Antidepressants on BBC: The Oxford Study, Questioned here by Anti-psychiatry

    •    This news report began by saying that this new study has “proven” that anti-depressants are good for us, “ending all controversy,” “finally.” What it actually demonstrates is that for a pre-selected group, the drugs were more effective “on the average” than a placebo, or a fake pill, and that over an 8 week period (i.e., ignoring long term effects and discounting the initial bad reaction many people have to these drugs), for those categorized as suffering “moderate to severe” depression, while agreeing that antidepressants are over-prescribed for “mild” depression. These categories, mild, severe and the like, themselves are not established scientifically (but rather are set on the basis of a common sense judgment). Hence, far from proving that a million more people in the U. K. need to be drugged, and far from ending all controversy about antidepressants, the study only shows that slightly more than half of people who are very sad say they like the drugs for a little while. We knew that. What we do not know is why the BBC is sending out such drivel at such a time.

      The following are some of the tweets preserved as the news reports were released, in reverse order and roughly edited:

         They spent six years studying a pre-selected group, “120,000,” and never mention “SUICIDAL” tendencies as a known side effect on the BBC. As the old Mum says, “it says so right on the (f’n) can, those are the “side effects.”

         Andrei Chipriani is the shrink who published the study reported on the BBC that I accuse of being profitable disinformation. Oh, and today, they add, only “60%” “Respond” to their “treatment,” and those are indeed the basis of their stupid study, just as I guessed:

    Tweet:…And, those few are probably pre-selected for those who report that they do feel better, disregarding the “side effects!” Antidepressants do far more harm than good, and the drug oligarchs (panels of shareholder value algorithmic bank accounts) can stuff them, perhaps with some “Abilify.”

       “Just don’t smoke weed for depression,” cause the f’n oligarchs might not be able to control the profits, and its less addictive than coffee! I have said I will believe the shrinks and society in general are actually concerned with depression remedies when they legalize weed.*

       Similarly, we might begin to trust the “professionals” in their efforts at rehabilitating people from heroin addiction if they would recognize the obvious benefit of marijuana to such an effort. We have just been subjected to an enormous, now uncovered Oxy-heroin scam, and the drug companies legal and illegal are still interfering with Congress and public opinion to retain this multi-billion dollar industry. One immediately saw genuine pain sufferers forced to cry out loudly because Congress began to limit Oxy for everyone, with a blanket law, rather than craft laws carefully to follow distinctions, and return to non opioid pain remedies so as to stem the flow of the children into the river of the heroin dealers. My own representative is still spouting such drivel. We saw invisible criminal actors organized to make money off the rehab efforts, rehab recruiting companies whose first question was what is ones insurance company, swallowing up the seven hundred some million dollars Congress threw at the problem to make it look like they were doing something. Investigative journalism uncovered and reported on such things centered especially in certain cities in Florida. Now it is becoming apparent that the same efforts are being redoubled into antidepressants.

       One cannot believe the combination of stupidity and dishonesty in the once trustworthy medical profession, where doctors once took seriously an oath to heal, period.

       Weed in small amounts churns the knowledge within the soul that compensates the conscious attitude, so that, as with dreams, the soul produces healing contents on its own. The shore line between conscious and unconscious becomes slightly more passable, and thought mildly awakens, which is why the old fashioned non addictive remedies, weed and coffee, and even the toxic and addictive alcohol and naturally grown, less carcinogenic cigarettes, were the politically correct ancient remedies, rather than the TOXIC AND ADDICTIVE self serving prescriptions of BIG PHARMA.

       I will not let them go for the death of the musician Nick Drake, apparently from an accidental overdose of prescribed antidepressants. They neglect the little practical inconvenience that suffering souls forget how much they have taken, or hurt so badly they do not care.

       The BBC “study” is a fine example of profitable disinformation. Strangely, it tells us what to conclude, telling us the study has “proven,” “finally” etc, and THEN it explains, in words that most do not hear, about how limited the scope of their stupid “study” is. What it actually claims to show is that on the average the drugs seem to perform better than doing nothing plus taking a fake pill, and that only for a few. And it is questionable whether the study even shows that!

    [Interlude] Sarcasm often does not come across in writing, due to the limitations of the written word. And so I have takes to marking sarcastic statements before saying the, as an exclamation point is often not sufficient punctuation. Comedy in general is based both on an ignorance and knowledge. Hobbes famously noted the satire of ignorance involved in every joke, as there is something we have to “get,” and it would not be humorous if we already knew or if everyone got it. Hence, comedy is inherently dangerous due first to the anger of the ignorant, which must be dodged, like the Fool in King Lear. But there is also a common sense truth at the same time, communicating knowledge. There.

    There are four great songs of despair in our study of lyrics, but I will not include these here. Rather, here are some remedial sad songs:

    Leonard Cohen — Suzanne

    Leonard Cohen – Farmous Blue Raincoat (Audio)

    Leonard Cohen – Famous Blue Raincoat (Live)

    [sarcasm] Oh, but they meant only a certain kind of depression, “moderate” to “severe,”and admit antidepressants are over-prescribed for “mild’ depression. And what they “prove” they are more effective on the average than placebos, so a million more need to take them.

    [sarcasm] Here is the argument that overcomes the reasoning below on the “proof” final in the “Oxford U.” study addressed below: I am heard by some 20 people, while the drug manufacturers are on BBC. Can you not smell disinformation?

    Yeah, someone finally liked my Leonard Cohen tweet! Thanx again!
    In the news just now is the terrible shooting and our response to it is considering gun control and “mental health” remedies. So I tweeted:
    Now, BBC, do me a study to counter the reasoning that if a bad man, who does not care about others or believe that murder is wrong, then is made to feel suicidal with easy access to guns….[sarcasm] oh, but “all question has been put to rest forever.”
       I have one person right here who says antidepressants made her feel suicidal. “Its a side effect, they tell you when you take ’em. They know that, they say it on t.v., its just a side effect. But other drugs make me feel that way, too. Lyrica is another I cannot take…”
       That same person has a brilliant insight into depression that shrinks do not get because they are too interested in their sophistry, treating souls to make money and gain reputation. Mum said: The purpose of depression (in natures psychic hygiene) is CHANGE. Depression is how we adapt, and as with anger, when we set things right, it has a purpose, though no souls are properly ordered so sadness does get away from us. What if we use drugs to inhibit the natural hygienic function of sorrow? The tears that clear the eyes and then they sparkle?
    By the way, did they take into account, for example, whether those treated with drugs for moderate to severe depression had for example just lost a child or spouse? Usually they do not. By the way, we do admit there is such a thing as unnatural depression, but it is much more rare than the Big Pharma bank account shareholder value algorithm would find profitable for us to believe.

       Sarcasm: BBC A British study has finally ended all question: Antidepressants are good, and a million more people could benefit from them. I believe they simply asked, do you feel better, short term? W/o checking why these drugs seem to be involved in 100% of one kind of shooting.

       *The present efforts to grow “medicinal” weed are plagued by organized crime and again corrupt legislation. Growers poison the organic plant with phosphorous and other chemicals sold to growers to maximize profits off a limited number of plants set by law. Attempts are made to control seeds, and the original plant is bound to be a subject for genetic engineering.

2 thoughts on “Antidepressants on BBC: The Oxford Study, Questioned here by Anti-psychiatry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s