It is not factual. I will get around to proving it in due course. You pretty much cite the American Collage of Physicians generalized statement that one is not better than the other unless you consider it's actual effects (on physiology) vs the subjective valuation of 'how depressed /10 someone is'.

Also they only say this goes for 2nd generation anti-depressants, where I quote you had said 'anti-depressant' hence I discreetly FYP's your post by bracketing the 'unless you meant SSRI's - then its less wrong than wrong'.

Even if they can't conclude that one is some supreme pill over assuming reasonably neutral starting positions (also created by an average in large sample sizes of meta studies) over the other you only have to look at something like obsessive compulsive disorder to see that Mirtazapine + Citalopram is better than just Citalopram or just Mirtazapine (in equal 'therapeutic dosage'). Double the already significant placebo manifestation maybe.

Also you have also not realized that it was originally given as an example and we merely have to exchange the term 'anti-depressant' with 'anti-psychotic' and the position is even more wrong.



Why are you saying this about laws? I am not 8 years old. I have already clarified your next statements by talking about certain medications being prescribed and certain medications getting you 15 years in jail if you cross a border with them.

The UAE government prohibits drugs, narcotics and chemicals and before you enter the UAE, you are advised to take all precaution to ensure that you do not carry such substances; either in person, your luggage or in medicines you may be carrying.

hmmm I knew a Doctor patient, but he was a Doctor in astro-physics. I have to ommit my following thought because Zeno is likely waiting for a reason to finish MFN's 2+2 career.


Nope, you have made at least two categorical errors.


These terms I posted I have to find more terms to describe them, which are not easily re callable at the moment because it is a big mess that is not deciphered apart from in some areas. Pick one and I can expand. You agree that it is complicated, and say something like 'evidence is not indisputable truth'. But you interpret generalized abstract statements and beginners guides to prescription functioned accounts as being useful in scrutinizing uninformedness .

Alzheimer's has been big study topic for me. Amnesia no but I need to TY. Disscociative personality disorder is basically as much a cluster **** as the other personality disorder's.

With regards to addiction, and in relation to my argument vs ganstaman, some prescriber may prescribe low doses of Lorazepam if thinking that person was a regular drinker, and is suddenly missing an anxiolyctic input, or they may be an old timer who has become physcially addicted (and damaged) by benzo's. Or they may stupidly give it to in response to a perceived anxiety along with olanzapine but then ignore the pyscho motor ******ation and parkinsonian tremors that are subtly occurring without report - it is cheaper in $ and in human resource - anxiety can be solved through human interaction afterall. This **** happens.

FWIW maybe I am reading you wrong but it is somewhat comforting to see others who also have this bolded thought process.

This is why i said they need to be branded on physical function, i.e which receptors are antagonized and how much, and all the way through to protein in diet + vita minerals and all the way through the genetic coding , they need to be only expressed in terms of their relation to current patient specific values. 'Anti-psychotic and 'anti depressant' are just as misleading. it is getting to the point where I kind of get irritated when people are non specific about it.

Regarding weight and Olanzapine, I am trying to figure this out based upon the 'rankings' of reported weight gain side effect, and going through the variables based upon this ladder system. I think the most obvious connection is dopamine antagonism being involved in the reward pathways, Olanzapine being used when indicated with paranoid delusions, especial about being poisoned or gassed seems to be correlative. I believe this is because these cognitive systems overlap somewhat - the brains measuring of eating and sensations from this' But something like Clozapine is going to be very hard to not find weight gain, and something like Quetiapine then it can go either way more easily. Generally though the statement of people losing weight on i.e Olanzapine is kind of unlikely.

Also the drug companies would like 'Junior' to believe that sedation is not the reason. Peoples family heirloom watches get too small for their wrist and then you have depression stressors.

See, rage never seemed to hurt that guy. He was the best in the world and seemed to thrive off his rage.

Rage did little to stop this guy however from dominating McEnroe in their rivalry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Lendl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lendl%E...cEnroe_rivalry

Both great though.

then you have this one i enjoyed a lot;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agassi-Sampras_rivalry


I think Federer never had such great competition as all these 4 guys above had (including many others of course they had to defeat in grand slams that Federer never had to face with the exception of Nadal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer...3Nadal_rivalry).



PS: Back to negative pressure black hole interior ideas now for real lol no more time wasting this evening.

Lendl never won Wimbledon.

21-15. McEnroe went to Stanford.


Redoing your living room?

Go for it now. Until then, there's no reason to believe you as much of what you say is wrong, misleading, and as you admitted based on assumptions.

Just because I don't comment on everything you say doesn't mean I don't realize you're saying things. It's just that much of what you say is nonsensical, and other parts seem irrelevant so I just respond to whatever I like. You can assume, if you'd like, that the parts of this post I didn't respond to I just didn't understand what you were saying. I don't know if you attempting to clarify would help, however.

But if you really want to force this other example, that's fine. Only Clozapine has been shown to be better than other antipsychotics, but due to side effects and mandated lab tests, it's not ideal and therefore is second line. In one large trial, patients stayed on Olanzapine longer than other antipsychotics, but it's not clear that this means it's any better. So then which one to choose comes down to the same things I mentioned for antidepressants: considering drug-drug interactions, considering other medical comorbidities, and then weighing the various side effect potentials to see which is most favorable for the specific patient and doctor. Often, it's hard to say that any choice is really the right one, and one could justify a different choice without either being wrong.

There is no conspiracy against you. You're just not good at posting in SMP because you make a lot of assumptions, seem more confident than knowledgeable, and have an interesting grasp of English. This combination leads many of your posts to being unintelligible in parts, wrong in others, and overall provocative.

How many receptors do you think Olanzapine hits? It's just too complicated to classify meds based on that. Classifying them based on function works well enough. As for your talk of protein, minerals, and genes, I really don't see how this has any relevance to this discussion. To think otherwise requires such a poor understanding of disease process and medication functioning.

The degree of weight gain in the antipsychotics is proportional to the degree of histamine blockade, not the dopamine blockade. Plus, the two worst meds for weight gain (clozapine and olanzapine) are the weakest dopamine blockers. So your theory seems rather difficult to accept as truth.

In his next post, fish tells us about his strong views of global warming that he got from reading a pamphlet.

Rage, like Beer, is good for you. I have been preaching this to SMP for sometime.

Now I also see that McEnroe went to Stanford so we can add a good education to the mix of Rage and Beer as three things that are good for you. Possibly not good for your neighbors but that is an entirely different subject.

I see your Lendl never won Wimbledon and raise you McEnroe never won Australian and French open.

To which far in the distance John screams "you cannot be serious...".



Ps1: re Stanford tennis etc. If you want to feel inadequate invite your friends to a game of tennis on one of the many courts around campus, just about the same time that 2 sexy girls destroy each other with supreme exhibition of athleticism and physical power on the nearby court while you are trying to land a service in.

Ps2: Evert vs Navratilova now thats what i am talking about heart of a champion where i dont mind being on the losing side of the rivalry but thats ok because i know Graf will later make things right again lol. Those old timers seemed better than current ones dont you think?

Ok (what was it? Can I do Amitriptyline vs Mirtazapine then?). The problem is that what I say is a net sum of much exposure, I would feel like I have to produce lots of work. I have addressed things simply and you don't see to counter things which obviously prove your errors and this only reinforces you prove the thesis. TO sum up the problems I am describing, it is that game theory has only barely seeped into Pyschiatry on an overt level. Much of what is going on is covert. I was under the impression your exposure involved 1:1 self practice and you was giving counsel or therapy. It's all good saying what you see reported in the media and in the literature over huge macro levels.


The problem is I can find very basic and simple sentences which you ahve not responded too, and I have simply provided logical justification. If you want me to write in harvard language then it is much better for me to be producing my own stuff that gives me +ev in real life. You could at least pretend I am correct or maybe you understand the pitfall of my logic because you have found that pitfall the hard way. But no. There is no progression if you cannot amend any of your own thinking because of the online avatar int he way.

You keep saying this 'better antipsychotic'.There is no such thing as an anti psychotic as I have said, it is only branding. They have physcial functions and clearly these functions differ in value from one drug to the next. Your ignorance on this should imply that they only give the cheapest drug to everyone unless there is a -ev risk in terms of $ and reputation, not wellbeing.

What are you on about second line? Clozapine is used when weaker and safer drugs do not work. It is not better it just contains more potent ratios whether they manifest chemically or behaviorally. That is all. Not that is not all, it is also damn expensive, just to put observational safeguards in place against adversity is costly.

All they do is look in a prescribing manual and then use the functioned accounts to connect the dots, then over time they start to remember the patterns and use the prescribing manual less.

Ok now please explain this 'some'. (Whole range - 'often' range).
I do agree, some decisions are trivial. i.e Small initial trial, stat dose. But when they are taking into account these other considerations, they have personal value sets which they apply, and because they do not use an impartial game theory application every time their systems get ****ed. Just think about when someone has Parkinson morbidity, social morbidity, financial morbidity, chronic psychotic disorder, bowel issues, leg and feet ulcers, migraines, insomnia. Do you really think their assessments in reality are comprehensive enough and do you really think that societies value system is currently adequate? It is a nice world you are in.



This is an opinion. I suppose it is difficult to be constructive in response to me when I am faulting constructs you use. Those that say 'I am not good at posting at SMP' are likely related somehow within their own value sets. Feel free to proclaim the arrogance. How would I be deemed provocative when it is always someone who initiates character judgement first. Look at this process and it confirms my stereotypical associations are correct. I can see many different ways in how I can perceive what I write. You are stuck in transactional role/gradient of using this 'inferior:superior' complex. It is random 2+2 thread where people are typing stuff. You are provoked this easy?

I have to respond to this. You clearly missed the point because you are trapped within your original thinking. It is only indirectly related to histamine and it is indirectly related to dopamine, but sometimes it can be stronger. You really need to think more carefully about what I am suggesting in relation to the reward pathway. Psychology needs to be combined with the science. I will give a clue, when people gamble their dopamine levels increase.

I will take leave and return with the task thing, I have a thread of hope for some reason. But I know I am talking to some kind of therapist who has surface knowledge levels on behavior and medications.

e: BTW I am unsure if what you mean by blockade is different to antagonist.

Hey, no string betting.

For all the talk about dumb Americans, I see that we dominate Greece when it comes to IQ.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/NationalIQs.aspx

What do you guys make of this theory about the mechanism by which antioxidants help us?
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philp...vitamins-wrong

(Nvm the bit about "antioxidant pills are snake oil", it's a separate issue but something I already assumed.)

Right thats why i was in top 3 out of 25 (= foreign+americans) in my quals at Stanford.
(to use another form of bad statistics lol)

That list that i also saw some time ago may be the result of poor testing or very old testing in worse national periods as this link explains how it was created and when; (1981 or 1960s for another test over 30-50 years ago lol)

http://dienekes.awardspace.com/articles/greekiq/iq.pdf

(read this link to see details about those tests)

Additionally how is 99.4 (GR) vs standardized 100 (US)with a higher sd 25.6 (GR) vs a 24 (US) considered domination (error/uncertainty etc) ? The higher SD alone (if one wanted to play "nasty" like you do lol) suggests that the very smart Greeks (say 3sd above mean ) start now at a higher IQ level than the 3sd+ Americans. So in that sense the very smart Greeks are larger % of the population than the US ones. The SD is more important in that sense in estimating what the real smart ones are doing where the real issue of strong intelligence is material. But i want to argue that these studies are old and poorly done for all countries involved and my own SD argument is also obviously similarly weak as i dont trust any of those numbers (just making a smart ass point though lol to counter "domination" that becomes severely "true" for northern countries in that study too)

That was just for Athens where I understand all the really smart Greeks are congregated. The US is the average for the whole country including all the hillbillies and rednecks.

Depends on the period tested. What if in the big city we had more poor and uneducated people in that period because of movements there from the rural areas they had less opportunity (because they were not smart enough say lol) (or the reverse could be true who knows). You need to know what is going on in a country at that time to make any argument. Plus i argue that a study that tests 1 in 40000 people is weak and volatile (what is that 250 sample and you trust the avg and sd much?). Plus 1981? 33 years ago? (plus done over 10 yrs so what 1971 to 1981, even older, during a horrible Greek military Junta period?)

The issue was dumb people, and by your own argument, the dumb Greeks are a larger % of the population than the US ones.

No we started with math olympiads so it was always about the very smart ones like you know us and better. (although scratch that, we probably started years ago simply because we are who we are and you like an eternally polemic, antagonistic style [greek words lol] more than i do lol). Also history is about the smartest anyway or a subgroup of them.

But statistics with 250 sample taken over 10 years??? lol hahaha. What is the IQ/math education of the study design people or more importantly those that take it seriously and quote it 35 years later on web links regarding current discussions?

No it started before that with all the dumb Americans that can't find Europe on a map and so forth.

Hey blame it on Leno or Stewart etc comedy relief hour US made thank you.

I never called Americans idiots or of sub-par intellect or anything like that. I am the one that has to defend them often in discussions with Europeans, that and all the crimes US foreign policy has done over the decades to give leftists in Europe the perfect arguments. That the average of all countries is pathetic and that 3/4 of people are ignorants and lazy is another issue. Its universal!

That Greek university entrance exams are more sophisticated than the US ones is another issue too. You want to tell me what Stanford first year students know but i was the one that had TA classes and office homework help hours with them, labs and graded their exams and know the truth.

Also by your own IQ old statistics link (and my follow up paper that exposed its details) northern Europe has not only 8 points average higher IQ but also wider sd. So in that sense that study, which i dont take very seriously as it is, says that Europe as average is leaving US very behind in IQ by at least 4-5 points and larger sd.

Who the hell cares though about all this bs when it comes to us. What on earth do the smart people on say this forum have to do with the idiots of their societies? All we can do is prove responsible and useful to society and help improve the averages with our lives and infuence. Instead of debating each other eternally we could join forces, use our time better and give everyone a better world.

Oh that's a real scientific study.


Nice the way you're ignoring Putin to line your own pockets.


You said no multiple choice section, but there's a True/False section.

Prove the fundamental theorem of calculus and the mean value theorem indeed.

The rest could be kind of sophisticated, it's still hard to read. Certainly seems a lot tougher than the Romanian test.