Social Medical Research Fails Revealed

SummerStriker

Silver Belt
@Silver
Joined
Sep 5, 2012
Messages
11,663
Reaction score
5,696
tl;dw: Alzheimer's and Depression research all wrong. Turns out the foundational studies on Alzheimer's aren't reproducible and are maybe fraudulent, and depression is not caused by serotonin imbalance, even if SSRIs seem to help with it.

 
tl;dw: Alzheimer's and Depression research all wrong. Turns out the foundational studies on Alzheimer's aren't reproducible and are maybe fraudulent, and depression is not caused by serotonin imbalance, even if SSRIs seem to help with it.


I saw a video saying one cause is Lyme disease. My grandma had Lyme and passed away with Alzheimer's. It's from one of the viruses from Lyme. I forgot the name of it.
 
These medications typically do more than one thing and inevitably have effects that we aren't even aware of.

Sometimes they will try, using the assumed mechanism of a medication, to make a medication that works even better and the new and improved medication often doesn't work at all.
 
The biggest medical research fail is health authorities’ refusal to take a close look at medical errors and deaths.

One estimate has the rate of death due to medical error at 3-400,000 per year in the US alone.

Study Suggests Medical Errors Now Third Leading Cause of Death in the U.S.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/new...rs_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us

Our systems for measuring medication adverse events is also severely flawed and guaranteed to underestimate the actual damage being done.
 
I saw a video saying one cause is Lyme disease. My grandma had Lyme and passed away with Alzheimer's. It's from one of the viruses from Lyme. I forgot the name of it.
Pawassun Virus? A few people in my county have died from that shit over the past couple of years.

I've had Lyme, I hope I'm not getting Alzheimers from it.
 
tl;dw: Alzheimer's and Depression research all wrong. Turns out the foundational studies on Alzheimer's aren't reproducible and are maybe fraudulent, and depression is not caused by serotonin imbalance, even if SSRIs seem to help with it.



There is a major replication crisis in science, especially the social sciences. And it's also the case that the placebo effect is becoming more and more of a problem for drug development. Drugs like Prozac that could pass the FDA's efficacy standards years ago would fail today because increasing placebo effects statistically overwhelm drug effects.

And this is yet another reason why I think my friends who worship experts are acting like fools. While I think genuine expert opinion is good, and should carry more weight than non-expert opinion, at the end of the day experts are not virtuous gods who never get it wrong. But the replication crisis and placebo issue, as well as corruption, should have every thinking person exercising caution when expert opinion is being used as a club to gain compliance.
 
Pawassun Virus? A few people in my county have died from that shit over the past couple of years.

I've had Lyme, I hope I'm not getting Alzheimers from it.

You in Ontario, Canada? Powassan Virus named after kid from town in Ontario who contracted. I played hockey in Powassan a bunch as a kid growing up.
 
Maybe if Big Pharma didn’t spend the majority of its revenue on advertising. They don’t want to cure you; they want you on lifelong maintenance medications to maximize profits.
That’s half of it. The other half is that NIH and people like Gates basically choose everyone’s funding and no one is willing to dissent anymore.
 
All these anti-science morons crack me up... they say they can't trust science and the point to new scientific research to prove their point.

Which is it?

More than any other human endeavor, the scientific establishment checks itself and blows up their own assertions when they discover errors. It's not perfect but it's leagues better than any else we h have.

How often do these grifters check themselves and point out the flaws in their findings, ever? Has "Breaking Point" EVER published a retraction or a correction?

You can easily search their headlines from years ago and see right away that they were full of shit half the time, why don't they expose themselves the same way the scientific community does?
 
Glad I never take any pills even when I was at my lowest. Hiking and camping, surround yourself with nature is the best medication for the mind.
 
What is being said about anti depressants has been said for decades, that they do not work or work well, are addictive and can have unpleasant side effects. I've felt badly for those with depression. It is a terrible disease, something that far to many Americans suffer from. Depression might be the number one health condition Americans have problems with, and sadly the top treatment doctors prescribe for depression does not work or work well.

Remember this old article on mental health and thought it possibly helpful for those with depression.

Mental illness is not ‘all in the mind’

https://www.drbriffa.com/2011/08/11/mental-illness-is-not-all-in-the-mind/

Psychiatry is a profession supposedly there to help people with mental health issues such as anxiety, depression and schizophrenia. That’s the idea anyway. I say this because, in reality, it’s not the most effective of disciplines, I think. The drugs often don’t work too well, and usually come with significant side effects too. If I had my time again, there’s no way in the world I would choose to be a conventionally practising psychiatrist.

In my view, one of the major deficiencies of psychiatry is how it views almost all mental illness as a problem which originates in the brain. The psychiatric model of illness is generally based on the idea that brain function goes awry when brain chemicals (neurochemicals) become imbalanced. For example, depression is seen very often as a result of not having enough serotonin. So, drugs that elevate levels of serotonin then become the mainstay treatment for this condition.

Over the years, though, I’ve seen quite a lot of people in practice who seem to have or have been formally diagnosed with some form of mental illness, who actually turn out to have their problem rooted in issues that fall, strictly speaking, outside the brain. Here are a few examples:

1. people with mood swings caused by fluctuation in blood sugar levels

2. people with depression who have low thyroid function

3. people with low mood who have iron deficiency and/or anaemia

4. people with low mood/depression who have weakened adrenal gland function

5. people who have low mood/depression as a result of food sensitivity issues (often wheat, by the way)

6. people who have the symptoms of bulimia nervosa (binging and purging) as a result of blood sugar fluctuation

7. people who have anxiety/depression as a result of a deficiency in omega-3 fats

8. people who have anxiety/insomnia as a result of low levels of magnesium

The important thing is that when the underlying nature of these issues are rectified, the mental state of individuals usually takes on a completely different complexion.

Most psychiatrists, I think it’s fair to say, will generally not entertain such thoughts. This is, to a large part I think, a product of their schooling. If every psychiatric journal and psychiatry conference bangs on about the neurochemical basis of mental illness, it’s perhaps no surprise that many psychiatrists will not have a mind to look further and deeper than this. However, not all psychiatrists are of this persuasion, it seems.

I was very interested this week to come across this article on line in the Wall Street Journal. The article is about the book Unmasking Psychological Symptoms: How Therapists Can Learn to Recognize the Psychological Presentation of Medical Disorders by US psychiatrist Barbara Schildkrout. The book’s not out yet, so I haven’t read it. But even without the detail, I wholeheartedly support the sentiment of the book. It’s essentially urging psychological therapists to be alive to the fact that their patients may have mental symptoms as a result of pathology the origin of which is not the brain, but the body. Should be compulsory reading, I think, for all psychiatrists keen to do the best for their patients.
 
What is being said about anti depressants has been said for decades, that they do not work or work well, are addictive and can have unpleasant side effects. I've felt badly for those with depression. It is a terrible disease, something that far to many Americans suffer from. Depression might be the number one health condition Americans have problems with, and sadly the top treatment doctors prescribe for depression does not work or work well.

Remember this old article on mental health and thought it possibly helpful for those with depression.

Mental illness is not ‘all in the mind’

https://www.drbriffa.com/2011/08/11/mental-illness-is-not-all-in-the-mind/

Psychiatry is a profession supposedly there to help people with mental health issues such as anxiety, depression and schizophrenia. That’s the idea anyway. I say this because, in reality, it’s not the most effective of disciplines, I think. The drugs often don’t work too well, and usually come with significant side effects too. If I had my time again, there’s no way in the world I would choose to be a conventionally practising psychiatrist.

In my view, one of the major deficiencies of psychiatry is how it views almost all mental illness as a problem which originates in the brain. The psychiatric model of illness is generally based on the idea that brain function goes awry when brain chemicals (neurochemicals) become imbalanced. For example, depression is seen very often as a result of not having enough serotonin. So, drugs that elevate levels of serotonin then become the mainstay treatment for this condition.

Over the years, though, I’ve seen quite a lot of people in practice who seem to have or have been formally diagnosed with some form of mental illness, who actually turn out to have their problem rooted in issues that fall, strictly speaking, outside the brain. Here are a few examples:

1. people with mood swings caused by fluctuation in blood sugar levels

2. people with depression who have low thyroid function

3. people with low mood who have iron deficiency and/or anaemia

4. people with low mood/depression who have weakened adrenal gland function

5. people who have low mood/depression as a result of food sensitivity issues (often wheat, by the way)

6. people who have the symptoms of bulimia nervosa (binging and purging) as a result of blood sugar fluctuation

7. people who have anxiety/depression as a result of a deficiency in omega-3 fats

8. people who have anxiety/insomnia as a result of low levels of magnesium

The important thing is that when the underlying nature of these issues are rectified, the mental state of individuals usually takes on a completely different complexion.

Most psychiatrists, I think it’s fair to say, will generally not entertain such thoughts. This is, to a large part I think, a product of their schooling. If every psychiatric journal and psychiatry conference bangs on about the neurochemical basis of mental illness, it’s perhaps no surprise that many psychiatrists will not have a mind to look further and deeper than this. However, not all psychiatrists are of this persuasion, it seems.

I was very interested this week to come across this article on line in the Wall Street Journal. The article is about the book Unmasking Psychological Symptoms: How Therapists Can Learn to Recognize the Psychological Presentation of Medical Disorders by US psychiatrist Barbara Schildkrout. The book’s not out yet, so I haven’t read it. But even without the detail, I wholeheartedly support the sentiment of the book. It’s essentially urging psychological therapists to be alive to the fact that their patients may have mental symptoms as a result of pathology the origin of which is not the brain, but the body. Should be compulsory reading, I think, for all psychiatrists keen to do the best for their patients.


I'm not questioning your post but it makes me think we all still don't know what we're talking about.... your post in particular makes me think that. But I'm not saying that because I think you're wrong or that what you're saying didn't happen it's just that I've seen countless cases of depression cured by meditation and by self-examination with never even one case having anything to do with nutrition of any kind....

My own severe depression was completely cured by self-examination and meditation. So you're going on about nutrition healing people's depression and I believe you and I'm going on about self-examination and meditation somebody else is going on about I don't know what and we all seem to be getting well... I can't explain that.

@dirtypablo
 
when you're spending your time trying to get research funds and get published, you'll have a bunch of shit science going about.
and i'm not even talking about how science is now a subset of corporate interests.
 
All these anti-science morons crack me up... they say they can't trust science and the point to new scientific research to prove their point.

Which is it?

More than any other human endeavor, the scientific establishment checks itself and blows up their own assertions when they discover errors. It's not perfect but it's leagues better than any else we h have.

How often do these grifters check themselves and point out the flaws in their findings, ever? Has "Breaking Point" EVER published a retraction or a correction?

You can easily search their headlines from years ago and see right away that they were full of shit half the time, why don't they expose themselves the same way the scientific community does?

I agree. Most of those people use what scientists have developed or invented for humanity. Things are always evolving in science.
 
Back
Top