http://www.examiner.com/intrapersonal-self-awareness-in-national/depression-questioned-as-a-form-of-selfishness-narcissism

When I was 17 years old, I got so depressed that what felt like an enormous black hole appeared in my chest. Everywhere I went, the black hole went, too.

So to address the black-hole issue, my parents took me to a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital. She did an evaluation and then told me this story:

“The problem with you,” she explained, “is that you have a chemical imbalance. It’s biological, just like diabetes, but it’s in your brain. This chemical in your brain called serotonin is too, too low. There’s not enough of it, and that’s what’s causing the chemical imbalance. We need to give you medication to correct that.”

Then she handed my mother a prescription for Prozac.

That was the late ’80s, but this story of a chemical imbalance brought on by low serotonin has remained very popular.

“I don’t know of any story that has supplanted it,” says Alan Frazer, a researcher who studies how antidepressant medications work. He is also chairman of the pharmacology department at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.

“It definitely continues to live — absolutely,” agrees his colleague Pedro Delgado, the chair of the psychiatry department at UT. “If you go to your community doctor, you’re likely to hear some version of that.”

But for many scientists who research depression, this explanation is no longer satisfying.

“Chemical imbalance is sort of last-century thinking. It’s much more complicated than that,” says Dr. Joseph Coyle, a professor of neuroscience at Harvard Medical School. “It’s really an outmoded way of thinking.”

Coyle, who is also the editor of the journal Archives of General Psychiatry, says that though serotonin plays a role in depression, low serotonin is likely not the cause of depression. Scientific thinking has clearly shifted, he says.

Still, the story of serotonin remains. Why does it continue to have such a powerful grip on the popular imagination?

The Link

According to Frazer, to understand how the story of low serotonin came to dominate our understanding of what causes depression, you need to go back to the late ’50s, to a psychiatric hospital in Switzerland.

That’s where psychiatrist Roland Kuhn gave a newly developed drug to 10 patients who had been paralyzed by depression for years. Over the course of three weeks, he watched a near-miracle occur.

“There was this lightening of their mood,” Frazer says. “They became more energized, more interested in things around them.”

This was the birth of the very first antidepressants, called tricyclics. And with that birth came a question: How could these drugs possibly be working? Researchers had some ideas, but it really wasn’t until the mid ’60s, when the cause of Parkinson’s disease was discovered, that a real narrative began to take shape.

It turned out that Parkinson’s — a brain disorder — was caused by a deficiency of a chemical in the brain called dopamine. This discovery influenced the way scientists thought about depression.

“There is no doubt in my mind that the Parkinson’s story had a strong impact on the way that people were thinking about depression,” Frazer says. “It became easy to speculate that depression was due to a deficiency.”

The question, of course, was what was deficient? Which chemical was too low? For decades researchers argued this question, but no one candidate took the lead. And then came Prozac.

Prozac’s Pull

Almost as soon as it was introduced in 1987, the antidepressant Prozac, which selectively targets the chemical serotonin, became a blockbuster. “Prozac just blew everything else out of the water,” Frazer says.

This had less to do with the efficacy of Prozac (it is not better at treating depression than tricyclics, the earlier generation of antidepressants) than with the fact that the drug had relatively few side effects.

“It was very free of side effects,” says Pedro Delgado. “And so it began to be used very widely, and there was a lot of enthusiasm for it.”

That understates the case. In a very short time, Prozac became wildly popular, and again, Prozac worked on just one chemical in the brain: serotonin.

And really, it is because of the popularity of Prozac that the low-serotonin story took hold, even though, Frazer argues, the scientific research has not borne that out.

“I don’t think there’s any convincing body of data that anybody has ever found that depression is associated to a significant extent with a loss of serotonin,” he says.

Delgado also makes this argument. In the 1990s, he carried out a study that showed that if you take a normal person and deplete them of serotonin, they will not become depressed. He says he feels this demonstrates that low serotonin doesn’t cause depression.

Coyle is less absolute in his dismissal of the evidence on serotonin. His take is that while low serotonin probably doesn’t cause depression, some abnormality in the serotonin system clearly plays a role. But most researchers have moved on, he says, and are looking at more fundamental issues like identifying the genes that might put people at risk for developing depression.

“What’s being looked at are processes that are much more fundamental than just serotonin levels,” he says. “We need to move beyond serotonin, and I think the field is.”

Serotonin Sticking Around

So why are so many people still talking about low serotonin causing depression?

Frazer says it’s probably because it has had, and continues to have, important cultural uses. For one, he says, by initially framing the problem as a deficiency — something that needed to be returned to normal — patients felt more comfortable taking a drug.

“If there was this biological reason for them being depressed, some deficiency that the drug was correcting,” Frazer says, then taking a drug was OK. “They had a chemical imbalance and the drug was correcting that imbalance.” In fact, he says, the story enables many people to come out of the closet about being depressed, which he views as a good thing.

Still, there’s no question that the story also has downsides. Describing the problem exclusively in biological terms has convinced many people to take antidepressants when other therapies — like talk therapy — can work just as well.

One critic I talked to said the serotonin story distracted researchers from looking for other causes of depression. But Delgado agrees with Frazer and says the story has some benefits. He points out that years of research have demonstrated that uncertainty itself can be harmful to people — which is why, he says, clear, simple explanations are so very important.

“When you feel that you understand it, a lot of the stress levels dramatically are reduced,” he says. “So stress, hormones and a lot of biological factors change.”

Unfortunately, the real story is complicated and, in a way, not all that reassuring. Researchers don’t really know what causes depression. They’re making progress, but they don’t know. That’s the real story.

It’s not exactly a blockbuster.

I started this blog in January 2007. That’s five solid years of blogging about Seroxat (Paxil) and its manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline.

5 years..

197 Posts…

But still no justice for Seroxat Victims…

I have a feeling things are all going to change, one way or another…

soon…

Keep Tuned…

UPDATE : Check Out Bob Fiddaman’s Blog “Seroxat Sufferers” for the current status of Seroxat Litigation in the UK.

http://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2012/01/uk-seroxat-litigation-current-status.html

‘Ethical Lapse’ … Ridiculous.

More from the Daily Mail UK

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2084492/Faulty-breast-implants-dodgy-drugs-watchdog-thats-failing-patients.html

Sadly, this is not the first time the agency has been criticised for acting slowly and ineffectually.
In September 2010, for instance, the diabetes drug Avandia was finally banned in Britain after the European Medicines Agency ruled there was a serious risk it could lead to heart attacks or stroke.
Evidence against Avandia had been building since 2007.
And, while denying it had failed to reveal the risks when they showed up, in July 2010 the drug’s maker, GlaxoSmithKline, reportedly paid out £304 million in damages to settle about 10,000 patient lawsuits in the U.S.
However, in the same month an advisory body to the MHRA warned it that the ‘risks (of Avandia) outweigh its benefits, that it no longer has a place on the UK market’ and called for prompt action.
The MHRA did not reveal this warning to the public; it simply passed its information on to European authorities.
A few years earlier, media pressure was required to force the MHRA to act over another prescribed-drug danger. Again, it was a GlaxoSmithKline medicine — the antidepressant Seroxat.
Specialists had been warning for years of the raised risk of suicide in children. But the MHRA, relying on evidence from the manufacturer, issued assurances that there was no suicide link.

Then, in 2003, following two BBC Panorama programmes, the drug watchdog mounted its own investigation and discovered the manufacturer had hidden information about the suicide link.
After this, the MHRA said it wanted to require drug makers to share more information about clinical trials — but admitted that, without stronger legislation in place, there was no chance of prosecuting the company for what it called an ‘ethical lapse’.

The watchdog was not only asleep, it was toothless.

http://news.google.com/news/more?q=GSK+argentina&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=imvnsu&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1276&bih=687&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dZz2Vok_pwXR8AMDchMXs8Wuoo0CM&ei=RAUFT4si0YKFB6O-pcsB&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CC8QqgIwAA

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16142354

http://libcom.org/news/‘glaxo-builds-bonny-babies’-unless-you’re-argentinian-course-04012012

‘Glaxo Builds Bonny Babies!’ Unless you’re Argentinian, of course

Submitted by Anonymous on Jan 4 2012 21:19
tags: Argentina health and medicine Zoe Baillie anthropology

The Buenos Aires Herald today announced that GlaxoSmithKline, the global pharmaceutical giant, has been fined 400,000 Argentinian pesos after the deaths of 14 babies during clinical trials in Argentina. That’s about £59,500, from a company worth around £73.8 billion, the 5th largest company on FTSE. Originally posted here

Two doctors were also fined 300,000 ARS each, for their involvement in the trials which were carried out between 2007 – 2008. GSK were trialling a vaccine against pneumococcal bacteria, and recruited around 150,000 babies under the age of one for the trial.

GSK were charged with experimenting on humans and falsifying parental consent for babies to be involved with the trial. Witnesses claimed doctors involved with the clinical trial bullied illiterate parents into signing to 28-page consent forms, and leading parents to believe their child would not receive any other vaccines if permission to take part in the clinical trial was refused.

Witnesses also state that many people who wanted to leave the programme were not allowed to, and that doctors did not respond to calls by concerned parents and carers when their children displayed adverse reactions to the vaccines.

GSK have denied any wrongdoing, and claimed that none of the babies’ deaths were related to the trial. They say that all the babies that died had been given a placebo, and are going to appeal against the fines. They also deny bribing participants, but have not commented on the tactics described by witnesses in the court case.

Clinical trials of drugs mostly destined for sale in the developed world are increasingly “offshored” to developing countries, with Latin American and other “second world” countries a firm favourite due to their combination of lax regulations and health infrastructure sufficient for conducting trials. GSK would have found it relatively easy to recruit participants for this trial in Argentina (as well as Panama and Colombia, the other sites for this trial) compared with say the USA or UK, and labour and other overheads would also come at a reduced cost. GSK can use bullying tactics to get access to the bodies of babies from poor families in the third world, when such an approach just wouldn’t fly in the UK or USA.

Medical Anthropologist Adriana Petryna has written extensively on this topic, and a free PDF of her 2007 article ‘Clinical Trials Offshored: Private Sector Science and Public Health’ is available here, and her book ‘When Experiments Travel: Clinical Trials and the Global Search for Human Subjects‘ also deals with this subject in depth. Petryna does well to highlight the irony of clinical trials being conducted among populations far too poor to afford the drugs that are developed as a result of them. This shows GSK’s claim that “Only 12 [babies in the clinical trial] have died throughout the country, which is a very low figure if we compare it with the deaths produced by respiratory illnesses caused by the pneumococcal bacteria” to be a somewhat moot point: as respiratory diseases are predominantly linked to poverty in Latin America, its not likely that GSK will be giving away the fruits of their labour to the children most in need of it for free.

Of course I’m not arguing against the development of vaccines and the use of clinical trials altogether, but the GSK case once again highlights how Big Pharma can cut costs, cut corners, and carry out their research in developing countries without fear of reprisal and with big profits in mind. After all, a fine of £58,000 for a company worth £73.8 billion is barely a drop in the ocean.

Indeed Bob, pretty cheap human guinea pigs for the Glaxo Labs I think…
Amazing how they get away with it…
Oh.. I forgot, they operate above and beyond the law… that’s why…

From Pharmalot

http://www.pharmalot.com/2012/01/glaxo-is-fined-for-vaccine-trials-in-argentina/

And Bob Fiddaman

http://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2012/01/glaxo-fined-60000-for-killing-14-babies.html

Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Glaxo Fined £60,000 For Killing 14 Babies

Throw a cat in a bin and get massive media coverage and public outrage. Kill 14 babies and our British press don’t even give it a small column. We’ve lost our morals folks. Glaxo are a British company and their wrong-doings should be reported by the British press. With James Murdoch on the board at GSK and with Andrew Witty cupping the balls of the UK government with the threat of moving his business elsewhere, it’s left, once again, to bloggers to report on this abhorrent misuse of human life.

What price a human life?

Well Judge Marcelo Aguinsky has fined GlaxoSmithKline 400,000 Argentinian Pesos [about £60,000] for its part in the 2007/08 vaccine trials conducted in Argentina where 14 children died. The charges, writes the Herald, included experimenting with human beings, falsifying parental authorizations so babies could participate in vaccine-trials conducted by the laboratory from 2007 to 2008.

The Buenos Aires Herald reports:

The charges included experimenting with human beings, falsifying parental authorizations so babies could participate in vaccine-trials conducted by the laboratory from 2007 to 2008.

Since 2007, 15,000 children under the age of one from Mendoza, San Juan and Santiago del Estero have been included in the research protocol, a statement of what the study is trying to achieve. Babies were recruited from poor families that attended to public hospitals.

A total of 7 babies died in Santiago del Estero; 5 in Mendoza; and 2 in San Juan.

By my reckoning that’s just over £4,000 per child.

“GSK Argentina set a protocol at the hospital, and recruited several doctors working there,” Pediatrician Ana Marchese told Continental AM radio in an interview. Adding that:

“These doctors took advantage of many illiterate parents whom take their children for treatment by pressuring and forcing them into signing these 28-page consent forms and getting them involved in the trials.”

“Laboratories can’t experiment in Europe or the United States, so they come to do it in third-world countries.”

GlaxoSmithKline Argentina are appealing the decision. Medical Director Rosana Felice said in a statement, “None of the deaths are related to the vaccines”, and added, “Likewise, Glaxo doesn’t pay any kind of bribes in order to lead any clinical studies here in Argentina or at any other location around the globe.”

Phew! Thank goodness for that, for one minute I thought they had actually been rumbled.

The GlaxoSmithKline corporate motto is, “We have a challenging and inspiring mission to improve the quality of human life by enabling people to do more, feel better and live longer.”

Based on the findings in the above enquiry I’d suggest that GlaxoSmithKline look up the words ‘Inspiring’, ‘Improve’ and ‘Quality’.

Full shameful story in the Buenos Aires Herald

Heads up: Pharmalot

Back story: Is GlaxoSmithKline Behaving Badly in Argentina?

On January 1st Glaxo CEO Andrew Witty was knighted.

Nice to see our monarchy getting its priorities in order.

http://www.gaia-health.com/articles401/000414-pneumonia-vaccine-synflorix-deaths.shtml

Pneumonia Vaccine Approved as Deaths Mount During Trial
The vaccine trial is ongoing in Argentina. Parents agreed under threats of losing their children and without informed consent. GSK says it’s not the vaccine—but where’s the proof?

by Heidi Stevenson

6 March 2011

As deaths were mounting from GlaxoSmithKline’s ongoing vaccine study in Argentina, the European Union’s Medicine Agency, EMEA, approved it for mass use on infants. The pneumonia vaccine, Synflorix, is expensive and recognized as ineffective for those most in need. With no real explanation, GSK has announced that they won’t market it in the US.

In 2008, the Daily Mail reported that the deaths of at least 14 children could have been caused by GSK’s Synflorix vaccine.(1) Naturally, GSK denied that the vaccine was the cause, but to this date, we have nothing better than their claim. Their history, including the recent settlement to pay $750 million for knowingly distributing adulterated Paxil,(2) and the EU’s suspension of Avandia’s license for causing heart attacks,(3) which it was supposed to prevent, in diabetes patients.

Sir and Dames are titles of excellence, bestowed upon the elite within the tradition of the British Royal class system.

Andrew Witty (CEO of pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline) has just been knighted, it beggars belief as to why?

One would think, that the title of ‘knighthood’ would evoke characteristics such as honesty, courage, ethical, fair, moral, virtuous, honorable etc.

GSK embodies none of these characteristics. And I doubt very much if the Queen knows Andrew Witty well enough to figure those traits in him as an individual.

Andrew Witty is a man who presides over a company (GSK) which is amongst one of the most corrupt in the world. The legacies of dangerous drugs such as Avandia and Seroxat have left hundreds of thousands of people damaged, some have died, others will never recover, and in the UK, nothing has been done to bring Glaxo to book about these crimes. Not only does GSK have a history of dodgy drugs, but its past is also riddled with news stories of tax evasion, fraud, illegal drug testing on orphans and cover up’s about birth defects and side effects (to name but a few).

But, GSK is also a British company and therefore it brings British profits to British shores.

In England, it seems, anyone can become a Knight, as long as they serve the interests of the English Political and Economic establishment. Never mind if you work for a company that makes defective and dangerous drugs. All it takes is a revenue stream. Doesn’t matter where it comes from or the amount of suffering it causes.

It seems the elitist driven political economics of the British colonial mind set is alive and well indeed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/8985213/Glaxos-Andrew-Witty-gets-New-Year-knighthood.html

http://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2012/01/arise-sir-witty-of-glaxoshire.html

Don’t we all Phil…
Don’t we all..

Looking forward to this documentary.. Although it brings back memories of the horrific experience I had with Seroxat (Paxil), I think it is a very courageous and noble documentary. Go see it in January.

http://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2011/12/paxil-documentary-set-for-2012-release.html

What about the dangers of drug treatment? ..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/8926102/Professional-Footballers-Association-reissues-booklet-offering-guidance-on-coping-with-depression.html

Rumors are abounding across the internet, people are asking, “what drove him to it”? one of these rumors seems to be speculating that Gary Speed might have been taking anti-depressants.

Maybe we will find the answer after the inquest into his death?..

Whatever the reason, the man must have been in an insufferable state of absolute despair, and my thoughts go out to his family and friends..

The statement by mental health charity Mind was very appropriate, I think it needs to be repeated, although I do believe that those suffering from depression should seek treatment, I would be wary of anti-depressants as a solution. Unfortunately, this is all GP’s usually have to offer…

Following the tragic news of the death of Wales manager Gary Speed, Mind has issued the following comment.

Paul Farmer, Mind Chief Executive, said:

The apparent suicide of Gary Speed is a tragic and shocking event. Our thoughts are with his friends and family at this very difficult time.

The high-pressure environment of top-level sport can cause huge levels of stress and, just because someone appears to be able to carry on their usual daily life, it does not mean that they are not struggling in private.

Gary Speed is not the first footballer to experience mental distress and nor, sadly, will he be the last. The suicide of German goalkeeper Robert Enke in 2009 shows that sportsmen, like anyone else, are not immune from the devastating effects of mental health problems.

Each year, more than 4,000 people in England and Wales take their own lives and three quarters of suicides are by men. The macho culture of football means that we have seen very few professionals come forward to talk about mental health problems but It is only by speaking out about mental health, whether through the media or privately, that we can increase understanding and awareness of these issues, and encourage people to be able to seek the help that they need.

Sue Baker, Director of anti-stigma campaign Time to Change, said:

We do not yet know the circumstances around the terrible tragedy of Gary Speed’s death but we want to encourage anyone experiencing similar levels of despair to try and speak to someone, whether friend, family or their doctor. In the past few days, fellow former footballer Stan Collymore has been tweeting openly and honestly about his own ongoing battle with depression. We hope that everyone feels able to follow Collymore’s advice to seek help if they feel like this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/29/gary-speed-inquest-open-hayden-evans-no-depression_n_1117982.html

Some other newsworthy articles in relation to anti-depressants have also been in the news lately…

They are worthy of a read :

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dan-roberts/antidepressants-wonder-pi_b_917886.html

Antidepressants: Wonder Pills or Just a Quick Fix?

As a therapist, I have worked with dozens of people suffering from depression. Many of these people have been – wrongly, in my view – prescribed antidepressants by their GP. And not just for depression: anxiety, paranoia, eating disorders, OCD, even insomnia are now routinely tackled with this powerful medication.

Earlier this year, NHS figures obtained by the BBC showed a dramatic increase in the number of antidepressants prescribed between 2006 and 2010 – up by 43% to nearly 23 million a year. The increase was blamed on money worries and job insecurity linked to the financial crisis.

Although this increase is worrying, in one way it’s also encouraging. As someone who believes passionately that we need to remove the stigma from mental illness – until a bout of depression is seen as no more nor less unusual or embarrassing than a chest infection or migraine – I am pleased to see mental ill-health being recognised and treated. One reason so many more people are now seeking treatment is that they understand they may have a problem and feel able to ask for help. But why GPs insist on prescribing the likes of Seroxat, Cipralex or Prozac to every depressed person who enters their consulting room is beyond me.

Not only can antidepressants cause extremely unpleasant side effects, for many people they either offer little respite or actually seem to make them feel worse. Even if they do help, they only offer symptom-relief – antidepressants no more ‘cure’ depression than ibuprofen cures an abscess on your tooth. They merely elevate your mood and numb the pain enough to enable you to manage.

I should be absolutely clear here: you should never come off antidepressants suddenly or without consulting your doctor. This can be very dangerous. And although they don’t help everyone, antidepressants can – quite literally – be a life-saver for some, especially those with clinical depression. Taken for a short period, they can help people feel well enough to seek, and benefit from, one of the many effective treatments now available.

Which brings me to my main point: if you are suffering from depression (or, for that matter, stress or anxiety, the other two major forms of mental ill-health) you need to tackle its root cause. We get depressed for a reason – usually because of negative, unhelpful, self-attacking ways of thinking that need modifying. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which I use with my clients, is clinically proven to be the most effective of all the ‘talking therapies’ – and just as effective as antidepressants for mild to moderate depression.

As is exercise – a wonderful way to tackle any form of physical or mental ill-health. Cardiovascular exercise such as jogging, swimming, cycling or brisk walking has been consistently proven to offer as much symptom relief as antidepressants. For free. With no side effects. And no waiting for up to a month to feel the benefit.

The more enlightened GPs recognise this – offering exercise ‘prescriptions’ and referring people for talking therapies rather than simply doling out pills. And surely this is what all health professionals should aim for – not just to alleviate symptoms, but to cure the actual illness.

Call me naive, but isn’t that what we’re there for?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/are-you-depressed-or-just_b_307734.html

Are You Depressed, Or Just Human?

Depression can be devastating. Its worst form, major depressive disorder, is marked by all-encompassing low mood, thoughts of worthlessness, isolation, and loss of interest or pleasure in most or all activities. But this clinical description misses the deep, experiential horror of the condition; the suffocating sense of despair that can make life seem too arduous to bear.

Here’s something else we can say confidently about depression: it is complex. The cause is often a mix of factors including genetic brain abnormalities, sunlight deprivation, poor nutrition, lack of exercise, and social issues including homelessness and poverty. Also, cause and effect can be hard to tease apart — is social isolation a cause or an effect of depression?

Unfortunately, we can make one more unassailable observation about depression: the disorder — or, more precisely, the diagnosis — has gone stratospheric. An astonishing 10 percent of the U.S. population was prescribed an antidepressant in 2005; up from 6 percent in 1996.

Why has the diagnosis become so popular? There are likely several reasons. It’s possible that more people today are truly depressed than they were a decade ago. Urbanized, sedentary lifestyles; nutrient-poor processed food; synthetic but unsatisfying entertainments and other negative trends, all of which are accelerating, may be driving up the rate of true depression. But I doubt the impact of these trends has nearly doubled in just ten years.

So here’s another possibility. The pharmaceutical industry is cashing in.

In 1996, the industry spent $32 million on direct-to-consumer (DTC) antidepressant advertising. By 2005, that nearly quadrupled, to $122 million. It seems to have worked. More than 164 million antidepressant prescriptions were written in 2008, totaling $9.6 billion in U.S. sales. Today, the television commercial is ubiquitous:

A morose person stares out of a darkened room through a rain-streaked window.
Quick cut to a cheery logo of an SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, the most common type of antidepressant pharmaceutical).
Cross-fade to the same person, medicated and smiling, emerging into sunlight to pick flowers, ride a bicycle or serve birthday cake to laughing children.
A voiceover gently suggests, “Ask your doctor if [name of drug] is right for you.”

The message — all sadness is depression, depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain, this pill will make you happy, your doctor will get it for you — could not be clearer. The fact that the ad appears on television, the ultimate mass medium, also implies that depression is extremely common.

Yet a study published in the April, 2007, issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry, based on a survey of more than 8,000 Americans, concluded that estimates of the number who suffer from depression at least once during their lifetimes are about 25 percent too high. The authors noted that the questions clinicians use to determine if a person is depressed don’t account for the possibility that the person may be reacting normally to emotional upheavals such as a lost job or divorce (only bereavement due to death is accounted for in the clinical assessment). And a 15-year study by an Australian psychiatrist found that of 242 teachers, more than three-quarters met the criteria for depression. He wrote that depression has become a “catch-all diagnosis.”

What’s going on?

It’s clear that depression, a real disorder, is being exploited by consumer marketing and is over-diagnosed in our profit-driven medical system. Unlike hypertension or high cholesterol — which have specific, numerical diagnostic criteria — a diagnosis of depression is ultimately subjective. Almost any average citizen (particularly one who watches a lot of television) can persuade him or herself that transient, normal sadness is true depression. And far too many doctors are willing to go along.

The solution to this situation is, unsurprisingly, complex, cutting across social, medical, political and cultural bounds. But here are three major changes that are needed immediately:

Medically, thousands of studies confirm that depression, particularly mild to moderate forms, can be alleviated by lifestyle changes. These include exercise, lowered caffeine intake, diets high in fruits and vegetables, and certain supplements, particularly omega-3 fatty acids. Physicians need to be trained in these methods, as they are at the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona in Tucson. See Natural Depression Treatment for more about these low-tech methods, or the “Depression” chapter in the excellent professional text, Integrative Medicine by David Rakel, M.D. (Saunders, 2007).
Politically, if Congress — which seems hopelessly addicted to watering down all aspects of health care reform — can’t manage to ban all DTC ads in one stroke, it should start by immediately ending those for antidepressants.
Personally, be skeptical of all DTC ads for antidepressants. The drugs may turn out to be no more effective than placebos. Many of them have devastating side effects, and withdrawal, even if done gradually, can be excruciating. While they can be lifesavers for some people, in most cases they should be employed only after less risky and expensive lifestyle changes have been tried.

Finally, recognize that no one feels good all the time. An emotionally healthy person can, and probably should, stare sadly out of a window now and then. Many cultures find the American insistence on constant cheerfulness and pasted-on smiles disturbing and unnatural. Occasional, situational sadness is not pathology — it is part and parcel of the human condition, and may offer an impetus to explore a new, more fulfilling path. Beware of those who attempt to make money by convincing you otherwise.

http://www.independent.ie/health/health-news/are-antidepressants-the-cure-or-the-problem-2947170.html

Are anti-depressants the cure . . .or the problem?

With record numbers of people being prescribed the drugs, doctors on the frontline are divided over their use. Anita Guidera reports

Monday November 28 2011
Anti-depressant use is at an all-time high, yet there is evidence the detrimental effects of these drugs outweigh the benefits. It is estimated that as many as one-in-five Irish people are taking anti-depressants, but serious side effects are now being linked to the drugs.

The prevailing theories that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain and low serotonin levels, on which current drug treatment is based, have also been called into question by research.

While many people believe anti-depressants work for them, researchers argue that it could be a placebo effect.

David Healy, a professor at Cardiff University medical school, believes that the evidence shows that “more people are harmed than are not.

“Anti-depressants can be useful and I use them but for a lot of people the risks of the treatment far outweigh any benefit they could get.

‘People may appear to get well on the pills but often they have a condition that is going to get well within eight to 12 weeks anyway.

“Often when people, who are mild to moderately depressed, appear to respond, it is because of the placebo factor,” he said.

He also shares the controversial view of US psychiatrist Dr Peter Breggin that so-called ‘next generation’ SSRI (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor) anti-depressants can cause bizarre behaviour.

Professor Healy appeared as an expert witness in the inquest into the tragic death of Shane Clancy (22) at which the jury returned an open verdict. Mr Clancy stabbed Sebastian Creane (22) to death in Bray in August 2009 before turning the knife on himself.

Prof Healy testified that behaviour, such as suicidal or violent thinking, seen in some patients prescribed SSRIs, such as Seroxat or Cipramil, arose not from the patient’s condition but from the drugs.

He has called for the warnings to be strengthened to emphasise that the drug can cause the problem.

His position is sharply at odds with the Irish College of Psychiatry (ICP) which issued a statement in the aftermath of the inquest claiming there was “no evidence” to link the use of anti-depressants with violence.

The ICP also pointed out that anecdotal cases of suicide “sometimes mistakenly” attributed these events to the treatment rather than the illness.

Drogheda-based GP and board member of Aware, Dr Harry Barry, remains convinced that anti-depressants have a role to play as part of the overall treatment of someone suffering from depression.

“Depression is a physical illness as well as a psychological illness that may require drug therapy treatment.

“The person has to be feeling better before they can get involved in talk therapy which helps them get better.

“In the initial stages, if a person is not functioning properly, anti-depressants are very helpful to help a person’s mood and energy levels come up. Then you can bring in the lifestyle changes, such as exercise and diet,” he explained. A GP training programme in mental health education, being rolled out by the Irish College of General Practitioners, is also placing more emphasis on alternatives to medication.

The approach is three-pronged, including a recommended reading list, exercise and counselling.

“Anti-depressants work very well for some people but should they always be the first port of call? And is the chemical masking an underlying condition?” asks Pearse Finegan, director of the Mental Health Project with the Irish College of General Practitioners.

Former Glenroe actress Mary McEvoy, who is training for a mini-marathon to raise funds for Aware, remains convinced depression is caused by low serotonin.

“I think there is a chemical element to my depression. I have been on and off anti-depressants over the years. I would come off them with doctor advice, but then after a while I would up my medication with my doctor’s advice again, so that is how I survive” she said.

Groups such as MindFreedom Ireland and Mad Pride Ireland, whose members have been through the drug regime with detrimental consequences, advocate a drug-free approach. Cork grandmother Mary Maddock (64) — a founder member of MindFreedom Ireland — was on a cocktail of drugs, including antidepressants, for 15 years. Mary is now drug-free and feeling better than ever.

“It was a huge re-awakening. I noticed straight away that I was able to think and feel again,” she said.

This is what SSRI drugs like Seroxat (Paxil) does to people …

A parody is a work that imitates another work for the purpose of ridicule or ironic commentary.

The cultural value of parody as a form of criticism and commentary, is often considered “fair use”.

Tune in next week for the second installment of the extraordinary and mind blowing Seroxat Tale..

Parody is recognized as a type of fair use, like other commentary and criticism. A parody is a work that imitates another work for the purpose of ridicule or ironic commentary.

the cultural value of parody as a form of criticism and commentary, is often considered “fair use”.

Parody is recognized as a type of fair use, like other commentary and criticism.