--- In [email protected], "Jeff Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "easyone200" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Having said that, for you to condemn all western medicine is > absurd. The elimination of > > smallpox, polio (almost) and the reduction of many other horrific > diseases seems to me to > > be a crowning achievement of that terrible school of medicine you > seem to hate. How > > about those terrible antibiotics? How many millions did they save?? > Those saved by > > penicillin and better drugs don't walk around with a sign that says > I would be dead from > > TB or just a tooth abscess if it was not for ......mycin. > > Easy, One. Sorry I got you so stirred up. I don't condemn all of > western medicine and the examples you give above are good ones. But > this country is too dependent on drugs to "handle" every little thing. > Let's handle why people get ill or look for spiritual/psychosomatic > causes before we dive for the medicine cabinet. > > > > As far as psychotropic medicines go they do not work for everyone. > They can have terrible > > results for some people. They can also bring people back from the > horrors of depression > > and psychosis. I have seen someone brought back from psychotic > depression by Zoloft. > > I got it. From my experience the long term "results" of these drugs > are not good. I've posted my anecdotal experiences over the last 5 > years previously.
As I remember, your experience is drawn from a population in which people who are depressed and have not found relief with SSRI's or other "supplements" and are seeking (at the Scient ology Center) some alternative solutions. Do you seriously extrapolate your sample from this self-sampling population to be representative of society as a whole? It seems that drawing rom your population you would find, um, lets see: people who are depressed and have not found relief with SSRI's or other "supplements" and are seeking some alternative solutions. > My bottom line is this: there is too much drug > use in this country. Based on real statistical studies? Or on your highly biased (used as a technical term) extrapolation discussed above? > If a non drug approach works, why not try that > first? Sure. But lots of people have tried lots of things and don't find relief until they try SSRI's. By 'a non-drug appraach", i am guessing you don't really mean exercise, or counseling or herbs, or diet, or volunteer work, or more sleep, etc. but rather your solution of choice: Scientology. If you are suggesting that all people should try scientology before SSRI's I find that amusing. I ask you - Does anyone NOT know someone who is on an anti > depressant? It's an epidemic I fail to see your logic here. I could in parallel fashion say "Does anyone NOT know someone who wears blue jeans occaisionally?!" Its an epidemic! We Must do something. And by the way, I have just the thing" Hidden in rhetoric appears (perhaps) to be the same slanted "steering" many of us have done in the past -- been there, done that -- but I like free and open non-agenda driven inquiry better now, thanks. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
