Quake3World

http://www.sierratimes.com/05/05/16/24_ ... _25370.htm

lol..the new freedom commision...

bwahahaha

:lol:

lolwtf

Grudge wrote:lolwtf

:icon14:

lol...

:lol:

btw what are "ur children"? Are they like feral kids, primitive savages like Stig of the Dump or something?

Fuck me, I remember watching Stig of the Dump on TV

I wonder if Stig of the Dump grew up into The Stig off Top Gear? That would be social mobility.

This laws being blown out of perportion. The law serves a basic perpos. Counceler are required by law to report abuse. When a counceler reports abuse, the parents pull the child from counceling. To prevent the child from reporting fucher abuse to the counceler. Witch in turn will report the abuse to the athorities. This law prevents the parent from pulling the child out of counceling. It's a law that protect the child, when the parents do not have the child's beast intrests in mind.

lostfile401 wrote:This laws being blown out of perportion. The law serves a basic perpos. Counceler are required by law to report abuse. When a counceler reports abuse, the parents pull the child from counceling. To prevent the child from reporting fucher abuse to the counceler. Witch in turn will report the abuse to the athorities. This law prevents the parent from pulling the child out of counceling. It's a law that protect the child, when the parents do not have the child's beast intrests in mind.

One of the state-of-the-art treatments, and most expensive, is an implanted capsule – yes, that’s right, implanted. The capsule delivers medication into a child’s body without the child having to swallow a pill or the need for parental permission for dispensation.

this is the thing that worries me.

btw lostfile, still awaiting your response in that marijuana thread.

I'll get around to post in the other thread, it's on my iBook.

There really isn't that much of a diffrence between todays anti depresences and the under the skin kind. Both anti depresences are released slowly into the body. It's like birth control, a women can take a pill every month, or they can get depo under the skin. it's the same drug, just diffrent method of consuming.

Just like the depo, it quite easy to remove.

By being under the skin, it dosen't need to be digested. Making it a more iffishent dilivery system. Because it is iffishent, less drug is need. By not using a burst method of dilivery, like pills, there will be less mood swings.

When the goverment get to buy drugs in such large quonities; they can dictate the price. The diffrence between 1,000,000,000 pills and 5,000,000,000 pills may be a couple hundred dollars. The diffrence between a name brand and an unamed brand Might be a penny for every 50,000,000 pills. If the goverment is going to purchas a drug, of corse the major brand names are going to try and get the deal. It's a no brainer.

so you don't have any problem with the idea of having mandatory implants of drug delivery systems in kids that the gov't deems troubled?

Not to mention I see no mention of psychotherapeutic treatments such as cognitive behaviour therapy, which is proven to be more effective than drugs alone, especially with respect to long term "healing".

The idea of systematically putting thousands or millions of kids on powerful drugs is not an enlightened one, no matter which way you cut it.

You don't find the relationship between the gov't & pharma to be just a wee bit of a conflict of interest?

You seem to have a very naive view of both gov't incentives, and the pharmacology of these drugs.

Gosh, how about treating the cause of the problems instead of tossing name brand medication at it? Oh yeah, because they don't make as much money.

Isn't it a little presumptuous to assume that they would be using antidepressants with out concealing? antidepressants are typically used in children with only the severest of depressions, or come from family with a history of a natural chemical imbalance that causes depression.

I seem to remember mandating counseling, in school, was part of the plan mentioned from the above article.

While it is true the counseling has a greater effect then antidepressants, and have a long term benefit. antidepressants with counseling has been been found to be the ideal treatment method. It can greatly increase the effectiveness of counseling. It's like tuning a car by changing the oil, and replacing the spark plugs.

Also under the current system, no councilor would prescribe an antidepressants for a child, with out being sure it's a severe depression. Because if an antidepressants used for less then a year, in cases of children with mild depression, it can result in deprecation.

lostfile401 wrote:Isn't it a little presumptuous to assume that they would be using antidepressants with out concealing? antidepressants are typically used in children with only the severest of depressions, or come from family with a history of a natural chemical imbalance that causes depression.

If the function of the counseling is to actually help the child, and not to simply determine whether the child is "a candidate for medication", then I think it has potential of being a great thing.

lostfile401 wrote: While it is true the counseling has a greater effect then antidepressants, and have a long term benefit. antidepressants with counseling has been been found to be the ideal treatment method. It can greatly increase the effectiveness of counseling. It's like tuning a car by changing the oil, and replacing the spark plugs.

Yep - in my post I alluded to that fact when I said that CBT is superior to drugs alone (combined drugs + CBT has shown to be ideal for many patients).

lostfile401 wrote:Also under the current system, no councilor would prescribe an antidepressants for a child, with out being sure it's a severe depression. Because if an antidepressants used for less then a year, in cases of children with mild depression, it can result in deprecation.

The current system, as embodied by the culture of prescription in the West, is one of rampant abuse. Why should we expect the proposed system to suddenly become more enlightened with respect to drug use, especially when there is so much obvious economic incentive to please Eli Lilly?

lostfile - have you read David Healy's lecture - the one that pissed off certain people so much that it cost him his job (he was later vindicated).

http://www.pharmapolitics.com/

The site seems down but here's the google cache of the lecture:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:axW- ... =firefox-a

I found his whole <thisforumneedstosupportstrikethrough>essay</thisforumneedstosupportstrikethrough> lecture to be incoherent. I likehis ideas, but he's all over the map and I don't feel confidence in his assertions.

it's actually a transcript of a lecture that he gave in toronto.

feedback wrote:Gosh, how about treating the cause of the problems instead of tossing name brand medication at it? Oh yeah, because they don't make as much money.

hey, no need to be dissing the biggest money making scam in the U.S.

[xeno]Julios wrote:it's actually a transcript of a lecture that he gave in toronto.

Sorry, that's what I meant.