--- In [email protected], "Jeff Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > Jeff, can you define your view of "mental illness" a bit more? > > > Dude, you're way over the top on this. I used the term in responding > to your post # 61014: > > Antidepressants treat a deficiency in levels of a needed > neuro-transmittor (sometimes several). Declining levels of these > critical neuro-transmittors happens with age, stress, diet, genetics, > lack of sunlight, short winter days, etc. Its not anything to > stigmitize. Those who do stigmitize anti-depressant use, and snicker > as if its users are "mentally ill" or escapist drugees, are IMO > showing signs of mental illness that should be treated. Or are simply > quite mentally challenged. > > I don't snigger at people that are sad or depressed. I use my brand > of help.
> You seem to think if someone doesn't espouse a drug > approach they are stupid. That's your opinion. I never said that. Again you resort to mischaracterization to divert attention from real discussion. I am against stigmitizing an often effective treatment for neuro-transmittor level deficiency which often is diagnosed as a quite general term "depression". You have termed those taking anti-depressants as "mentally ill" I think this is "way over the top", dishonest and immoral. > You believe people need the drugs to handle the serotonin. I never said "need". I said SRRIs have been found effective in balncing serotonin levels in millions of cases worrld wide. If there is a more effective treatment, or more cost effective one, I am all for it. > I don't agree. I'm not attacking, but stating my view. Again your view, dogma IMO, that I object to is that you have termed those taking anti-depressants as "mentally ill", stigmatizing the use of SRRIs which I think have substantially benefited millions, allowingthem to be more natural and themselves. > If you think their > are no "experts" they share that view, you are mistaken. The above view that those taking anti-depressants are "mentally ill"? > I don't > believe it's "handle the serotonin levels and it'll all be OK." > Apparently, you do. OK. Again, you can divert by mischaracteization all you want. That appears to be your MO. That still doesn't address the issue of stigmatizing the use of an effective drug. I do think that handling the serotonin levels for a serotonin deficiency problem can be effective. And has been demonstrated so by countles studies. The current generation SRRIs dont solve all depressions or all imbalances. They do effectively treat many. Can you cite any peer reviewed published studies that indicate that Scientology effectively and cost-effectively treat depression? (Second request.) > If you think it's only the crazy Scientologists that espouse this you are incorrect. Here's the site of a guy who thinks "Scientology is an evil cult." See what he says about the serotonin thing: > > http://astrocyte-design.com/pseudoscience/ Yes. There are a lot of loose web sites out there. And SRRIs are not perfect. No drug is. Yet they have been effective for millions of people. Not effective for far fewer. And your point is? > Here's what another non-Scientologist has to say: > http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050706-094908-8654r.htm Gee. Being a non-scientologist makes one an authority. Strange criteria you have. Again, can you cite any peer reviewed published studies that indicate that Scientology effectively and cost-effectively treat depression? 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/
