Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Tom Cruise Was Right « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 11

escobar

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4130
Offline
#15 : February 27, 2008, 02:00:06 PM

These quacks find one or two stories about a mass murderer's medications not working and then make generalizations about millions of people. They see a story that says meds "might" not work, and go overboard with broad generalizations. They know nothing about pharmacology or physiology, or the causes of depression or other mental illnesses. They see something on well respected FOX and take it for gospel.

HA, one or two stories? Search the internet, you will find more than you can read about these types of drugs and every other. Like I said, people are the victim of not thinking for themselves and believing everything they are told, they don't WANT to find that maybe what they thought and were told about all along has been nothing but BS.

I started to read about these things after dealing with my own anxiety problems. And there is just too much information out there that entirely contradicts what the healthcare industry wants you to believe. Way too much for me to just ignore it, and it's a hell of a lot more than "one or two stories". That's the kind of statement I expect though from people who have been fed BS their entire lives by people who are more interested in their profits than your health.

So OMA, why was I able to overcome my anxiety and depression problems without taking a single drug or seeing a single psychologist? Am I freakin special or something? Did God say when he created man "hmmm I really like that Dave character, I'm going to empower him to heal himself, everyone else is going to be reliant on prescription drugs". Is that how things went oma? Of course not, CLEARLY what I did has nothing to do with me being better than everyone else or more talented. It has everything to do with this is how we were ALL created and what we are ALL capable of. The problem with everything is when people put their own profits ahead of the health of an entire nation for decade after decade. People start to actually believe the BS you spew out and start to defend the ridiculous idea that the only way to treat yourself is to take these freaking drugs.

But what do I care, I'm a super hero I guess with the power to heal myself. Sweet. Sucks for everyone else incapable of such feats.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28869
Offline
#16 : February 27, 2008, 02:02:20 PM

I wouldn't go so far as say Cruise was right.  Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.
The Anti-depressants may be bad, but Cruise was criticizing Brooke Shields for taking an epidural during child birth.  Pain killers do work.
Also, you have to look at the cause of depression.  Post-partum is caused by a chemical/hormonal imbalance where as other types are caused by enviromental factors and such.

Like I said, get past my headline and read/watch the article/video.

MrFreakinMiyagi

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 6459
Offline
#17 : February 27, 2008, 02:04:13 PM

There is little doubt that anti-depressants are being over prescribed. This is not news.

Cruise was a condescending **CENSORED**wad in that interview, and really provided nothing more than "I know the history of Psychiatry, and you don't".

Cruise knows JACK about psych. He is basing this crap on the teachings of the almighty master of lawsuits, the church of scientology.




Dolorus Jason on a ban bet with me over the BCS Championship: \"You have your bet. I ain\'t scurred.\"- 12/8 \"Youre being banned from your own stupidity. Enjoy.\"-12/8 \"Prepare for your ban .\" -12/9 \"Miyagi gonna be banned.\"-12/9 \"Best bet I ever made ...\"-12/9 \"Miyagi mad , gettin banned.\"-12/9\"You mIght need a break from the board. Our bet should help you do just that.\"-12/10 11:38 AM
 \"The bet is off now.\"12/10 1:24 PM

Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
#18 : February 27, 2008, 02:04:30 PM

When posting topics, please use legitimate, respected sources other than FOX and Tom Cruise. You lose credibility when you do.

JAMA and The New England Journal of Medicine would be a good start. Unless these organizations are involved in the conspiracy.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/299/8/901

Paranoid, are we? They have a drug for that.

MrFreakinMiyagi

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 6459
Offline
#19 : February 27, 2008, 02:10:25 PM

Joe, why did you even mention Cruise?

Dolorus Jason on a ban bet with me over the BCS Championship: \"You have your bet. I ain\'t scurred.\"- 12/8 \"Youre being banned from your own stupidity. Enjoy.\"-12/8 \"Prepare for your ban .\" -12/9 \"Miyagi gonna be banned.\"-12/9 \"Best bet I ever made ...\"-12/9 \"Miyagi mad , gettin banned.\"-12/9\"You mIght need a break from the board. Our bet should help you do just that.\"-12/10 11:38 AM
 \"The bet is off now.\"12/10 1:24 PM

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28869
Offline
#20 : February 27, 2008, 02:15:47 PM

There is little doubt that anti-depressants are being over prescribed. This is not news.

The fact that a meta-analysis shows that those anti-depressants mentioned are no better than
a placebo for most people is BIG NEWS.

Cruise was a condescending **CENSORED**wad in that interview, and really provided nothing more than "I know the history of Psychiatry, and you don't".

Good. Matt Lauer deserved it. I'm glad Cruise was so strong and such an azz. Lauer is one of the
most watched guys in tv in the morning and he knows zippo about what he was talking about.
He's just another pretty face. At last Cruise attempted to study the data and studies. You think
Lauer did? You think he should have?

Cruise knows JACK about psych. He is basing this crap on the teachings of the almighty master of
lawsuits, the church of scientology.

Actually, what he said is he was basing his opinions on the studies that have been done. And
this latest study is just another brick in the anti-depressant wall.

Hey, doctor, leave those crazy people alone!   :-)




Quote

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28869
Offline
#21 : February 27, 2008, 02:21:04 PM

When posting topics, please use legitimate, respected sources other than FOX and Tom Cruise. You lose credibility when you do.

JAMA and The New England Journal of Medicine would be a good start. Unless these organizations are involved in the conspiracy.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/299/8/901

Paranoid, are we? They have a drug for that.

Source which was listed at the end of the article:

Journal reference: PLoS Medicine (February 2008)

I am amazed at the ignornance of so many people. I think I'm wasting my time posting
this stuff. I thought this info. might help some people if they saw it so I picked a catchy
subject title for it. I do that a lot. It's intended to get you to at least open the thread.
Sorry, but if I think info. is important enough, that's how I try to get people to read it.
Thus, the Cruise title.

And the videos I posted came from ABC, Fox and the CBC...


escobar

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4130
Offline
#22 : February 27, 2008, 02:24:41 PM

When posting topics, please use legitimate, respected sources other than FOX and Tom Cruise. You lose credibility when you do.

JAMA and The New England Journal of Medicine would be a good start. Unless these organizations are involved in the conspiracy.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/299/8/901

Paranoid, are we? They have a drug for that.


www.ford.com

check that site out, they will provide you with absolutely truthful information as to why ford trucks are the best car for you

MrFreakinMiyagi

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 6459
Offline
#23 : February 27, 2008, 02:24:49 PM

Quote
Good. Matt Lauer deserved it.
He deserves his questions being sidestepp, and to be talked to like he was NOTHING?
Quote
I'm glad Cruise was so strong and such an azz. Lauer is one of the
most watched guys in tv in the morning and he knows zippo about what he was talking about.
He never claimed to. It would have been nice for Cruise to answer the questions.
Quote
At last Cruise attempted to study the data and studies.
You don't know this. If he did, then he might have been able to come up with something better than "I'm right, and you're wrong. I KNOW about this, and you don't"....... All while Matt Lauer was simply trying to conduct an interview.
Quote
You think
Lauer did? You think he should have?
Not really. He wasn't the one being a pompous prick.



Dolorus Jason on a ban bet with me over the BCS Championship: \"You have your bet. I ain\'t scurred.\"- 12/8 \"Youre being banned from your own stupidity. Enjoy.\"-12/8 \"Prepare for your ban .\" -12/9 \"Miyagi gonna be banned.\"-12/9 \"Best bet I ever made ...\"-12/9 \"Miyagi mad , gettin banned.\"-12/9\"You mIght need a break from the board. Our bet should help you do just that.\"-12/10 11:38 AM
 \"The bet is off now.\"12/10 1:24 PM

escobar

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4130
Offline
#24 : February 27, 2008, 02:36:49 PM

http://voterrevolt.net/healthcare/pr/pr003161.php3


It took all of about 5 seconds to find an article to show how, as OMA put it "respectable" the AMA can be. I found the quote at the end of the 3rd paragraph pretty interesting.

krazybuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 8479
Offline
#25 : February 27, 2008, 03:04:34 PM

drugs are no different than anything else. either you believe they help or you dont. you find sources and doctors to support either claim. its what YOU believe.

i know a few people that are nuttier than a snickers bar if they dont take their prozac.

personally i think all of those problems, including addictions, are nothing more than mental weakness. however, people obviously benefit from them.

i do think that reading a few articles and watching a few videos doesnt exactly mean you know what you're talking about.

leeroybuc93

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 4436
Offline
#26 : February 27, 2008, 03:41:04 PM

This is one study.  I wouldn't proclaim this to be the gospel by any means.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28869
Offline
#27 : February 27, 2008, 04:16:24 PM

This is one study.  I wouldn't proclaim this to be the gospel by any means.

Read the article again. It's a meta-analysis of A LOT of studies. And the studies that have
changed everything are the ones that weren't published because for various reasons. One
reason is these studies weren't published was they didn't support the drug maker's theory
(it's called negative data) that these drugs worked. It's called the filing cabinet syndrome
in research. Many times, the "missing" studies that aren't published weren't enough to
change any of the conclusions of researchers because the data was neutral. That didn't
happen in this case.

These "missing" studies were very important and some weren't published for a few reasons.
In some, one of those reasons was because certain people (drug companies) had something
to lose if all the results were known. Publication bias. And it happens on a lot of subjects.
Only reason I know about this is the reading I have done on research on telepathy
and psychic functioning. But I won't go there now.

How hard is it for people to understand what these studies are saying?

Krazy, yes, with these drugs, BELIEF is important. The placebo works just as well.
So, people should not be taking Prozac when they can be taking a placebo instead.
No side effects to the placebo.

Problem is, how do you trick the person getting the drug that they're getting the
real thing if they already know that the real thing doesn't work? I have to figure
that out when I call my sister and discuss this study with her. My niece is taking
one of these drugs, I believe. Then you have to deal with withdrawal symptoms.

This is the last post on this subject for me. Make of it what you will. It's all there.
For oma, here's an article that might be acceptable as a source. Geez.

Can't believe people are actually "fighting," me on this...

As is noted in this article, this problem needs to be looked at for all types of drugs that
have been approved over the years and that might be suspect.

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/02/18/hlsb0218.htm

Study focuses on publication bias in journals

Requirements that clinical trials be registered in databases may give physicians a clearer picture of a drug's efficacy, but some argue that more action is needed.

By Susan J. Landers, AMNews staff. Feb. 18, 2008.

Washington -- Physicians trying to keep up with the latest journal articles have their work cut out for them in more ways than one. First, there is the massive number of articles to read. Second, the possibility of publication bias must be considered. Both pose significant challenges when weighing the risks and benefits of therapeutic treatments.

"Evidence shows that even if physicians were to do their darndest to keep up with all of the literature ... and even if they were just keeping up with the quality journals, they would still have to read 19 articles a day, 365 days a year. They just can't do it," said Kay **CENSORED**ersin, PhD, professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Clinical Trials at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

See related content

Plus, a study in the Jan. 17 New England Journal of Medicine, which quantified the previously recognized problem of publication bias, shows that it can be difficult to gather all the information needed to properly assess a medication by reviewing journal articles, since negative data are not always accessible.

The researchers determined that 94% of published studies on 12 antidepressants were positive. In contrast, an FDA analysis found that only 51% of all studies on the antidepressants, including those that were not published, were positive. "Selective reporting of clinical trial results may have adverse consequences for researchers, study participants, health care professionals and patients," the authors concluded.

The message is "Don't believe everything you don't read," said lead author Erick Turner, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry and assistant professor of pharmacology at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. He said he would welcome other researchers' efforts to apply his study technique to other drug classes.

When asked about the study's findings, the NEJM editors responded in a statement: "We published this paper because the authors went to such extremes to find all the previously unpublished data. It is critically important that physicians have all the available data when deciding which drugs to prescribe for their patients."


Pharmaceutical firms contested the findings. "We are definitely committed to full transparency," said Gwen Fisher, a spokeswoman for Wyeth Pharmaceutical, manufacturer of the antidepressant Effexor. "We make them available in a number of ways, through abstracts and presentations as well as through publication."

Eli Lilly and Co., manufacturer of Prozac, objected to implications in news stories about the study that seemed to suggest the company had suppressed negative trial results. The firm said in a statement, "We clearly have been transparent. The data is publicly available online; we've presented it -- more than once -- in peer-reviewed medical journals."


David Fassler, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont in Burlington, called the study useful and interesting, noting that publication bias presents "a significant problem for physicians, researchers and the general public."

"Published literature may overstate the efficacy or understate the risks of specific medications and/or other interventions," said Dr. Fassler, who also represents the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in the AMA House of Delegates.

David Shern, PhD, president of Mental Health America, formerly the National Mental Health Assn., also pointed out the value of the study but cautioned that people with depression should not be discouraged from seeking appropriate care. "It is critical that people understand that antidepressants do work and continue to help millions of Americans recover from depression and other mental health conditions."


Organized medicine has been in the forefront of addressing this issue, Dr. Fassler added. The AMA responded to concerns about the possibility of publication bias in pharmaceutical research in a 2004 report calling for a centralized, publicly accessible registry of all clinical trials. The recommendation received a boost from Congress and the president last fall. A new law now requires the expansion of an existing federal registry.

Also, major journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the NEJM, require that clinical trials that serve as the basis for journal articles and evaluate therapeutic interventions be registered in a central, government-run database.

But a problem remains, Dr. Turner said. Databases do not include the drugs approved before this requirement was put in place. "What about all [those] drugs?" he asks. He cited top-selling Lipitor as an example of a drug in this category. "Are we just going to grandfather that in? We won't know the real data."


Instead, Dr. Turner suggests that an existing cache of data -- that assembled by the Food and Drug Administration for its review of new drug applications -- be made more readily available to the public. This solution would complement proposals by the AMA and others for clinical trial registries, wrote Dr. Turner in a December 2004 essay in the Public Library of Science Medicine, an open-access journal published online by a nonprofit organization of scientists.

Dr. Fassler suggests other steps be taken, too. "Journal editors need to ensure that well-designed studies with negative results are accepted for publication at the same rate as comparable studies with positive findings."

In addition, he urged physicians, the media and the general public to remain vigilant. "We need to read and interpret new studies with appropriate caution."

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

How selective?

Objective: To examine if a trial's outcome -- positive or negative -- influenced whether that study was published.

Methods: Researchers examined studies regarding 12 antidepressants that involved 12,564 patients.

Results: Based on their review of the published literature, 94% of the trials conducted appeared to be positive. By contrast, an FDA analysis of published and unpublished data found 51% to be positive.

Conclusions: The researchers determined that selective reporting of clinical trials may have adverse consequences for researchers, study participants, health care professionals and patients.

Source: "Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy," New England Journal of Medicine, Jan. 17


krazybuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 8479
Offline
#28 : February 27, 2008, 04:39:03 PM

still not a fact that placebo works the same as prozac. you're showing studies to support your claim and i have no doubt that if anyone else cared enough to look up studies to prove you wrong there would be just as many if not more.

meds work for some. would placebo work the same for them? maybe, maybe not.

Science shows BOTH ways.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28869
Offline
#29 : February 27, 2008, 04:41:33 PM

still not a fact that placebo works the same as prozac. you're showing studies to support your claim and i have no doubt that if anyone else cared enough to look up studies to prove you wrong there would be just as many if not more.

meds work for some. would placebo work the same for them? maybe, maybe not.

Science shows BOTH ways.

You're right. There has only been one meta-analysis because these studies were just found.
The researchers urge all other researchers to take the same data and do their own studies.
Replication.
Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 11
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Tom Cruise Was Right « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools