• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why are psychiatric drugs used despite there is no proof that they work?

For some of us, a simple truth is too hot to handle.

Oh how do I agree.

That is why I love this quote:

images
 
well, well, well, why am I not surprised?

Prescription pills are Britain’s third biggest killer: Side-effects of drugs taken for insomnia and anxiety kill thousands. Why do doctors hand them out like Smarties?

80 million prescriptions for psychiatric drugs are written in UK every year
Psychiatric drugs are the third major killer after heart disease and cancer


Professor Gøtzsche reveals the scale of the issue in a new book
Luke Montagu, 45, heir to the Earl of Sandwich, was wrongly prescribed anti-depressants which took him seven years to detox from

Prescription pills are Britain?s third biggest killer: Side-effects of drugs taken for insomnia and anxiety kill thousands. Why do doctors hand them out like Smarties? | Daily Mail Online
 
Ok, well first and foremost, I am not saying there are no people with problems. Not at all.Of course there are.

But there is NO PROOF for a 'chemical imbalance' is the cause of this. If there is NO PROOF then something else is going on.


I have here someone here who also has problems. and the psychiaters 'think" they can 'cure' this with their 'pills' . They can't. Hell, those psychiatrist even have no clue what is going on, but ACT as if they do. Actually they are following , unconsciously, the ways of the Pharmaceutical Companies.

There doesn't need to be proof only evidence. And the FDA requires some very stringent testing on drugs before they can be used.

The companys are at the mercy of the FDA.

Do you have any clue how many drugs are rejected and why?
 
There doesn't need to be proof only evidence. And the FDA requires some very stringent testing on drugs before they can be used.

The companys are at the mercy of the FDA.

Do you have any clue how many drugs are rejected and why?

one word: REVOLTING DOOR

The people at the FDA have worked before at the Pharmaceutical Companioes and vice versa.

Besides that, the checking of the safety of the medicines happens through..you guessed it..The Pharmaceutical Companies.
 
There doesn't need to be proof only evidence. And the FDA requires some very stringent testing on drugs before they can be used.

The companys are at the mercy of the FDA.

Do you have any clue how many drugs are rejected and why?

I would be interested in that statistic.

I would also be interested to know why nobody is ever sanctioned for prescribing "off label".
 
Psychiatric drugs don't work. Some say there is a 'chemiical imbalanxce" but there is really no proof of that.

The only one profiting from these drugs are the drug companies.


Mostly these drugs are used at psychiatric wards to sedate people so they are no problem for the nurses.

And how about the (side) effects? side effects is actually a eufemism. Just call it other effects, and suddenly we can see this in another light.

Anothr problem is that these drugs can even cause the symptoms they should 'cure"!

Let's just face the fact that these drugs are very very very toxic.

It's a lot more complicated than that.

It is true psychiatric drugs work inconsistently. It is true there is mixed evidence about their long-term benefits, and in some cases, evidence of long-term harm. It is true the evidence of biochemical theory (at least as the actual cause of mental illness) is pretty weak. It is true we over-prescribe and over-medicate some people. It is true we often under-utilize other forms of therapy.

And none of these things are being denied by the psychiatric establishment as a whole. All of them are still hotly debated. The only thing denying any of this are the ads you see on TV put on, yes, by the drug companies. But if you look past the commercials and into what the medical field itself is talking about, none of this is being denied.

But it is also true that, for some people, in the environments in which we live, we simply don't have anything better. There are people whose lives are saved by these drugs, just as much as there are people whose lives are unchanged or even worsened by them.

The issue of mental illness, especially in developed countries, is incredibly complex. I can't even begin to cover all the factors causing this situation in a single post, and there's probably even more that I don't even know about.

And most of these factors don't simply boil down to a nice easy answer like "evil drug companies." After all, it would be pretty difficult for them to peddle so many mental health drugs if we didn't genuinely have significant problems with mental health sociologically, wouldn't it.
 
Last edited:
It's a lot more complicated than that.

I disagree.

It is true psychiatric drugs work inconsistently. It is true there is mixed evidence about their long-term benefits, and in some cases, evidence of long-term harm. It is true the evidence of biochemical theory (at least as the actual cause of mental illness) is pretty weak. It is true we over-prescribe and over-medicate some people. It is true we often under-utilize other forms of therapy.

Agree

And none of these things are being denied by the psychiatric establishment as a whole.
Well, I have talked with psychiatrist downplaying this all. Exactly as the companies do.
And there are a lot of them. Of course not all, but as far as I can see that is a monority,
Furthermore, I don't live in the usa so can't command on that.

All of them are still hotly debated.
No, thjey are not. Unfortunately, doctors get indoctrinated into that system.

The only thing denying any of this are the ads you see on TV put on, yes, by the drug companies. But if you look past the commercials and into what the medical field itself is talking about, none of this is being denied.


By a minority.

But it is also true that, for some people, in the environments in which we live, we simply don't have anything better.
O, yes, sure there is.


There are people whose lives are saved by these drugs, just as much as there are people whose lives are unchanged or even worsened by them.

ir DIED! btw I have to see the first person whose live is saved by these drugs!

The issue of mental illness, especially in developed countries, is incredibly complex. I can't even begin to cover all the factors causing this situation in a single post, and there's probably even more that I don't even know about.

It can be. However, there are studies that the remission rate for psychiatric patients is HIGHER in undeveloped countries. because they can not afford these drugs!
Isn't that saying something?

And most of these factors don't simply boil down to a nice easy answer like "evil drug companies."
Well, yes it does. Evil or Not, they are there for the money and for sure not for the patiennst.

After all, it would be pretty difficult for them to peddle so many mental health drugs if we didn't genuinely have significant problems with mental health sociologically, wouldn't it.

I don't know what you mean here.


May I ask if you work in these field?
 
I disagree.

Agree

Well, I have talked with psychiatrist downplaying this all. Exactly as the companies do.
And there are a lot of them. Of course not all, but as far as I can see that is a monority,
Furthermore, I don't live in the usa so can't command on that.

No, thjey are not. Unfortunately, doctors get indoctrinated into that system.

By a minority.

O, yes, sure there is.

ir DIED! btw I have to see the first person whose live is saved by these drugs!

It can be. However, there are studies that the remission rate for psychiatric patients is HIGHER in undeveloped countries. because they can not afford these drugs!
Isn't that saying something?

Well, yes it does. Evil or Not they are there for the money and for sure not for the patiennst.

I don't know what you mean here.

May I ask if you work in these field?

If you're simply going to deny everything without even offering a counter-argument, there isn't much for me to debate here. I doubt your psychiatrist "downplayed this all." He probably denied your simplistic conspiracy theory, and rightly so.

You're right, about less developed nations having better mental health. But do you seriously think lack of psyche drugs is the only difference between us and them? You're incredibly, deeply wrong.

They get more sun, more community, more quiet, more fatty oils in their diet, more exercise, more sense of accomplishment, and better sleep. All of these things have a profound affect on mental health.

They don't have much of a problem with mental illness TO BEGIN WITH. The whole reason we came up with these drugs is because our societies DO have an issue with mental illness, in huge numbers, and that's been true since long before psyche drugs even existed, which is why we invented them.

Their societies don't have that. They have the occasional schizophrenic or whatever (who has a substantial chance of maintaining functionality due to the community helping them, which is something we often lack in the West), but they don't have depressives and people with anxiety to anywhere near the extent we do.

Like I said, this is way more complicated than just "big pharma."

I've studied psychology at university level, though I didn't complete a degree in it. All of these things I mention -- all of this debate about the weak evidence for biochemical theory, the mixed evidence of the efficacy of drugs, etc -- was discussed in my classes. These are not "secrets" that anyone is trying to hide. These things are brought up in your very first psyche 101 class.

You're seeing a conspiracy where there isn't one. The fact is, the mental health woes of the West are way more complicated than just "big pharma." And if you're not willing to acknowledge that, then you're doing nothing to help the problem.

Just getting rid of these drugs won't help anyone. The drugs wouldn't be here in the first place if we didn't already have a serious sociological mental health problem. So what's your solution?
 
Last edited:
one word: REVOLTING DOOR

The people at the FDA have worked before at the Pharmaceutical Companioes and vice versa.

Besides that, the checking of the safety of the medicines happens through..you guessed it..The Pharmaceutical Companies.
None of this means anything. Or has anything to do worth my post.
 
If you're simply going to deny everything without even offering a counter-argument, there isn't much for me to debate here. I doubt your psychiatrist "downplayed this all." He probably denied your simplistic conspiracy theory, and rightly so.


I DO offer counter arguments.You are ignoring this here.I didn't talk conspiracy to them at all!
And don't forget, I have worked in this field as a nurse. i have seen them displaying that all the time!
You are very simply denying what I wrote. Why is that?

You're right, about less developed nations having better mental health. But do you seriously think lack of psyche drugs is the only difference between us and them? You're incredibly, deeply wrong.

No, I didn't wrote that.That that is the only difference. You are wrong, again.

They get more sun, more community, more quiet, more fatty oils in their diet, more exercise, more sense of accomplishment, and better sleep. All of these things have a profound affect on mental health.

I am not talking about causes of healt etc. I am talking that people recover much better without drugs.
You don't seem to read very well.

They don't have much of a problem with mental illness TO BEGIN WITH. The whole reason we came up with these drugs is because our societies DO have an issue with mental illness, in huge numbers, and that's been true since long before psyche drugs even existed, which is why we invented them.

Again,I am not talking about causes of healt etc. I am talking that people recover much better without drugs.
You don't seem to read very well.

Their societies don't have that. They have the occasional schizophrenic or whatever (who has a substantial chance of maintaining functionality due to the community helping them, which is something we often lack in the West), but they don't have depressives and people with anxiety to anywhere near the extent we do.

well, prove that then! I wholeheartedly disagree.

Like I said, this is way more complicated than just "big pharma."

No, it is really very simple. The rest is 'smoke and mirrors"

I've studied psychology at university level, though I didn't complete a degree in it. All of these things I mention -- all of this debate about the weak evidence for biochemical theory, the mixed evidence of the efficacy of drugs, etc -- was discussed in my classes. These are not "secrets" that anyone is trying to hide. These things are brought up in your very first psyche 101 class.

This is true. I have studied clinical psychology and you are right here. BUT NOT IN THE WORKFIELD. Everywhere I have been it was politically incorrect to
talk about these things, or very marginaly

You're seeing a conspiracy where there isn't one.

I don't care what you call it. But Big Pharam is more interested in money then in health! Call it a conspiracy or whatever you like.
Truth is truth.

The fact is, the mental health woes of the West are way more complicated than just "big pharma." And if you're not willing to acknowledge that, then you're doing nothing to help the problem.

But you are not saying a thing here! Saying it is complex is too vague.

Just getting rid of these drugs won't help anyone.

O yes, it will, I am sure. Very sure.

The drugs wouldn't be here in the first place if we didn't already have a serious sociological mental health problem. So what's your solution?

That is circular. I am not denying health problems. I am saying psychiatric drugs are no solution. NEVER.


And have you read about the drugs killing people?????? too simple?


btw studying psychology indoctrinates you into the 'medical field" e.. psychologist want tio be like psychiatrist and want to be able to prescribe drugs, theryby assuming these damn things work.

In this whole posting of you you assume these psychiatric drugs do work.

There are better ways.
 
None of this means anything. Or has anything to do worth my post.

O yes it does. Don't you really don't understand that?

It is very simple. FDA AND Pharmaceutical Companies are connected. There is no independent research at all.
 
LMFAO, I don't believe you.

Keep in mind that Pin believes in chem trails. Odd that chemicals provided in a clinical environment can't change people's behavior, but those that are supposedly sprayed from 25,000' in the air can. Maybe the solution is for psychiatric patients to hang out at airports where they can get the "good stuff".
 
Keep in mind that Pin believes in chem trails. Odd that chemicals provided in a clinical environment can't change people's behavior, but those that are supposedly sprayed from 25,000' in the air can. Maybe the solution is for psychiatric patients to hang out at airports where they can get the "good stuff".

You don't get it that I amwriting about psychiatric drugs!
 
You don't get it that I amwriting about psychiatric drugs!

So what exactly is that they are spraying from airliners??? I thought that it was drugs intended to make people more "pliable" for the gov't to control and isn't that what psychiatric drugs do -make people more "pliable" to the demands of society to fit in???
 
So what exactly is that they are spraying from airliners??? I thought that it was drugs intended to make people more "pliable" for the gov't to control and isn't that what psychiatric drugs do -make people more "pliable" to the demands of society to fit in???

This thread is not about that. It is off topic. But what is you holding back opening a new thread?
 
FDA-Rejected Prescription Drugs - Vaughn's Summaries

I was surprised to see Marek and astra among those.

Thanks for that.

4 per year rejections over the last 3 or 4 years does not seem many. More interesting might be how many applications were made, and how many were approved.

No data on if any person is ever sanctioned for "off label" prescribing, making it appear that nobody ever is held responsible for such a violation.
 
This thread is not about that. It is off topic. But what is you holding back opening a new thread?

It's about the use of psychiatric drugs. Correct?? Aren't the airlines dispersing psychiatric drugs? You claim on one hand that psychiatric drugs are ineffective, yet you back a theory that is reliant upon them being effective. If they weren't effective, then there would be no need for them to dispersed by the airlines. Correct?? So are the psychiatric drugs being dispersed by the airlines effective or not?? If they are, then do you support their use in the treatment of certain psychological disorders such as those evidenced by a severe feelings of a lack of control, those with an extreme form of monological thought or unsupported paranoia???
 
O yes it does. Don't you really don't understand that?
So make it make sense. From what i read it was excrement. You can sit here and tell me i don't understand. But that's your failure to communicate.

It is very simple. FDA AND Pharmaceutical Companies are connected.
Well no **** sherlock The "D" in FDA stands for drugs, aka pharmaceuticals.

There is no independent research at all.
So what?
 
Thanks for that.

4 per year rejections over the last 3 or 4 years does not seem many. More interesting might be how many applications were made, and how many were approved.
I don't think it would be. What would be interesting is what evidence supported approval. Clearly it isn't money.

No data on if any person is ever sanctioned for "off label" prescribing, making it appear that nobody ever is held responsible for such a violation.
I don't know what you are talking about.
 
This thread is not about that. It is off topic. But what is you holding back opening a new thread?
Translation: You have no defense to his post so you are just going to avoid it. How very CTer of you.
 
Back
Top Bottom