1 posted on
05/17/2002 4:53:29 PM PDT by
Starmaker
To: Starmaker
Apparently the FDA is content to approve worthless drugs based on the results of two statistically irrelevant tests regardless of the fact that the drugs have failed an exponentially greater number of tests Better that then having the FDA be so strict that it blocks drugs that do work, or increases the costs of approval that experimental new drugs never make it to the design phase.
To: Starmaker
It all depends on what the meaning of is,....is.
3 posted on
05/17/2002 5:04:55 PM PDT by
elbucko
To: Starmaker
yeah, but there is a lot of contradictory findings parroted by the media....eggs are bad b/c of cholesterol, eggs are ok. i always looked at this as a tactic to defraud st. johns wort, which has been used in europe for years with fine results. also, as of late, kava, which competes with benzodiazepines and barbituates for market share. check out the codex info for more insight.
5 posted on
05/17/2002 5:12:46 PM PDT by
galt-jw
To: Starmaker
While there are legitimate points within this article that I can agree with, the author goes on to make incredibly preposterous conclusions and offers nothing more than his personal opinion on something that should be regarded as fact 'because he has determined it so'.
So can just anyone become a 'columnist'? Just what kind of experience or qualifications are required? I've seen many Freepers who are far more intelligent and logical than these so called columnists.
I'm coming to the belief that columnists believe they are magically entitled to render judgement on things they know nothing about. Even worse, they don't even bother to gather information before issuing judgement.
To: Starmaker
How then can an effective medical treatment be developed to treat a disorder that cannot be defined medically? Very effective. Aspirin was used to relieve headaches long before anyone understood the precise mechanisms of headaches *or* just how aspirin combats headaches.
My mother went on interferon to combat her leukemia. There was a huge difference when she was on interferon pre-Zoloft and after Zoloft.
Now you may argue that was a placebo effect, that she only felt better because she thought she was on something that worked. Do you really think I give a hoot whether it was a placebo effect or an actual effect? Her emotional state is much better now (and she's beating the leukemia).
To: Starmaker
BUMP
10 posted on
05/17/2002 6:49:55 PM PDT by
Aurelius
To: Starmaker
EXCELLENT ARTICLE! THANKS!!! I have been thinking along the same lines for a while now. It's good to hear someone else putting it in writing.
Psychology is a fraud, founded in the lie that is secular humanism.
:) ttt
14 posted on
05/17/2002 8:09:21 PM PDT by
detsaoT
To: Starmaker
Before getting all excited over the results of one single solitary study which "debunks" psychopharmaceuticals, let's see it replicated. It may become apparent that something needs debunking, but that something isn't the drugs.
To: Starmaker
A scientific discipline that is not dependent on clinical evidence or statistical proof is baseless.More precisely, a theory that does not make falsifiable predictions does not belong in the science category. Psychology may have benefits to people, as does literature, art, music, and religion, but it doesn't belong in medical science.
To: Starmaker
There is no such thing as a "mental illness." How can an intangible entity like the "mind" be said to be "ill?"I agree. Lets not confuse a metaphor with reality.
Harmful or abnormal behavior is the result of either a medical disorder, in which case medical treatment is necessary, or sin, in which spiritual treatment is necessary.
Or the result of causes we'll never uncover. An eccentric may enjoy memorizing expired bus schedules - hard to classify this abnormal behavior as a medical condition or a sin.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson