate on medical issues just don't have the background/education to understand how much there is out there that there was no explanation for in the past.  Also, a lot of research done in the mid to late 1900's was not to current standards.  The picture we have now is so much better than even 10 years ago.  What I think is going to be really cool is when they get all the alternative splicing and RNA stuff lined out.  

1. People with a biochemical imbalance, particularly one that involves a neurotransmitter, didn't choose for that to be the case.  

2. The imbalance further complicates matters as those with them are often difficult to treat (pharmacologically and psychologically) due to compliance problems.  

3. Many common psychological issues are over diagnosed (depression, anxiety, ADD, etc) primarily because we live in a service based health care economy.  When people go to the doctor, they get pissed off if they don't leave with a prescription or a bottle of pills.  

We should probably just give those folks penicillin.  That's what MDs did for years with any sniffle that came in the door, and it's basically useless now as it is.   :awesome_for_real:

Did you read the article? They are claiming its now not a behavior associated with an underlying medical condition. It is a prime chronic condition in and of itself.


So hey you arent an addict because you used heroine, a chemically addictive substance, to get high and escape your shitty life. You have a addictive behavioral disorder!
Cheated on your wife 10 times? Really like sex with strange women? You have a addictive behavioral disorder!

What a bunch of bollocks.

I'm addicted to sports.

To cure that you have to drink a lot of beer.   :grin:

It's a hormone disorder, easily treated with daily estrogen injections.   :why_so_serious:

So how about that cocaine man?  :why_so_serious:

Speak for yourself.

It's sad that every discussion about a real world issue now gets dragged down and ridiculed and turned into a rehashing of personal prejudices on this site. Usually by the same few people.

Why do you even participate when you just want to crap on the thread anyway?

I could dig up peer reviewed studies that show the limited effectiveness of psychotherapy alone or the positive results of recent studies into the effectiveness of alternative addiction treatment programs. Point out the paradigm shift in psychology and psychiatry in the approach to treat certain disorders. Or I could watch sand and others patting themselves on the back while they fuck up yet another thread.

With the same old people shitting up yet another thread why bother to discuss things at all.

So for everybody who wanted to keep a discussion going thank you for trying and to the rest: go fuck yourself.

Peace and out.

I am speaking for myself.  Do you have any idea how many people are prescribed SSRI's, pain meds, or ADD meds simply to placate to their complaints? Look up a few of these drugs and see what they're used for.  

Top Prescriptions for 2005 by Number of US Prescriptions Dispensed

    Paxil
    Lexapro
    Hydrocodone
    Xanax
    Tramadol
    Vicodin
    Lyrica
    Oxycodone
    Lisinopril
    Cymbalta
    Lipitor
    Percocet
    Zoloft
    Metformin
    Effexor
    Ambien
    Prednisone
    Atenolol
    Wellbutrin
    Morphine

Just ignore the blathering.  You had good points. 

Jeff man... slow down. I am just popping bullet points. You are teasing out your own conclusions and making a huge argument on my behalf that I might take credit for since I don't think I could come up with that eloquent of a debate based on a few offhanded comments.

Sadly, in the U.S., it is in fact all about pushing out the drugs haphazardly tested and scantily supported. It's only after the drug has been on the market and made a ton of $$ that some researchers comes out with a finding that <drug x> either does nothing or will kill you. Add in the advertising pharama has done in the last decade has convinced the population here that they have something wrong with them and need to "talk to their doctor about the benefits of taking <drug x> here" based on some universal symptom list that everyone experiences. This almost always leads to the situation Nebu brings up - people don't talk to their doctor's here about a drug, they convince their doctors that is the drug they need and will seek out a doctor who agrees with them if the first ones don't.

Mix in the fact that since the U.S. has such a hostile attitude toward all drug addiction as a means of personal failure, switching the definition to a physical ailment now means people will seek out a 'cure.' Nope, not my fault, my brain is sick. That will, at least here in the States, inevitably come in capsule format and cost a tremendous amount till the patent on the formula runs out.

I am by no means arguing there is not a physiological component to addiction nor am I saying that psychological component is on the same level as praying it away. Some of my graduate work was on this very thing... but I studied the social aspects of it which is smoke and mirrors research around these parts, so I'll refrain from being nailed to that cross with my own nails.

In a more altruistic society, I am sure this news would be put in its proper place, but in this screwball society of the good old US of A, we'll twist as much profit out of anything we can get.

I'm not sure I agree with this. It could be overdiagnosis, but it could also just be that our understanding of the underlying causes of these issues has progressed to the point where we can recognize them as medical problems more easily.

And I could point out studies that the number one disability for children in the United States is now mental disease and they are pushing ANTI-PSYCHOTIC drugs on these kids in order to turn them into zombies because its to difficult for overworked parents to actually parent so they would rather give their kid a pill.

And maybe you could understand that not everyone is going to agree with you on every point. But disagreement isnt "shitting up a thread" you sanctimonious prick, its simply a divergence of opinions.

I actually love most of your posts, but in this one your simply being a douche. Get a grip.





Well said.

Discounting the last 20 years of scientific research in favor of "PILLS BAD BE BETTER PARENTS" is pretty much textbook thread-shitting.

And yet this begs the question of normality. When normal becomes diagnosable, then what?

If you have enough credentials and enough alphabet soup behind your name, you can change definitions if you crusade hard enough - and those can become extremely salient even in light of counter evidence... even a whole lot of counter evidence. So then what?

The point where you draw the line would be 'is this person's life actually improved by the treatement' I would think. And yes, that's a tricky if not impossible thing to pin down.

I'm also addicted to the internet.

All drugs have a downside.  ALL of them.  The question that I tend to ask myself is: will taking the drug provide benefits that outweigh the long term consequences.  Messing with neurotransmitter levels isn't something I consider lightly.  I wish more physicians would take it more seriously as well, hence my comment about service-based healthcare (aka $$$).

Discounting current research which shows that the usage of anti-psychotics on children is a huge new growth industry for pharma companies and doctors and that mental disorder is the number one current disability in children nationwide is what exactly then?

Maybe mental problems really are the #1 problem with kids in America, shocking as that may sound (not very shocking IMO). We've eliminated or greatly reduced the occurence of quite a lot of other childhood diseases and simultaneously gotten much better at understanding and diagnosing mental problems. What exactly would you expect the outcome to be?

That reminds me of an episode of "Deadly Sins" on the History channel.  They covered "sloth" and determined it was really a description of depression.  I'm sure there were plenty of ways to provide self-therapy for that even back when the deadly sins were put to paper.  The one that got the church involved was suicide (the unforgivable sin.)  That got sloth put at the top of the list real quick.

I found that episode particular interesting considering I battle depression from time to time and still haven't figured out what causes it, triggers it, or makes it go away.  Of course, the religious aspect of it was that it is caused by demons and must be exercised.  More self-help!

For me, alcohol is the direct opposite of self-help.  I typically just stop doing anything.  Anything at all.  Sleep.  Lots of that.  Sloth.  Indulgence in sloth.

I think I'll bring this up with my doctor at my next visit...

 :oh_i_see:

Because the research shows that the occurrence of diagnoses and the resulting prescriptions goes up in direct correlation to the FDA allowing pharma companies to use drugs in previously untapped market segments.
Where as if it really was an increase in diagnoses based on increased medical diagnostics or rates within the population then the diagnosis would have been their from the beginning, whether or not, a drug existed to treat them.

The drugs came first, then the diagnoses. See the difference?

This is not really the way it works most of the time.

I'm guessing the only stats we have for 'was something diagnosed' is 'was something prescribed to treat it' anyway, which of course would correlate. Not that I've seen anything actually cited here so far.

This thread is going places. That place will be the Den soon I suspect.

Patient confidentiality and survey bias would prevent anything more accurate than what you describe.  This is complicated by the fact that many drugs are used to treat a variety of psychological conditions.  Add to this that compliance is a big problem as well.  Even if a prescription is given, more than half of the people will either a) not take the medication at all or b) take the medication incorrectly (see: the rule of thirds in medicine).

I posted this article a few weeks ago, pretty scary stuff. Thread was locked for some unknown reason, given the discussion in the thread was fairly benign.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/20117313948379987.html


Two of the most relevant statements from the article:






What would your opinion be on these studies?

Two points to note with this:

1) By the time a child sees a psychiatrist, they have already been seen by a pediatrician.  If they were referred, then it's already likely that the pediatrician already had some sort of diagnosis in mind.

2) Many neuroleptics are given with a "try it and see" attitude.  Titration is the best tool we have for treating mental illness and efficacy varies greatly from patient to patient in both drug type and drug dose. 

See my edits above directed to you about recent studies. And add this one:

I'm not sure what your point is.  I've read all of that stuff and far more.  I used to teach these drugs to MD and PharmD students. 

Yes, big pharma has a vested interest in selling drugs.  I've already mentioned the pressure to overprescribe above.  I'm not sure what you're after here...

Took a while but I found the original article from the NYT that Al Jazeera cited MoJo citing: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/06/health/06psych.html

And it still isn't the actual study, which I unfortunately couldn't track down at the actual journal site. (The chain of articles citing other articles was almost Kotaku-like...)

EDIT: One thing all this discussion has me wondering, in a general sense, is how much objection to the idea of mental illness having physical causes, and psychatric medication in general is rooted in people not wanting to believe that so much of their personalities is ultimately just the result of chemical interaction, and can be changed by changing those interactions. I mean, it really eats away at people's general notions of identity and even the soul and such. That's probably a Politics/Den line of discussion for sure, though.

Good point. If all it turns out to be is a chemical reaction controlled by the addition of a chemical supplement in a pill or in say water/food/air well then we get on the Godwin dancefloor much earlier in the thread and into the Den we go (or worse  :ye_gods:)

Clearly, those foolish doctors have no idea how the real world works, up in their ivory towers and whatnot. I hear that if you throw a rock from a doctor's window, you can usually hit an economist in the next tower over.

I'm pretty sure it has a lot to do with it.  But hey, lets ignore reality so we can preserve a couple thousand old notion of free will based on dualism instead of actually figuring out how our brains work.

TO THE DEN WITH YOu.

And clearly you're just trolling and didnt read a thing I quoted or linked to which included studies by Columbia University. Pretty sure when they mention a "Columbia University" study, its not one being conducted by the Freshmen orientation class.


Well I think thats the ultimate goal of doctors trying to fix mental health disorders through drugs. A chemical change in a person's outward behavior. Not sure anyone here is denying that it can be done.
There is even precedent for changes in humans behavior based on being infected by certain parasites and the chemical changes they create with in the person. Their have been studies on the nature of behavioral changes in humans due to infection with Toxoplasmosis. Link- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis#Behavioral_changes

Okay, explain this: Why is there no STD that induces nymphomania/satyriasis/priapism?

--Dave

You know, that is totally one of those things that makes perfect sense but never occured to me. Depression is Sloth! Duh! I stop doing things, too. Like. Everything. Except I can't sleep either, I prefer to stay awake, thinking about what a useless sack of meat I am.  :why_so_serious:

Stupid brains, why u no werk rite?


EDIT: I am also reminded of a conversation I had with a friend of mine who was considering taking medication for ... something or another. It wasn't depression, but it was something in that vein where half the people you know secretly think you just aren't sucking it up enough and are looking for solutions in a "magic pill" because if there's something people love, it's being considered mentally ill! Anyway, her concern was that if she took this medication, she would cease being "her." Basically, she was worried a lot of what made her "her" was bound up in this issue (I think it was anxiety?). All I could say was that while I was on my medication, I felt like me, only without the crushing despair, so that was pretty nice. But I do think a lot of the hoo-ha about all this brain chemistry shit is the sneaking suspicion we really are just big bags of chemicals that happen to shake out a particular way and crap that is sort of terrifying to think about.

My personal explanation is this: The vegetative part of your brain qorks faster and more efficient than the consciousness part. You'd probably asphyxiate if you had to consciously remember to breathe. You'd die if you had to remember to make your heart beat.

Consciousness helps us tackle the most difficult and complex tasks but that part of our brain is single-task and not very quick. Everything we need on a daily basis is pushed down to other parts of our brain.

This is what training does. When you learn reading, writing, math or a new language you start out by consciously and deliberately "thinking" about every small step. With time and repetition you "stop thinking about it". Your consciousness is free to do other things because part of your new capabilities are now controlled by other parts of your brain. Parts that you are now no longer in conscious control of.

Humans don't have a single brain or a single consciousness, it's layers and layers of specialized systems that are beyond the control of the conscious and that work together most of the time but also might work against each other some of the time.

What makes me angry is that we're not really debating the sources of addiction or mental illnesses in such threads. We're debating free will.

One side feels that "my brain made me do it" will be used as an excuse to justify everything from eating crap, to taking crap to killing stealing etc.. If they were in control of themselves they wouldn't take drugs or be depressed.

The other side feels marginalised because they had to realize just how little control the consciousness sometimes has over other parts of the brain.

90% of the things that keep anybody alive are controlled by parts of your brain that are NOT your consciousness. Every time you come back from groccery shopping with too much crap in your cart some psychologist working for retail took advantage of that.

If you feel that belittling others and calling them sanctimonious pricks while making fun of mental illnesses somehow helps your cause then there is not much that I can offer you.

I hope you can someday accept that no issue is black or white. That you can't just simply dismiss an argument completely just because some pressure group rides its coattails.

Is big pharma looking to make a profit from the next disease? Probably, hell, certainly! Does this mean that the ongoing paradigm shift with regard to mental illnesses or addiction is utter crap and only motivated to sell more pills? Hell no!

Look, most of the medications nebu or you listed are ancient. They are so old that most patents already expired decades ago and I can offer you a number of cheap generics for each one of them.

The big three are sustained by a handful of drugs that are still under patent protection. Pfizer for example will most probably go under when the patent for Viagra expires because they have failed to find another similar cash cow (they make billions per year just from that)

I'm so angry about your stance because that stance meant that it took me 15 years and tens of thousands of dollars in counseling - that didn't work at all - until I had the opportunity to even try medication. Because OMFG DRUGS!!!!!!!!

95% of the drugs you listed aren't even cleared for prescription in the EU yet. Adderall for example is the most effective AD(H)D drug with the least amount of side effects yet it isn't even cleared for use in the EU and probably won't for the next years because OMFG DRUGS!!! (sorry, I know it get's old)

Poeple take 30 year old 1st generation neuroleptica with horrendous side effects because 3rd generation drugs haven't been cleared yet because omfg drugs.

Also you could cite a rising prescription of drugs and treatments for any number of other diseases. 80 years ago people didn't know that cancer existed or what it caused. A lot of people that today die from cancer 80 years ago died of "natural causes". You could look back and argue exactly the same. There is a sharp increase in the number of cancer treatments prescribed. Medical businesses make a lot of money from treating people for cancer and billions of dollars have been poured into cancer research.

Does this mean cancer doesn't exist? That it is an invention of big pharma to make more profits? Only a madman would argue that it is. 150 years ago people wouldn't believe that small invisible "bacteria" lived on your body that caused all kinds of diseases. A gentleman's hands are always clean. Look at the life of Ignaz Semmelweis.

Does this mean that bacteria and virii don't exist, that they have been invented by big pharma to sell you penicillin or vaccinations? Only Jenny McCarthy  would believe that.

Is there an overprescription of drugs? Yes there is. Don't blame the physicians though. Actually finding out what ails you is not covered by your insurance.

Finding out what helps by blindly throwing drugs at you until one sticks is orders of magnitude cheaper than actually doing all of the tests necessary to find out what you really have. Especially since you have to pay for drugs yourself because most plans don't cover drugs for chronic illnesses.

A real AD(H)D diagnosis is a diagnosis by exclusion for example. The symptoms could be caused by a number of different diseases or conditions (hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, celiac disease, other diseases of the digestive systems and a number of other causes) so you'd have to test for all of them. If nothing else remains then it must be AD(H)D. That process would cost you a six figure amount of dollars that no insurance will cover.

A real treatment of depression without antidepressants or with different mediaction and counseling is the most effective treatment option. Behavioral therapy and mild to medium antidepressants help the best. Paying for several years of therapy is unfortunately significantly more expensive than prescribing you xanax (a heavy drug)

So they do the absolute minimum necessary to justify a certain treatment path and hope for the best.

Thats what profit orientation and "increasing efficiency" does to any business.

[edit: grammar and typos]

This will probably be the statement that gets this one denned or put into Politics-  This is a problem with any state run health care system.  The newer medications take a long time to get put into play, and some may never make it there because of the costs of the medications.  This is often for good for some of these medications aren't quite all that is advertised.  Sometimes it is not good because you're missing out on something that, as you said, is much more effective with fewer side effects.  Much "fringe area" medical research that gets done to develop new drugs is specifically to be able to push them on the US market.  We're the testing ground for the rest of the world because drug companies know they can make money off of us.  If we had a universal health care system you might find a lot of the research money dries up.  It's a double edged sword. 

Pills should be a last resort, but they're not inherently bad.  It's a matter of having professionals who have the time and experience to properly assess patients.

Jeff,

Please do be showing me where I "made fun" of people with mental illnesses?
I made fun of people who do shit and then want to blame it on a mental illness like drug addicts and people who cheat on their wives. I dont equate either of those groups with someone with say schizophrenia for example.

Secondly, Im sorry the EU doesnt have Adderall. Not sure how Im to blame for that put please continue to rage at me for it.

And I called you a sanctimonious prick, because you singled me out personally for shitting up the thread. So you deserved it. You can get as angry as you want about something. But you and I disagreeing on something, especially when I am trying to do so in a conversational manner and providing links and citing sources isnt "shitting up" a thread no matter how much you wish it to be true.

Have a good day.

PS- As for bacteria and anti-bacterial drugs, I suggest doing some reading. Wiki is your friend.
So just as I said the disease came first, then the cure. (Otherwise you have a cure (ie drug) in search of a disease, which is the problem with the modern profit based pharmacological industry)

Thanks to both of you for finalizing shitting up an interesting thread.