|
Post by Prasheen shah ms3 on Oct 1, 2015 16:21:11 GMT -4
This article highlights the nature of experiments in the psychiatric field. It is crucial for drugs' safety and efficacy to be periodically checked so that widely accepted drugs don't harm patients who are already taking it. Due to the fact that we are measuring subjective outcomes such as levels of anxiety, overall mood and other such emotions, it becomes very difficult to reproduce the results in these experiments. Thousands of variables may account for the patients mood at the time of the experiment, and subtle changes in mood are hard to pick up and properly document. Despite all the methods and regulations put in place to eliminate bias and variables, psychiatric experiments still have a certain range of error.. Articles such as these are good reminders to think of all these variables before picking a treatment plan.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Cruise on Oct 1, 2015 17:31:43 GMT -4
I've never agreed with psychiatry, ever.
You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do.
There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance.
There's ways of vitamins and through exercise and various things.
When you talk about emotional, chemical imbalances in people, there is no science behind that.
People go for help, but their lives don't get better because of those [psychiatric] drugs. They get worse. They feel numb and they're told that's a good thing. It's how you degrade a society -- by drugging the piss out of it.
|
|
|
Post by Tejal Rana on Oct 1, 2015 19:41:51 GMT -4
I think the medication is helpful to adults who have already a developed brain function and coping skills than to teens who are still adjusting to their life and their brain is still developing. Antidepressants as the "adverse events label says emotional lability" which means patients can experience an high/low moods. In addition as teenagers their frontal lobes are not fully developed hence they lack the ability to make decisions. Thus adding an antidepressant further aggravates their already developing brain. At that point, it is easier for them to go thru a simple bad event and develop suicidal thoughts and attempts while on medication. Instead of taking medications, it is better for the teen, to experience tough events, build coping skills, develop solutions to problems, and learn from life experiences during that period in time. This allows the teen brain to develop normally and allows for better decision making skills, helping them with future problems,and ultimately prolonging their life.
|
|
|
Post by Tobi Tayo on Oct 2, 2015 12:06:18 GMT -4
It's nice to see a study like the one in the article reevaluated as population demographics, especially in a diverse country, will always change over time. Cultural aspects of the society also influence the patients that seek help for psych issues. It is therefore perfectly plausible that the reported results at the time of the original study with the original population were not biased. The distrust seems to emulate from the pre conceived notion of pharmaceutical companies doing whatever it takes, even lying or covering up their findings to sell a drug. While this is most times not far from the truth, on this case I don't think they can be accused of being purposefully misleading. Overall, the idea of checking old research is very welcome, especially for a specialty like psych that according to the article has had half of previous papers stand the test of time.
|
|
|
Post by Princess Aleke on Oct 3, 2015 8:40:08 GMT -4
Great topic. Most patients may not know the full history about Paxil due to the widespread problem involving unpublished or biased clinical trials, but most times journals or pharmaceutical companies that sponsor research will report only "positive" results, leaving out the non-findings or negative findings where a new drug or procedure may have proved more harmful than helpful making this to be a widespread issue. For GlaxoSmithKline to suppress results from trials that not only failed to show treatment effectiveness for off-label use of Paxil among children and teens, but also showed possible increased risk of Suicidal or Homicidal tendencies in this age group makes the study or history of this drug to be Bias. Therefore, Reanalysis of drug experiments is needed for more transparency by pharmaceutical companies to decrease the risk of adverse events in clinical trials as the companies would want to be thorough and eliminate Bias in their research, to prevent the scandal that comes when the drug is not effective or not acting the way the company had proposed.
|
|