ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags depression , psychiatry

Reply
Old 25th August 2016, 03:24 PM   #201
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,634
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
There's fail, then there's fail.

I thought the psychiatric industry's dealing with troubled teens was bad, but that pales into insignificance against babies being prescribed antipsychotics.
If I had my way, this would be malpractice. Having said that: if you read the article, it's worth pointing out that these are not being prescribed by psychiatrists. I suspect most psychiatrists would say these prescriptions are not appropriate.

They're being prescribed by non-psychiatrists because they can't get their patients into psychiatric care. (the article says mostly family practitioners and pediatricians)

It's certainly supporting my argument that GPs should not be performing psychiatric diagnosis and prescribing any more than they should be doing open heart surgery.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2016, 03:31 PM   #202
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,406
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The simple real world fact that you are ignoring is that one private institution is not the entire psychiatric industry...
Trying to cover up your complete inability to defend the situation by making stupid accusations about me isn't working, sorry.

The entire industry is made up of many thousands of individual organisations, of which that is indeed one, and I have not suggested otherwise.

This thread's purpose is to highlight individual occurrences as they come up.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
This is a question, not an assertion: If drugs are shown to help young children with mental issues then the question becomes what is the lower limit of the age of suitable patients?
Oh, very good!

It's also two logical fallacies, plus an attempt to deflect your inability to see the problem by asking another question.

JAQing off, is how it's usually described.

I note the continuing failure to provide evidence that the drugs are beneficial in any way, thereby making your silly question moot anyway.

Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
It's certainly supporting my argument that GPs should not be performing psychiatric diagnosis and prescribing any more than they should be doing open heart surgery.
I'd go along with that entirely.

It'd reduce consumption of psychiatric drugs by about 90% straight away. Certainly Prozac would fall off the charts if GPs stopped prescribing it.

However, the psychiatric industry would clearly not be able to cope with the numbers, so it still shares the blame for the situation.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2016, 04:42 PM   #203
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
There's fail, then there's fail.

I thought the psychiatric industry's dealing with troubled teens was bad, but that pales into insignificance against babies being prescribed antipsychotics.
This is indefensible! Where is the research regarding safety and efficacy for these drugs for babies?
Frankly, Reality Check needs a reality check!
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2016, 05:08 PM   #204
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,602
Exclamation The Atheist: You cited a news article not about the entire psychiatric industry

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Trying to cover up your complete inability to defend the situation by making stupid accusations about me isn't working, sorry.
Pointing out what you actually cited is not stupid, The Atheist. The facts are simple.

Last edited by Reality Check; 25th August 2016 at 05:17 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2016, 08:32 PM   #205
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,406
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
This is indefensible! Where is the research regarding safety and efficacy for these drugs for babies?
Frankly, Reality Check needs a reality check!
As evinced by his post immediately following yours.

A defence of "It's not the entire psychiatric industry!" is as feeble as it gets.

Prescribing psychiatric drugs to babies, as you say, is indefensible, but he'll try...
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2016, 08:51 PM   #206
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,038
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
There's fail, then there's fail.

I thought the psychiatric industry's dealing with troubled teens was bad, but that pales into insignificance against babies being prescribed antipsychotics.
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
If I had my way, this would be malpractice. Having said that: if you read the article, it's worth pointing out that these are not being prescribed by psychiatrists. I suspect most psychiatrists would say these prescriptions are not appropriate.

They're being prescribed by non-psychiatrists because they can't get their patients into psychiatric care. (the article says mostly family practitioners and pediatricians)

It's certainly supporting my argument that GPs should not be performing psychiatric diagnosis and prescribing any more than they should be doing open heart surgery.
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
As evinced by his post immediately following yours.

A defence of "It's not the entire psychiatric industry!" is as feeble as it gets.

Prescribing psychiatric drugs to babies, as you say, is indefensible, but he'll try...
I think I you missed where blutoski pointed out that the article says nothing about psychiatrists prescribing these drugs to babies.

Your continued use of the term "psychiatric industry" is mildly amusing but not the least bit convincing.

The amount of misinformation you have posted in this thread is puzzling if you have a real point to make. What happened really? Did a shrink piss in your shoe or something?
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2016, 08:59 PM   #207
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I think I you missed where blutoski pointed out that the article says nothing about psychiatrists prescribing these drugs to babies.

Your continued use of the term "psychiatric industry" is mildly amusing but not the least bit convincing.

The amount of misinformation you have posted in this thread is puzzling if you have a real point to make. What happened really? Did a shrink piss in your shoe or something?
What article are you looking at? Surely not his one:

Quote:
The report shows that psychotropic drug prescriptions among babies doubled in one year, from 13,000 prescriptions in 2013 to 20,000 in 2014, despite the lack of evidence that shows they are effective and safe for young children. This may seem shocking, as it’s hard to imagine a 1-year-old needing antidepressants or antipsychotic meds. But psychiatrists often prescribe these drugs to young children — even infants — for behavioral issues like unusual aggression, temper tantrums, or lethargy.

Risperdal is one of the medications being prescribed more frequently to infants and toddlers, according to IMS Health, a prescription data company that conducted the research. Risperdal is an antipsychotic drug that treats schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and changes chemical effects in the brain. Drugs.com advises readers to “not give Risperdal to a child without a doctor’s advice.”

According to The New York Times, IMS Health found that prescriptions for another drug called Prozac, an antidepressant, increased by 23 percent in one year. Some 83,000 prescriptions for Prozac were given to children under the age of 2 in 2014.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2016, 09:56 PM   #208
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,602
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
What article are you looking at? Surely not his one:
You have to drill down to get the actual numbers. The 2015 press release for the study which is the basis of the December 2015 news article has
Quote:
Among young people treated with antipsychotics in 2010, the youngest children, ages 1-6, were the least likely to receive the prescription from a psychiatrist (57.9 vs. 71.9, 77.9, and 70.4 percent for the other three age groups). This is a source of concern, as practice guidelines caution practitioners on the use of antipsychotic medications for young children in particular.
The reporter would have been more accurate with a "Primary care providers and psychiatrists" statement.

We do not know the numbers for babies since the figures are given for 1 - 6 year olds.

Last edited by Reality Check; 25th August 2016 at 09:59 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2016, 11:07 PM   #209
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Doesn't the fact that 59.7% of the prescriptions were from non-psychiatrists imply that 40.3% were from psychiatrists?
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ

Last edited by Perpetual Student; 25th August 2016 at 11:09 PM.
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2016, 11:12 PM   #210
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Giving a psychiatric drug to a child with a barely formed brain (where there is no science concerning potential damage) is criminal in my view!
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2016, 11:24 PM   #211
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,406
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Doesn't the fact that 59.7% of the prescriptions were from non-psychiatrists imply that 40.3% were from psychiatrists?
Thanks for that; you're saving me the trouble.

Maybe Steve would reconsider his statement, but I'd bet against it.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2016, 08:19 AM   #212
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,038
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Thanks for that; you're saving me the trouble.

Maybe Steve would reconsider his statement, but I'd bet against it.
I confess to poor reading and also to not following the links. I was mistaken and I withdraw my comments.

My only defense (not excuse) is that it was late in the evening and the wine bottle was empty.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2016, 12:35 PM   #213
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,406
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I confess to poor reading and also to not following the links. I was mistaken and I withdraw my comments.

My only defense (not excuse) is that it was late in the evening and the wine bottle was empty.
I take my hat off to you - admitting making a mistake is a rarity around here.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2016, 12:48 PM   #214
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
...
We do not know the numbers for babies since the figures are given for 1 - 6 year olds.
OK, but we do know some babies are included and we also do know that the efficacy and risks of these drugs for children under the age of 6 is not known with anything even approaching a scientific basis.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2016, 02:07 PM   #215
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,602
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
OK, but we do know some babies are included and we also do know that the efficacy and risks of these drugs for children under the age of 6 is not known with anything even approaching a scientific basis.
That is almost correct, Perpetual Student.
No babies are included - that is The Atheist's assertion presumably from ignorance about what he cited (see below).
The article says
Quote:
There is very little research on the efficacy of these types of drugs to help treat behavioral problems in the very young.
The Atheist remains wrong.
  • The news article does not mention babies.
  • The paper that the news article cites does not even study infants or babies!
    Treatment of Young People With Antipsychotic Medications in the United States
    Quote:
    The percentage of young people filling 1 or more antipsychotic prescriptions during the study year by sex and age group (younger children, 1-6 years; older children, 7-12 years; adolescents, 13-18 years; and young adults, 19-24 years) was calculated.
  • About 40% of the prescriptions for 1 - 6 year old children are from primary care physicians (pediatricians and GPs).
    Those doctors are not part of his "psychiatric industry".
    There is no way to tell who if anyone is prescribing antidepressants to infants (usually up to 1 years old years).

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th August 2016 at 02:25 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2016, 03:40 PM   #216
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,406
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
No babies are included
One year olds are babies.

You are, as usual, failing extremely convincingly.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2016, 04:35 PM   #217
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,602
Question The Atheist: Can you understand that your news article does not mention babies

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
One year olds are babies.
Wrong, The Atheist: baby or infant
Quote:
An infant (from the Latin word infans, meaning "unable to speak" or "speechless") is the very young offspring of a human or other animal. When applied to humans, the term is usually considered synonymous with baby or bairn (in Scottish English), but the latter is commonly applied to the young of any animal. When a human child learns to walk, the term toddler may be used instead.

The term infant is typically applied to young children between the ages of 1 month and 12 months; however, definitions may vary between birth and 1 year of age, or even between birth and 2 years of age. A newborn is an infant who is only hours, days, or up to a few weeks old.
29 August 2016 The Atheist: Can you understand that your news article does not mention babies?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2016, 04:37 PM   #218
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,602
Question The Atheist: Can you understand that the study never studied babies

29 August 2016 The Atheist: Can you understand that the study never studied babies?
The paper that the news article cites does not even study infants or babies!
Treatment of Young People With Antipsychotic Medications in the United States
The 1 - 6 age group is described as young children.

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th August 2016 at 04:40 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2016, 04:40 PM   #219
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,602
Question The Atheist: Can you understand that pediatricians and GPs are not psychiatrists

Treatment of Young People With Antipsychotic Medications in the United States
About 40% of the prescriptions for 1 - 6 year old children are from primary care physicians (pediatricians and GPs).
29 August 2016 The Atheist: Can you understand that pediatricians and GPs are not psychiatrists?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2016, 04:44 PM   #220
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,602
And another point - psychiatrists are not usually the primary care providers for children. So there is implicit agreement from pediatricians and GPs for the 60% of young children who are prescribed antidepressants by psychiatrists.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2016, 05:37 PM   #221
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
I think quibbling over what is or isn't a baby is beside the point. People in the medical community (including psychiatrists) are prescribing psychiatric drugs to very young people where there is little support for efficacy and no evidence regarding safety. I find that arrogant, negligent, irresponsible and criminal.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2016, 07:36 PM   #222
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,602
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
People in the medical community (including psychiatrists) are prescribing psychiatric drugs to very young people where there is little support for efficacy and no evidence regarding safety.
Prescribing psychiatric drugs with known efficacy and risks for adults as a last resort in children is not "arrogant, negligent, irresponsible and criminal". It is doctors taking a less than educated risk aka the "art" part of the Hippocratic oath.

When it is just pill pushing as implied by the article then it is bad practice.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2016, 07:57 PM   #223
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,406
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
I think quibbling over what is or isn't a baby is beside the point.
Yeah, but it's bloody hilarious. Every parent I know of calls their one-year old a "baby", but when you're failing to win a trick, it's obviously ok to shriek in bold eleventy times that babies over 12 months aren't babies.

Utterly pathetic, but extremely revealing.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
People in the medical community (including psychiatrists) ...
A point he's conveniently ignoring, because only about half of them were psychiatrists.

Ignore that and shriek about paediatricians.

Seriously, it's as funny as hell, especially in light of this valid point you make:

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
..
are prescribing psychiatric drugs to very young people where there is little support for efficacy and no evidence regarding safety. I find that arrogant, negligent, irresponsible and criminal.
... but thoroughly defendable.

Have you noticed the complete lack of evidence posted by Reality Check on the safety of these drugs in babies and kids aged 1-6?

It's a superb shill tactic - when there is no evidence, shriek as loudly as possible about some irrelevant point which might have a semantic argument.

Semantics in the face of atrocious behaviour of unknown dangers.

Genius!
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2016, 08:05 PM   #224
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,406
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

Quote:
An infant (from the Latin word infans, meaning "unable to speak" or "speechless") is the very young offspring of a human or other animal. When applied to humans, the term is usually considered synonymous with baby or bairn (in Scottish English), but the latter is commonly applied to the young of any animal. When a human child learns to walk, the term toddler may be used instead.

The term infant is typically applied to young children between the ages of 1 month and 12 months; however, definitions may vary between birth and 1 year of age, or even between birth and 2 years of age. A newborn is an infant who is only hours, days, or up to a few weeks old.
Can you understand that your news article does not mention babies?
My dog saw that bit - here was his response:

__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2016, 08:19 PM   #225
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,602
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
A point he's conveniently ignoring,...
That is wrong, The Atheist, because I was the one to first point out the actual numbers as repeated today.
29 August 2016 The Atheist: I cited the number 57.9% for young children (1-6) receiving a prescription from a psychiatrist which you did not seem know about on 26 August 2016.
One point that is not clear in that post was that IMO psychiatrists should be more involved with the diagnosis and treatment of mental conditions in younger children. It should be harder to diagnose conditions in younger children than older children. But the study shows that opposite is true.

I am not the one ignoring that pediatricians and GPs are not psychiatrists! I am not the one ignoring that psychiatrists are not the primary care providers for young children - that is pediatricians and GPs.
29 August 2016 The Atheist: There is implicit agreement from pediatricians and GPs for the 60% of young children who are prescribed antidepressants by psychiatrists.

29 August 2016 The Atheist: Can you understand that your news article does not mention babies?
29 August 2016 The Atheist: Can you understand that the study never studied babies?
29 August 2016 The Atheist: Can you understand that pediatricians and GPs are not psychiatrists?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2016, 08:26 PM   #226
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,602
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
My dog saw that bit - here was his response:
My dog reads a half lie by highlighting half of what Wikipedia says !
Infant
Quote:
An infant (from the Latin word infans, meaning "unable to speak" or "speechless") is the very young offspring of a human or other animal. When applied to humans, the term is usually considered synonymous with baby or bairn (in Scottish English), but the latter is commonly applied to the young of any animal. When a human child learns to walk, the term toddler may be used instead.

The term infant is typically applied to young children between the ages of 1 month and 12 months; however, definitions may vary between birth and 1 year of age, or even between birth and 2 years of age. A newborn is an infant who is only hours, days, or up to a few weeks old.
Any one who understands English knows that when the word baby or infant is used it means typically between the ages of 1 month and 12 months. If used non-typically then that needs to be stated.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2016, 08:40 PM   #227
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,602
Question The Atheist: What is your evidence to back up your assertion

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Have you noticed the complete lack of evidence posted by Reality Check on the safety of these drugs in babies and kids aged 1-6?
It was your assertion, The Atheist. It is up to you to provide the evidence.
29 August 2016 The Atheist: What is your evidence to back up your assertion about "babies" being prescribed antipsychotics being a fail?
Cite the scientific evidence that the drugs being prescribed have no effect on young children.
Cite the scientific evidence that the drugs being prescribed have unreasonable risks for young children.

It is a lie that the drugs were prescribed to "babies and kids aged 1-6" - the study included a youngest age group of young children 1 - 6 and did not have a separate "babies" category.

I am not asserting that the drugs are safe for young children. I am questioning that the doctors prescribing them do not seem to have any evidence that they are safe for young children other than assuming that their safety for adults applies to young children. As I wrote: If drugs are shown to help young children with mental issues then the question becomes what is the lower limit of the age of suitable patients?

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th August 2016 at 08:44 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2016, 09:03 PM   #228
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,602
The news articles that actually mention babies and antipsychotic drugs are a 10 December 2015, New York Times: Still in a Crib, Yet Being Given Antipsychotics. This is based on the reported usages of the drugs - not who prescribed them for what conditions. This is what the "psychiatric industry" says about this
Quote:
In interviews, a dozen experts in child psychiatry and neurology said that they had never heard of a child younger than 3 receiving such medication, and struggled to explain it. They presumed that parents and doctors, probably desperate and well meaning, were trying to alleviate thrashing temper tantrums — the kind that get children kicked out of day care — or an overly depressed disposition, like being strikingly inhibited, nonverbal or lethargic.
...
Dr. Martin Drell, former president of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, said he was “hard-pressed to figure out what the rationale would be” for the prescriptions. Similarly taken aback, some experts wondered if the medicine was never actually consumed by the child, or if it was issued in the name of a child covered by Medicaid but in fact taken by an ill parent who was uninsured.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2016, 10:28 PM   #229
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Prescribing psychiatric drugs with known efficacy and risks for adults as a last resort in children is not "arrogant, negligent, irresponsible and criminal". It is doctors taking a less than educated risk aka the "art" part of the Hippocratic oath.

When it is just pill pushing as implied by the article then it is bad practice.
I disagree. A drug that might be relatively safe and effective for an adult (with a fully formed brain) may very well not be safe and effective for a brain not yet fully formed. In fact it might be quite dangerous.
There is a dearth of convincing research in this area.
A child's brain will undergo an enormous amount of change (synaptic connections, etc.) to become fully mature. We have no idea how these drugs may interfere with or otherwise affect this development. I stick with my assessment; without any scientific support, prescribing these drugs is arrogant, negligent, irresponsible and criminal. Frankly, I regard these children as victims, irrespective of their behavior, short of them being demonstrably homicidal or suicidal.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2016, 11:20 PM   #230
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,406
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
It is a lie that the drugs were prescribed to "babies and kids aged 1-6" - the study included a youngest age group of young children 1 - 6 and did not have a separate "babies" category.
I'm really not sorry your fallacy is failing, because it's so idiotic. Babies are a subset of young children, and as you Wiki link shows, count up to 2 years old.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I am not asserting that the drugs are safe for young children.
Then why, for Zarquon's sake are you arguing the point?

Are you a shill for psychiatry? Or are you a psychologist yourself?
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2016, 11:01 AM   #231
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,634
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
I think quibbling over what is or isn't a baby is beside the point. People in the medical community (including psychiatrists) are prescribing psychiatric drugs to very young people where there is little support for efficacy and no evidence regarding safety. I find that arrogant, negligent, irresponsible and criminal.
It is worth mentioning that there is some evidence regarding safety, but not of the same quality we have for adults since there are no double blinded placebo controlled trials.

Primarily, the research on infant dosing and safety profiles is intended to explore potential risks associated with nursing from a mother who is taking these medications. The research estimates dosage and attempts to quantify any potential side effects.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2016, 11:38 AM   #232
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
It is worth mentioning that there is some evidence regarding safety, but not of the same quality we have for adults since there are no double blinded placebo controlled trials.

Primarily, the research on infant dosing and safety profiles is intended to explore potential risks associated with nursing from a mother who is taking these medications. The research estimates dosage and attempts to quantify any potential side effects.
Perhaps so, but there is no scientific evidence regarding the long term (say, fifteen or twenty years) consequences of these drugs. Since they are given to an individual with a developing brain, it seems to me that it is critical to understand what these drugs might do to the development process.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2016, 01:31 PM   #233
AcesHigh
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 480
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post

Certainly you can't possibly believe that therapy is no different than 'talking' ?

(this is where the Psychiatry Denial becomes more evident)
this is actually what the worst psychotherapists do.

well, there are good and bad people in all professions.


some very bad psychotherapists don´t really apply psychotherapy. Instead they really TALK like friends. They try to make you happy, by saying you are right in all situations, etc.

patients have a momentary relief and keep going for more sessions and giving money.

only it´s short term and in the long term it solved none of the issues.

they give a bad name to the profession. Some of them even get media famous.
AcesHigh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2016, 02:01 PM   #234
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,634
Hello,
I am not going to debate any one who flames me, so say you have a child 3 yo who never sleeps, and is psychotic and destructive. Would people consider that this might be an individual to refer for psychiatry, after a neurological work up.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2016, 02:23 PM   #235
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
Valium is still prescribed, because it still works. There are better drugs now as well, for patients who need those.

My wife is prescribing what are called 3rd generation antipsychotics that are less than a decade old, they're now the first line in BC.
I concur: Just because a drug is old doesn't mean it's not effective. Phenobarbitol is still the single most effective drug for controlling epilepsy. There are other, newer drugs, which have fewer side effects and put less strain on the kidneys and liver... but they're not effective for everyone, and many of them lose effectiveness over time. Phenobarbitol still works very well. I know epilepsy is a neurological disorder, not a mental disorder, but it was the best illustration I have for "Old <> Bad"
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2016, 02:34 PM   #236
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Well, since his condition and living conditions are the responsibility of the psychiatric wing of the health board, I'm struggling to see whose problem it is if not psychiatry.
Would you say that the deplorable state of treatment in some VA hospitals is evidence of a failure of the medical industry?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2016, 02:51 PM   #237
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,634
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Perhaps so, but there is no scientific evidence regarding the long term (say, fifteen or twenty years) consequences of these drugs.
No, but the short term safety is going in the right direction, and there's no immediately obvious mechanism of action for harm, so this is an example of a debate about where we have to consider "In light of weak evidence of safety and no evidence of harm, is the burden of proof on proving safety or harm?"

This is always the situation with pregnant women and children. We don't allow them in clinical trials, so we have to revert to other sources and qualities of evidence.

My personal opinion is that the burden should reflect the danger associated with not prescribing. In this case, the worst case scenario is misbehavior, which does not appear to justify prescribing with such thin benefit/risk profiles.



Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Since they are given to an individual with a developing brain, it seems to me that it is critical to understand what these drugs might do to the development process.
"if anything" - that's the challenge. It's hard to show long term safety for any drug or intervention, period. Adult clinical trials aren't performing generation length longitudinals. Phase III clinical trials for adults might be a year or two follow up max, but usually none.

Anything in the fifteen-twenty year zone is usually beyond the scope of even post market surveillance, and falls into the category of ad hoc investigations based on anecdotal/cultural reports of harm or epidemiology.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2016, 02:52 PM   #238
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I'd dispute that treatments have been more successful than cancer treatment, because the cancer treatment stops, Schizos keep taking pills, so the condition is controlled and only stays controlled while they swallow the pills.
Cancer vs Mental illness isn't really a very good comparison. It's kind of like comparing mental illness and the flu. One is a persistent condition, the other is a short term contagion.

A better comparison would be Mental Illness versus Diabetes, or Congestive Heart Failure, or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, or Asthma. At least all of those are persistent conditions.

And in all cases, medicine has made advances in treating those diseases, in allowing people suffering from them to lead better lives. And in all those cases, medicine has not managed to cure any of them.

There's been a huge amount of progress in pharmaceutical treatment for mental disorders in the last 50 years. Heck, Prozac didn't even come out until the late 80s! Since then there's been a host of prescription treatments for depression. There've also been advances in treatment for schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2016, 02:53 PM   #239
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,634
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I concur: Just because a drug is old doesn't mean it's not effective. Phenobarbitol is still the single most effective drug for controlling epilepsy. There are other, newer drugs, which have fewer side effects and put less strain on the kidneys and liver... but they're not effective for everyone, and many of them lose effectiveness over time. Phenobarbitol still works very well. I know epilepsy is a neurological disorder, not a mental disorder, but it was the best illustration I have for "Old <> Bad"
I think The Atheist was portraying Old -> Evidence of No Progress -> Failure.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2016, 03:06 PM   #240
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I used "antipsychotic" as a search term and the first 20 show nothing new going on.
Limit your search to stage 0 and stage 1 trials.

EVP-6308 for schizophrenia
EVP-6124 for schizophrenia
RO4917838 for schizophrenia


That's 3 in the first 20 listed.

There are 3 new treatments in trial for bipolar disorder, two of which are non-pharmaceutical trials.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:26 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.