A niggling social problem

[Minuend]

I assumed the article is based on stuff like this, but I didn't check https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa065779

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/health/17depress.html

Can't remember which one I read initially. But if you didn't like those, you can find this stuff if you search for it

 

[QuickTwist]

Evidence-based medicine is valuable to the extent that the evidence base is complete and unbiased. Selective publication of clinical trials — and the outcomes within those trials — can lead to unrealistic estimates of drug effectiveness and alter the apparent risk–benefit ratio.

This isn't actually about prescription medications, this is about pushing the narrative that rationality exists.

Second article: convenient how they all the sudden change what they said, isn't it?

 

[Minuend]

Oh, well, I guess that's a problem you'll have to take with them. My point was merely the data on antideps isn't as positive as we have been led to think. Which, even if you disagree with their attitudes, is shown by studies that are not published.

 

[QuickTwist]

Oh, well, I guess that's a problem you'll have to take with them. My point was merely the data on antideps isn't as positive as we have been led to think. Which, even if you disagree with their attitudes, is shown by studies that are not published.

No, your point was that pharmaceutical companies are evil and are getting rich off doing essentially nothing.

 

[QuickTwist]

OP, how old are you?

 

[Gyppo]

17. I have been seeing a psychologist and was immediately put on 50mg. Now after a couple of months the dosage has been doubled.
I know the general outside consensus is sceptical of pharmaceutical companies and sees them as self-serving but I won't be dissuaded by the odd article mentioning withheld reports and school shooters. No adverse effects of the pills can be as bad as my previous state as I was suicidal and completely immobilised.
Also in Britain we have the NHS, so I don't feel as if they're against me.

 

[Minuend]

No, your point was that pharmaceutical companies are evil and are getting rich off doing essentially nothing.

That's a pretty retarded interpretation of what I said. That's interpreting the worst possible meaning, but even then I find it hard to see how you arrived at that conclusion. Incompetence, corruption, ego, naivety or misinterpretation is everywhere in every field, it becomes evident especially when you have to work with people who are supposed to be competent or where critical situations and systems are dependent on it. Humans are pretty fallible.

So yeah, I'd use caution when considering antideps, as if the incompetence there has played a big role, it could worst case have a pretty shitty effect on the people on the other end taking them in full confidence.

I know the general outside consensus is sceptical of pharmaceutical companies and sees them as self-serving but I won't be dissuaded by the odd article mentioning withheld reports and school shooters. No adverse effects of the pills can be as bad as my previous state as I was suicidal and completely immobilised.
Also in Britain we have the NHS, so I don't feel as if they're against me.

It's not always as simple as whether someone's intentions are good, sometimes they are mislead, misinformed or they misjudge. This isn't an antidep specific thing btw, that's just how things, not rarely, are. If you want to take the meds and trust your physician, then there's not much more to be said on my part. I just wanted to clarify that skepticism doesn't need be a result of believing in an "evil system". The better you understand people and systems, the more you realize how fallible most aspects of both those are, and how hard it actually is to know what's true or best.

The people governing our society aren't perfect, neither are our doctors, scientists, teachers or just your everyday citizen, like ourselves. They are, after all, just people pretty capable of doing mistakes or having interests and biases that influences them, just like other people.

So basically, be aware people can be fallible even when they give the confidence they are not, be open to their ideas and suggestions, but always think twice before making big decisions.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Based on the statistical evidence, antidepressants are the biggest pharma scam ever.

Btw one gotta consider the incentives a doctor has to prescribe drugs. If the doctor fails to prescribe antidepressants to someone – even if there's next to zero evidence that they work better than a placebo – and that patient, say, kills himself/herself, that doctor can end up in a shitstorm – getting sued for malpractice and whatnot. But if the doctor prescribes the drugs, then no matter what happens with the patient, the doctor can say "hey, it's not my fault. I'm just giving them drugs that are supposed to help".

There are such biases in cancer treatment for example, where doctors opt for treatments that are good in the short term yet worse in the long run (e.g. chemotherapy), and tend to avoid the opposite (e.g. laser treatment). They have a personal incentive to do so, as they will be held less accountable for something that happens with a patient 10 years ahead.

 

[Gyppo]

I saw a bald guy the other day, who'd shaved his head to raise money "for cancer". Does have any insight into what cancer's doing with the billions raised by all the sententious go-gettemers each year?

 

[QuickTwist]

No, your point was that pharmaceutical companies are evil and are getting rich off doing essentially nothing.

That's a pretty retarded interpretation of what I said. That's interpreting the worst possible meaning, but even then I find it hard to see how you arrived at that conclusion. Incompetence, corruption, ego, naivety or misinterpretation is everywhere in every field, it becomes evident especially when you have to work with people who are supposed to be competent or where critical situations and systems are dependent on it. Humans are pretty fallible.

So yeah, I'd use caution when considering antideps, as if the incompetence there has played a big role, it could worst case have a pretty shitty effect on the people on the other end taking them in full confidence.

Well, If you've got a softer/more nuanced stance, I'd like to hear it.

 

[redbaron]

No, your point was that pharmaceutical companies are evil and are getting rich off doing essentially nothing.

can you point to the part where Minuend actually said that?

 

[redbaron]

w

No, your point was that pharmaceutical companies are evil and are getting rich off doing essentially nothing.

That's a pretty retarded interpretation of what I said. That's interpreting the worst possible meaning, but even then I find it hard to see how you arrived at that conclusion. Incompetence, corruption, ego, naivety or misinterpretation is everywhere in every field, it becomes evident especially when you have to work with people who are supposed to be competent or where critical situations and systems are dependent on it. Humans are pretty fallible.

So yeah, I'd use caution when considering antideps, as if the incompetence there has played a big role, it could worst case have a pretty shitty effect on the people on the other end taking them in full confidence.

Well, If you've got a softer/more nuanced stance, I'd like to hear it.

she just got done writing like 1000 words of nuanced opinion, which you reduced to the strawman of "your point is that pharmaceutical companies are evil" when it clearly wasn't her point at all

shape up or im gonna ship you out

 

[QuickTwist]

w

No, your point was that pharmaceutical companies are evil and are getting rich off doing essentially nothing.

That's a pretty retarded interpretation of what I said. That's interpreting the worst possible meaning, but even then I find it hard to see how you arrived at that conclusion. Incompetence, corruption, ego, naivety or misinterpretation is everywhere in every field, it becomes evident especially when you have to work with people who are supposed to be competent or where critical situations and systems are dependent on it. Humans are pretty fallible.

So yeah, I'd use caution when considering antideps, as if the incompetence there has played a big role, it could worst case have a pretty shitty effect on the people on the other end taking them in full confidence.

Well, If you've got a softer/more nuanced stance, I'd like to hear it.

she just got done writing like 1000 words of nuanced opinion, which you reduced to the strawman of "your point is that pharmaceutical companies are evil" when it clearly wasn't her point at all

shape up or im gonna ship you out

Well, I guess you have to ask yourself what their argument boils down to.

 

[Hadoblado]

More nuanced point that Minuend has already made:
- corruption exists in every field
- incompetence exists in every field
- negative results have gone unreported through one of the above mechanisms
Conclusion: Antidepressants may not be as good as the selectively published science might suggest.

So this isn't about big pharma. The corruption and incompetence are everywhere. So unless Minuend thinks everything is evil, she has not implied pharma is evil.

You then literally told her that this is what she meant:

No, your point was that pharmaceutical companies are evil and are getting rich off doing essentially nothing.

And when she corrected you, you asked for the more nuanced stance she had already provided initially. It's right there on the page!

When RB then warned you about strawmanning, you moved the goalposts:

Well, I guess you have to ask yourself what their argument boils down to.

See how now it's not that she didn't provide an argument, it's that you've reduced it down to its fundamental components (none of which seem present in what she's said).

And you seem to be doing a lot of not listening lately. You did it to AK the other day. You did it twice (though self-corrected and after making a decent point) in the p-hacking thread. When talking about JP you ignored a lot of the content of what was being said and boiled it down to you knowing JP and therefore even if there was evidence of JP thinking a thing, that's not what he thought.

Initially I was against RB growling at you for this, but having reviews it all, I now agree. Can you please make more of an effort to understand what people are saying before you tell them they're wrong. If you don't understand, ask for clarification. I like that you're putting out a lot of energy, I don't like how one-directional it is.

 

[QuickTwist]

There goes Hado defending RB again.

RB said they posted a 1,000-word nuanced post. I didn't see anything that resembled anything even close to 1,000 words. If min's whole point was that "people aren't perfect" then why did they specifically link articles to information saying "The drug companies are corrupt". I would think Min has gone to quite a roundabout way of making their point known that "People in every field makes mistakes." It would have been a lot more straightforward for Min to just say... Well, now I am not exactly sure what Min should have said on the outset because I am lacking a point of reference on what Min's point was about posting articles that ARE basically "Drug companies are bad and can't be trusted" if this is a thing that applies to all fields. I mean if that is what Min's stance actually is, that people can't be trusted, why not just say that instead of linking those articles and then arguing with me over what was/wasn't accurate in those articles and then linking more articles basically saying the same thing? I would think after the first time around that would've been an excellent time for them to make their point. Ex. "Yes, I see this particular article had some inaccuracies, but that's not the point. The point is that there are people in every field who are not perfect so I would think more about if you want to take Anti-Depressants because some people in the drug company business can't be trusted because there are people in every field that can't be trusted." IDK I could be wrong, but it just seems like an inconsistent narrative to me. I also found this curious:

If you want to take the meds and trust your physician, then there's not much more to be said on my part.

And that's about all I will say about it at this time.

 

[Hadoblado]

I was unaware that RB was attacked? Where did you attack RB?

Because unless you have some sort of special forum powers I don't, the only thing I can see that you have said to RB is:

Well, I guess you have to ask yourself what their argument boils down to.

Which isn't an attack on RB. So RB was not attacked. So I was not defending him.

So when you say that Hado was defending RB again, you are in fact just substituting your own narrative for reality. You won't have to listen to me if you can come up with a reason to dismiss me.

So you decided what I was saying for me instead of listening. And you do this within the context of criticism of you deciding what other people are saying for them, instead of listening.

I think you need to reevaluate your role here. I'm going to hand you a short temp ban towards this end. See you in a couple days.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Why does a point need to be nuanced to be legitimate?

 

[Gyppo]

I just wanted to clarify that skepticism doesn't need be a result of believing in an "evil system". The better you understand people and systems, the more you realize how fallible most aspects of both those are, and how hard it actually is to know what's true or best

There are such biases in cancer treatment for example, where doctors opt for treatments that are good in the short term yet worse in the long run (e.g. chemotherapy), and tend to avoid the opposite (e.g. laser treatment). They have a personal incentive to do so, as they will be held less accountable for something that happens with a patient 10 years ahead.

If patients are mislead by withheld information by whomever, I think that's pretty evil system, isn't it? They should just be open about the effectiveness of each treatment and strive to increase the general medical insight in the population, then there'd be no need for a personal bias. There'll be no "shitstorm" if people appreciate that they are trying to help.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Meh. It's money, or more accurately a pathological need to accumulate and maintain power in individuals who possess large amounts of it (and I'm not saying that in any sort of postmodern, 1% sense, but in a systemic sense), otherwise data wouldn't be suppressed and/or ignored. Like this, for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924933815300559

http://www.psychrights.org/Research/Digest/NLPs/OutcomeFactors.pdf

If this were acknowledged, the majority of neuroleptics likely wouldn't be prescribed, and certainly not long term. Many patients are simply outright lied to, to achieve compliance, sometimes even in good faith, to what end?

They should just be open about the effectiveness of each treatment and strive to increase the general medical insight in the population, then there'd be no need for a personal bias.

Ethics would be a prerequisite for that, silly. How do you accomplish that at the systemic level vs the individual level? Attempting the latter got us here, while the former seems to rely on an incomplete feedback loop wherein the population somehow gains insight so as to... gain insight.

Maybe it changes with the rise of socialized medicine, assuming the profit margins of pharmaceutical companies are less of a motive.

 

[Gyppo]

I'm tired. I haven't slept in ages. Please don't ask me difficult questions

Me just wants what's good for the havenots, poor pweeple

Damn it. I don't like how everyone's so smart here. It's as if you're trying to make me use my brain! Don't remember the last time I pulled out that dusty ol' thang

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

I'm tired. I haven't slept in ages. Please don't ask me difficult questions

It was mostly rhetorical. Get some sleep, man.

And take an aspirin: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jir/2013/801341/

 

[Pizzabeak]

You basically have to always watch what you say to mean because people will read between the lines like that. It makes them feel smart whether it's a taught behavior, and you don't have to prove anything. And you didn't prove anything by making this thread, just put it in a new perspective that was always "aware" to people using knowledge.

Now people just look for insults or hidden meaning in things people say in conversations and examine their sentences. On the one hand they could suck at anything else and is in conjunction with Se/Ni and Ne.

 

[Minuend]

There goes Hado defending RB again.

RB said they posted a 1,000-word nuanced post. I didn't see anything that resembled anything even close to 1,000 words. If min's whole point was that "people aren't perfect" then why did they specifically link articles to information saying "The drug companies are corrupt". I would think Min has gone to quite a roundabout way of making their point known that "People in every field makes mistakes." It would have been a lot more straightforward for Min to just say... Well, now I am not exactly sure what Min should have said on the outset because I am lacking a point of reference on what Min's point was about posting articles that ARE basically "Drug companies are bad and can't be trusted" if this is a thing that applies to all fields. I mean if that is what Min's stance actually is, that people can't be trusted, why not just say that instead of linking those articles and then arguing with me over what was/wasn't accurate in those articles and then linking more articles basically saying the same thing? I would think after the first time around that would've been an excellent time for them to make their point. Ex. "Yes, I see this particular article had some inaccuracies, but that's not the point. The point is that there are people in every field who are not perfect so I would think more about if you want to take Anti-Depressants because some people in the drug company business can't be trusted because there are people in every field that can't be trusted." IDK I could be wrong, but it just seems like an inconsistent narrative to me. I also found this curious:

I was more trying to point out this wasn't an emotional attack on pharmacy, but that a lot of areas are plagued by these issues.

Regarding antideps, if we have the wrong idea about them, then that is pretty worrisome as their effects can influence the brain and body pretty noticeably. If you think the "science" behind my remark is bad, fine, but if your only complaint is you think I'm trying to shit on pharma then that's not fine at all

If you want to take the meds and trust your physician, then there's not much more to be said on my part.

And that's about all I will say about it at this time.

That comment was me saying I respect OPs decision and wont pursue the issue. Not sure what you are interpreting this as

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

This post is a rant about something that perhaps seems a bit trivial but that keeps happening and really does bother me, I think more so because of my personality, and I wouldn't be surprised if others here could relate.

Basically, it's when I make a statement and I can tell from their inappropriate response what my collocutor has "read between the lines", inferring something false and embarrassing in the process.

To them I seem simple and socially inept in my apparently poor attempt at concealing the "true sentiment" of my comment yet I can't deny it nor clarify the real meaning without coming across as more insecure about this false ailment. I therefore feel a great deal of guilt about something that isn't even true, feeling I have to defend myself, and helpless and humiliated about my inability to actually do so. I can't stand being in a submissive position, evermore when it's unwarranted.

I always feel a strong urge to make sure people are aware of the truth of any given situation which is what leads to my frustration on this matter. Nine times out of ten throughout my life that people have got pissed off with me is when they jump to their own conclusions and I'm quickly dismissed, and I just don't let it go, pestering them until they explode or show any real sign of acknowledgement. I can't really control it, it's such a strong urge.

This is what leads my mum to call me aspergic but I've read about the condition and I really don't believe it otherwise describes me. It ties back to her (amidst other people's) false inferences as she thinks I'm a social spastic because she can't grasp that I'm saying what I mean and I'm not poorly hiding my true thoughts when I speak.

your fault, learn to communicate better
btw, I have similar problem, people rarely understand me

 

[Gyppo]

your fault, learn to communicate better
btw, I have similar problem, people rarely understand me

Thanks for the insight, man. The thread's pretty much done and dusted. People are now arguing about healthcare.

 

[Hadoblado]

If you still want this thread active, I can split the derail from it? Your choice.

 

[Gyppo]

If you still want this thread active, I can split the derail from it? Your choice.

Na I'm content now, thanks.