I don’t know what you mean, Sir. It was in response to a claim that the medial profession was pure of intent. it was a ridiculous claim.
What is your devotion to this topic and me based on?
Biases come in from experience, true. I can testify to stuff as can many others believe me.
I have never been so chased in a thread and had so much protesing as in this one. What is that really all about?
This is a site devoted to debate and that is guided by experience and intellect. I have been prudent in my claims. But you all are straw manning, ad homineming and trying to misrepresent me to “protest” that things cannot happen in the world. They do happen and you need to be cautious. That’s my opinion.
NYT “In the late 1980s and the 90s, Prozac was widely viewed as a miracle pill, a life preserver thrown to those who felt themselves drowning in the high waters of mental anguish.”
Garry Greenberg: “Despite their continued failure to understand how psychiatric drugs work, doctors continue to tell patients that their troubles are the result of chemical imbalances in their brains. As Frank Ayd pointed out, this explanation helps reassure patients even as it encourages them to take their medicine, and it fits in perfectly with our expectation that doctors will seek out and destroy the chemical villains responsible for all of our suffering, both physical and mental. The theory may not work as science, but it is a devastatingly effective myth.”
If you’re looking for a psychiatrist literally using the phrase ‘miracle cure’, I never made the claim ‘psychiatrists literally use this phrase’ so don’t have any need to back it. That they were hailed as a miracle cure is pretty clearly documented.
So it had nothing to do with the post you were replying to or the poster you named in the post, got it.
Pantastic is adding sloppy reporting to the sloppy posturing seen in this thread. None of your links (People magazine, really?) cites any physicians or drug companies making claims that SSRIs are or were a “miracle cure”. One article features an interview with Dr. Peter Kramer (who was mentioned earlier in this thread), describing how one third of his patients didn’t respond. That hardly sounds like a “miracle drug” claim. And you’re offering up as evidence that a street name for Prozac was once “wonder drug”?
It is to laugh.
The idea that millions of physicians and other health care workers have been making piles of dough off SSRI prescriptions is similarly laughable.
This thread is evidence that we do need a miracle drug - to enhance critical thinking capacity. Even if it only worked in half of users, it’d be a miraculous improvement.
Why my focus on you, sir? All of your cites ignore positive outcomes or any semblance of SSRIs helping people. Just a generic google search of ssri efficacy is enough to educate people to the fact that SSRIs aren’t effective for everyone, but can be very effective for many ( mild symptoms? Not much help, severe symptoms? More helpful)
As was mentioned; the perfect is the enemy of progress.
As expected, I provided cites and your response is to dismiss them because you don’t understand basic English usage, and think that it’s only reasonable to say that psychiatrists were touting something as a miracle cure if they literally utter the phrase “miracle cure”. That’s not how language works, and inventing your own weird rules like that to avoid real discussion doesn’t do anything but demonstrate that you’re in denial about the history of SSRIs. As I said in the previous post and my cites demonstrate, “I never made the claim ‘psychiatrists literally use this phrase’ so don’t have any need to back it. That they were hailed as a miracle cure is pretty clearly documented.”
This board could really use one that helps people understand really basic English and communication skills. It would be utterly amazing if people could somehow have the brain power to understand that ‘this was touted as a miracle cure’ does not mean ‘a psychiatrist literally made the statement “miracle cure”’. I’m not holding my breath, though.
Pantastic: “I never made the claim ‘psychiatrists literally use this phrase’ so don’t have any need to back it. That they were hailed as a miracle cure is pretty clearly documented.”
Pantastic, previously: “The fact that (lobotomy) was considered a popular and fun cure and even won a nobel prize (!) should continue to serve as a warning against trusting the field too much, especially when it starts talking about miracle cures.”
So you accused psychiatry (wrongly) of touting SSRIs as a “miracle cure” (in addition to misrepresenting the history of lobotomy), got called on it, and your response was to post links to media articles from impeccable sources like People magazine, claiming without attribution that SSRIs were once hailed as miracle cures.
Beyond feeble.
Evidently we also need a miracle cure for memory loss. That ginkgo biloba isn’t worth shit.
I’m wondering something: what exactly both sides want their basic message to be, to the general reader, to psychiatrists and psychologists, to folks currently on an SSRI. This thread has gone on for a long while, so I think it’s lost sight of that.
One side is saying they can help but it’s a two edged sword. Watch what you put in your brain, it’s a trial and error process, and that you should think about what it’s like to get off the drugs, before you begin.
What is this hobby horse all about? SSRIs are not a charitable pursuit. or don’t you remember the sad and happy emoji ads on tv?
What is your point? You are defending a major business sector as if they are your little innocent toddler, and expecting that we wouldn’t know how to counter that nonsense?
Positive outcomes are great. Who said they weren’t?
Those are more associated with the start of your SSRI career though. After some time there may be questions to think about, thoughtfully, if one is able to. Is that a no go topic? Are people allowed to discuss it? Here? In this thread?
What I did was correctly claim that psychiatrists were “talking about miracle cures”, which your quote from me earlier says, and which the various newspaper articles confirm. That DOES NOT mean that a psychiatrist used the literal words “miracle cure”, which is what you’re trying to pretend it does. Again, this is very basic English usage that you’re either failing at or pretending to ignore to defend the profession that loved lobotomies, neither of which is a good look.
Neurologists invented and promoted lobotomies, not psychiatry. Neurology, not psychiatrists. The Nobel Prize for lobotomy discovery was in the field of neurology.
BippityBoppityBoo: "OK. Seen this libel too many times here.
Neurologists invented and promoted lobotomies, not psychiatry. Neurology, not psychiatrists. The Nobel Prize for lobotomy discovery was in the field of neurology.
Simple enough words for this thread?"
Should be simple enough (I pointed it out earlier), but that’s one big ax a few posters are resolutely grinding.
Per Wiki: "In the early 20th century, the number of patients residing in mental hospitals increased significantly[n 2] while little in the way of effective medical treatment was available.[n 3][27] Lobotomy was one of a series of radical and invasive physical therapies developed in Europe at this time that signaled a break with a psychiatric culture of therapeutic nihilism that had prevailed since the late nineteenth-century.[28] The new “heroic” physical therapies devised during this experimental era,[29] including malarial therapy for general paresis of the insane (1917),[30]deep sleep therapy (1920), insulin shock therapy (1933), cardiazol shock therapy (1934), and electroconvulsive therapy (1938),[31] helped to imbue the then therapeutically moribund and demoralised psychiatric profession with a renewed sense of optimism in the curability of insanity and the potency of their craft.[32] The success of the shock therapies, despite the considerable risk they posed to patients, also helped to accommodate psychiatrists to ever more drastic forms of medical intervention, including lobotomy.[29]
It’s a surgery and so would not be actually invented or performed by a psychiatrist. But to say it is not in and of their world is ridiculous. They were treating physicians of these patients.
Reaching hard for Google (?) which is what you should be doing. Read my post again and then yours. Mine is just factual and under a big citation. Yours is …? (squirming and hate?)
You do not answer me or anyone, ever, here on anything material. What are you actually doing besides constantly fluffing an industry that we are here to talk intelligently about?
