View on Antidpressants

[Hope of Glory]

I don't think anyone here is saying that there aren't some cases in which people have real, verifiable mental illnesses.

It's the way the doctors (who practice Freudian psychology and others) who prescribe these meds for all sorts of stuff instead of getting to the root of the problem (spiritual).

A friend of mine who is a headmaster at a private school for gifted kids says that there are some kids who simply cannot function without Ritalin. But, out of 400 children at his school, there are 4, and he's not sure about 1 of those. Compare this to the number of children who are actually on Ritalin!

Anti-depressants are the same way. Not happy in your marriage? Here's a happy pill! Kids not behaving? Here's a happy pill! Don't feel like getting up in the mornings? Here's your happy pill!

 

[Gina B]

Maybe you can explain how I am supposed to understand this.

If antidepressants are so wonderful, why is it that in clinical trials they are shown to be only marginally more effective than placebo if at all?

What clinical trials? Did you perform them? If not, which ones are you referring to?

Let me help you out and give you some evidence for what you say, just to show I'm not coming from one side only.

Here is a set of clinical trials which appear to show what you are stating. Make sure you read the editors notes.

http://snipurl.com/clickfortrial

Now, here is the rebuttal for it.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/157/3/327


For the first article I gave you, why do you agree with it?

For the second one, what part of the editors notes and the rebuttal do you disagree with?

Do the people behind either study have possible ulterior motives? Do you believe those motives could have any bearing on the results of the research?

Also, I never said all anti-depressants are great and wonderful. If you're going to comment on what I say, you need to read what I have said. Let me copy and paste what I said:

I'm as stubborn about anti-depressant medication as the next person. I took them for migraines for a while, ended up loving it because I had no more migraines, but I didn't realize how much it affected me until I went off them. (I ended up developing a reaction to them after about 8 months)
When I came off of them, I realized I hadn't been who I was. It changed my emotions, it changed how I thought, and that was a scary thing to realize...
Your brain is real. Use anything that can alter it with extreme caution, but don't endanger your life or your ability to function in a useful manner by refusing to do what it takes to save your life and help you be able to remain independent as much as possible.

That can be found on page ten of this thread.

I'm not trying to be mean to you. I'd like to discuss this with you, but please don't add misrepresentation of my words to the list of problems I already have with how you've presented your arguments on this thread.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Happy is that people that is in such a case; Yea, happy is that people whose God is the Lord. Psalm 144 last verse.

 

[Gina B]

Shell, how are you doing?

Has any of this discussion been of any help, or are you now more confused about it than before you asked?

 

[James_Newman]

What clinical trials? Did you perform them? If not, which ones are you referring to?

Let me help you out and give you some evidence for what you say, just to show I'm not coming from one side only.

Here is a set of clinical trials which appear to show what you are stating. Make sure you read the editors notes.

http://snipurl.com/clickfortrial

Now, here is the rebuttal for it.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/157/3/327


For the first article I gave you, why do you agree with it?

For the second one, what part of the editors notes and the rebuttal do you disagree with?

I'm not a mathematician, so I will not address statistical gathering methods in either article. The authors of the second article do not appear to be challenging the math skills of their detractors for the most part. Their position appears to be that, while there is the appearance of little significant effect, it is only because they are interpretting the data incorrectly.

The argument that the drugs may be acting as an enhanced placebo due to the obvious side effects is not adequately addressed, other than to say maybe it just really works. They do say that the studies where active placebo were used do not demonstrate that there is sufficient difference between the active and inert placebo. It doesn't state what types of active placebo were used. Regardless, it should be apparent that the only way to be 100% sure would be to give a double blind test with placebo that mimic the particular side effects of the drug, but where would you get such a devilish sugar pill?

The correlation between the perceived drug affect and the placebo affect as demonstrated in the figure 1 of the first article should demonstrate that the results are not completely unbiased. One could imagine that given a sufficiently representative sample, there should be some type of baseline placebo constant effect, but this is not the case. Obvious explaination would be that the greater the results expected, the greater the results experienced. So at least some of the efficacy of the drugs must be placebo.

Do the people behind either study have possible ulterior motives? Do you believe those motives could have any bearing on the results of the research?

probably

Also, I never said all anti-depressants are great and wonderful. If you're going to comment on what I say, you need to read what I have said. Let me copy and paste what I said:



That can be found on page ten of this thread.

I'm not trying to be mean to you. I'd like to discuss this with you, but please don't add misrepresentation of my words to the list of problems I already have with how you've presented your arguments on this thread.

Speaking of reactions, when my wife went off her zoloft, one of the reactions that she got to experience was facial contortions and growling/barking like a dog. One might have thought she had a devil, in fact I'm still not convinced.

I have spent almost 3 hours writing this post between phone calls at work, so I apologize if it seems incoherent or does not address some critical point that I have overlooked. Its the best I can do.

 

[James_Newman]

In summary, all I have ever said is that the drugs do not do what the commercials say (correct a chemical imbalance). Do they affect the brain? Yes. Is this effect beneficial? Doubtful. Might it feel better? Sure. I have very dry skin/eczema symptoms. Sometimes my legs will itch so bad that I will scratch until I am bleeding. Does this make the itch feel better? You betcha!

 

[Brother Bob]

I think Shell will need some heavier stuff after this thread!

 

[standingfirminChrist]

In summary, all I have ever said is that the drugs do not do what the commercials say (correct a chemical imbalance). Do they affect the brain? Yes. Is this effect beneficial? Doubtful. Might it feel better? Sure. I have very dry skin/eczema symptoms. Sometimes my legs will itch so bad that I will scratch until I am bleeding. Does this make the itch feel better? You betcha!

Amen, Brother James!

The anti-depressants do not cure the problem, they only make one not worry about the problem.

Christ can both cure the problem and make one not worry about it.

As far as the eczema, I too can scratch my legs until they are raw at times.

 

[DHK]

All chemicals taken into the body for purposes of physiological changes can be considered drugs.[/quore]
If you want to be technical everything around us is made up of chemicals. Check your periodic table. There isn't anything made, except it be made out of chemicals: your body, water, the air that you breath--absolutely everything. Thus according to your logic a lack of the chemicals H2O, two atoms of hydrogen linked to one atom of oxygen will soon cause dehydration. That's not good for your soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan. Those chemicals are very important and the lack thereof will cause detrimental physiological changes. Too much of the chemical NaCl, will also be very harmful. Sodium Chloride can lead to all kinds of harmful side effects if taken in great quantities. Be careful of your salt intake. These are all chemicals. The key is moderation in all things. All chemicals taken into the body are not drugs.

Caffeine has been determined by the FDA to be a perfectly harmless stimulant when used in moderation.

The problem is: "What is moderation?" Surely by reading through this thread you would agree that "moderation" for some is only one cup, while for others it may be five or six. Every one is different. My wife can't take the caffeine in coffee. In fact if she has a cup of tea after 2:00 p.m. she has a hard time sleeping. Tea has much less caffeine than coffee.
And has the FDA determined amphetamines to be a perfectly harmless stimulant when used in moderation? If used according to a doctor's prescription it is isn't it?

The United States Army (through the FDA) has approved caffeine as a safe stimulant for soldiers who are fatigued or in a situation where alertness is a critical factor. Caffeine stimulates brain activity, alertness and thought process with almost no side-effects. The only caution is to be careful with people prone to high-blood pressure. The Army now provides chewing gum with 50 mg doses of caffeine to those soldiers who wish to use it on a optional basis.

So do various types of amphetamines, or even Pseudoephedrine, which is a common ingredient found in various cough syrups. Both of these are stimulants. Coffee isn't the only option.

Studies show that under certain situations of long-hours of fighting, the gum may help the soldier stay alert, and possibly stay alive with few side effects.

It is also recommended as a replacement to soldiers who will smoke a cigarette in an attempt to stay alert.

I don't argue that point. It is a chemical, a drug. It has an affect on the mind, an affect that keeps the mind more alert as you have just pointed out. Just as coffee is a stimulant that keeps people awake and alert, an anti-depressant has the opposite effect on the mind for those who need it. Not every one needs or can tolerate coffee. The same holds true for anti-depressants.

 

[Shell]

Thank you.

I would like to thank everyone for the feedback/advice/opinions they have given me. I have been and will continue to pray for guidance on this issue, till I am able to make the decision which will be in the next day.

Once again thanks to everyone.

Shelly

 

[Gina B]

In summary, all I have ever said is that the drugs do not do what the commercials say (correct a chemical imbalance).

Excuse me? Let's take a walk through this thread and see if that's all you said.
Nope, here's what you said:

1. You said that antidepressants are almost as ineffective as placebos.

If antidepressants are so wonderful, why is it that in clinical trials they are shown to be only marginally more effective than placebo...

2. You said that those who suffer from depression should be glad to suffer from it, and that by taking medication, they're not trusting Jesus.

Jesus promised us that if we suffered we would reign. Why shouldn't we suffer gladly then? Don't we believe Jesus?

Page 18

3. You said that the doctors who prescribe anti-depressants don't know how they work.

The doctors who prescribe these pills don't even know how they work.

Page 5

4. You said that those who take antidepressants only have emotional arguments.

...that people who have made the decision to go on antidepressants find themselves defending their decision with emotional arguments

Page 7

5. You claimed that the following bible verse could be used as proof against antidepressants:

1 Corinthians 6:12
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Page 8

6. You said that depression is not an illness, and that calling it an illness is just a way to cover up sin.

Calling these things an illness is not shedding light on the problem, it is covering it up.

Page 9

7. You said that psychology and psychiatry are not scientific.

I think psychology and psychiatry are science falsley so called.

page 9

8. You said that using anti-depressants was quackery and/or witchcraft.

But using prescriptions to test for the presence of an unproven disease sounds more like quackery or witchcraft.

page 13

9. You said that fixing depression instead of suffering with it was anti-biblical and a compromise that would deprive us of blessings.

Suffering is not a sign of unbelief, suffering is biblical. Compromising in order to get out of suffering is not. Was not Abraham in unbelief when he went in to Hagar? We can always find a quick easy way, but that way is not going to be blessed.

page 13

10. You said that taking antidepressants is a wrong solution.

There is a way that seemeth right unto a man. Then there is God's way. I'm sorry that you found yourself in a situation where you felt the only way to continue life was to get yourself placed on medication. I'm not saying that these problems do not exist. I'm just saying that we are only reaping what we sow, and the quick fix solution is the wrong solution.

page 14

11. You said that women get depressed because they have careers, and that a career and a family is an unbiblical principle for a woman.

We need to get back to biblical principles in our lives. Women are getting depressed because they are trying to juggle full time careers and a family life? I'm hardly surprised. But we can't have single incomes, its better just to take some pills.

page 14

12. You said that unless they can see depression in the upper stomach, esophagus, and duadonem, the idea of a chemical imbalance is nullified. (that was my favorite one)

The day they can diagnose depression with a GI scope, your chemically imbalanced analogy might have some merit.

page 17

13. You said that Christians have problems with depression because they have no motivation to go on living, because they think getting saved was enough.

It's no wonder that Christians are having such problems with depression. They have no motivation to go on living. They got saved and now they have to sit here and cope until the Lord comes back. I'd probably want to die too.

page 18

14. You mocked the use of antidepressants and compared the validity of it with telling people to get hooked on cocaine.

COCAINE:
A sniff a day keeps chemical imbalance away!

page 23

Then, you say all you ever said was that antidepressants do not do what the commercials say, along with the additional comment that

15. It is doubtful that antidepressants have beneficial effects.

In summary, all I have ever said is that the drugs do not do what the commercials say (correct a chemical imbalance). Do they affect the brain? Yes. Is this effect beneficial? Doubtful.

page 25

I have kids. Never tell me "all I said/did was..." It's a direct challenge to a mommy to straighten THAT right out. You'll never win an argument that begins with that phrase.

 

[Gina B]

Shell, let us know how your appointment goes. (if you dare :laugh: )

 

[Brother Bob]

You did good Gina.

 

[Mishelly]

I think Shell will need some heavier stuff after this thread!

:laugh: :smilewinkgrin:

 

[lgpruitt]

Yes, has poor Shell gotten anything out of this? I do hope so.

Shell, how are you doing?

Has any of this discussion been of any help, or are you now more confused about it than before you asked?

 

[Shell]

Yes, has poor Shell gotten anything out of this? I do hope so.

Yes I have gotten alot out of this thread- very very helpful.


Thank you, I will keep everyone posted.

 

[James_Newman]

Excuse me? Let's take a walk through this thread and see if that's all you said.
Nope, here's what you said:

1. You said that antidepressants are almost as ineffective as placebos.

All you have shown is that there is a controversy over this. I just asked why this would be the case?

2. You said that those who suffer from depression should be glad to suffer from it, and that by taking medication, they're not trusting Jesus.

Page 18

I'll stand by it.

3. You said that the doctors who prescribe anti-depressants don't know how they work.

From the Prozac website:
Depression is not fully understood, but a growing amount of evidence supports the view that people with depression have an imbalance of the brain's neurotransmitters, the chemicals that allow nerve cells in the brain to communicate with each other. Many scientists believe that an imbalance in serotonin, one of these neurotransmitters, may be an important factor in the development and severity of depression.

PROZAC may help to correct this imbalance by increasing the brain's own supply of serotonin.

4. You said that those who take antidepressants only have emotional arguments.

Yes which is opposed to sound logic. I have a chemical imbalance.

5. You claimed that the following bible verse could be used as proof against antidepressants:

I said I would be like Paul and not be brought under the power of Prozac.

6. You said that depression is not an illness, and that calling it an illness is just a way to cover up sin.

Then I guess that all depends on what your definition of illness is. Some people think Christianity is a mental disorder.

7. You said that psychology and psychiatry are not scientific.

I'll stand by that as well. Psychology has always been the redheaded stepchild of 'scientific' disciplines. It is no wonder that they are so eager to prescribe medications, as if being a drug pusher somehow ligitimizes their craft.

8. You said that using anti-depressants was quackery and/or witchcraft.

Why not try Kaballah water?

9. You said that fixing depression instead of suffering with it was anti-biblical and a compromise that would deprive us of blessings.

I don't have a problem with fixing things. I haven't seen anything get fixed yet.

10. You said that taking antidepressants is a wrong solution.

I say its no solution.

11. You said that women get depressed because they have careers, and that a career and a family is an unbiblical principle for a woman.

Absolutely. Sorry if that offends your feminist sensibilities. No I'm not.

12. You said that unless they can see depression in the upper stomach, esophagus, and duadonem, the idea of a chemical imbalance is nullified. (that was my favorite one)

Yeah, I liked that one too.

13. You said that Christians have problems with depression because they have no motivation to go on living, because they think getting saved was enough.

No, I said they had no motivation for living, no wonder they are depressed. I don't know if this causes depression, but I do have a treatment for lack of motivation. It's called the Judgment Seat of Christ. When used regularly as a motivational treatment, patients find that they are able to look beyond themselves and see others as more important than they. And when they begin to minister to others outside themselves, they find that they have been ministered to in the process. Sitting on a couch and pitying ones self is not consistant with an overcoming Christian walk, nor is it consistant with the faith that was once delivered to the saints. It may be consistant with a diet composed of primarily starch and sugar.

14. You mocked the use of antidepressants and compared the validity of it with telling people to get hooked on cocaine.

Cocaine treats the same symptoms.

Then, you say all you ever said was that antidepressants do not do what the commercials say, along with the additional comment that

15. It is doubtful that antidepressants have beneficial effects.

and it took this long to tell it. But don't forget that they really do cause all those nasty side effects that are supposed to prove that the 'medicine' is working.

 

[TC]

It's funny how some people will tell you just to suffer through it because taking medication for it is not trusting in Jesus. Then when you look at his picture, he is wearing glasses. To me, that is hippocritical. If taking medication is not trusting Jesus, then your wearing glasses is not trusting in Jesus either. You should throw them away and suffer through it.

Of course, I do not believe that myself. I thank God that he gave people the smarts to make the lenses so that I can use them and not be a burden on others. The same for medication. Just my two cents.

 

[webdog]

It's funny how some people will tell you just to suffer through it because taking medication for it is not trusting in Jesus. Then when you look at his picture, he is wearing glasses. To me, that is hippocritical. If taking medication is not trusting Jesus, then your wearing glasses is not trusting in Jesus either. You should throw them away and suffer through it.

Of course, I do not believe that myself. I thank God that he gave people the smarts to make the lenses so that I can use them and not be a burden on others. The same for medication. Just my two cents.

SFIC has already said that the glasses were cosmetic, the same way I wear a ball cap...

 

[standingfirminChrist]

It's funny how some people will tell you just to suffer through it because taking medication for it is not trusting in Jesus. Then when you look at his picture, he is wearing glasses. To me, that is hippocritical. If taking medication is not trusting Jesus, then your wearing glasses is not trusting in Jesus either. You should throw them away and suffer through it.

Of course, I do not believe that myself. I thank God that he gave people the smarts to make the lenses so that I can use them and not be a burden on others. The same for medication. Just my two cents.

TC,

Nothing hypocritical about it at all. I have been blind for many, many years. I cannot even see through these glasses, so they are more decoration than anything else.