Just now, fredwiggy said:

When I post a link, it's always from a reputable source so others won't be biased or confused. Opinions mean nothing Here's another....................https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK611303/table/international.tab1/

That is not per capita, it is total volume. It also does not show any of the countries you mentioned surpassing the US in prescription drug volume per capita.

9 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

When I post a link, it's always from a reputable source so others won't be biased or confused. Opinions mean nothing That those other countries sometimes surpass the US is factual.

While the United States consistently ranks highest in total and per capita financial expenditure on pharmaceuticals due to high brand-name drug prices, countries like France, Japan, and Germany frequently match or surpass the U.S. in terms of physical volume or per capita utilization rates of specific medicine

Volume vs. Spending Dynamics

• Per Capita Use: Reports from international health data groups like IQVIA show that Western Europe and Japan regularly exhibit high per capita prescription and medicine use [1.4], often double that of other global regions.

• Aging Demographics: Japan has an older population, leading to high baseline volumes of chronic disease management medications per resident.

• National Insurance Systems: Broad statutory health coverage in France and Germany encourages consistent patient access and regular fulfillment of maintenance therapies, driving up unit volume even as net prices remain strictly regulated.Here's another....................https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK611303/table/international.tab1/

If I follow your reasoning, Japan appears to be a leading country in medication use, perhaps understandably considering its ageing population, work culture and limited social welfare and workers’ rights. But your source still does not prove that France and Germany surpass the US overall, except perhaps in certain specific medicines.

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

If I follow your reasoning, Japan appears to be a leading country in medication use, perhaps understandably considering its ageing population, work culture and limited social welfare and workers’ rights. But your source still does not prove that France and Germany surpass the US overall, except perhaps in certain specific medicines.

Those links, and others, along with the AI which comes from a combination of sources, just show that Japan, Germany and France sometimes surpass the US in volume of pills used per capita. There are quite a few other links.

1 minute ago, fredwiggy said:

Those links, and others, along with the AI which comes from a combination of sources, just show that Japan, Germany and France sometimes surpass the US in volume of pills used per capita. There are quite a few other links.

If you look at my answer and then at yours, what are we really discussing here now? 🤔😁

23 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

When I post a link, it's always from a reputable source so others won't be biased or confused

Mostly, I do not worry about the bias of others on TV.

I just remain nonplussed by the bias of you.

Have you watched this nice vid, as I suggested?

And, have you watched the vid from the guy from Iraq?

Why don't you test these drugs on yourself, for about one year, and then report back to us???

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Mostly, I do not worry about the bias of others on TV.

I just remain nonplussed by the bias of you.

Have you watched this nice vid, as I suggested?

And, have you watched the vid from the guy from Iraq?

Why don't you test these drugs on yourself, for about one year, and then report back to us???

I don't have depression, but again, have many acquaintances that do. Again, if you want to understand what I've been saying all along, read all of what I've written on Aseannow and you'll see what I've said about depression medicines.That video is just another in the long line of opinions. Best to take many sources and put them all together to see what the truth in any subject is. Remember, 30+ years and thousands of articles , books, and personal experience.

Edited August 6Aug 6 by fredwiggy

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

If you look at God's creation objectively, you will see that it is a wonder of nature, but it's supposed to break down with it's flaws. Some faster than others, as living forever was never part of the plan but a temporary thing.

...

Your view is typical of the view held by 99% of people. It is fully in keeping with human culture, whether popular culture (religion, common wisdom) or erudite culture (philosophy, epistemology etc.). The sole purpose of human culture is hiding the fact that sentient life is a tragedy. The purpose of Life is not DNA replication or reverse entropy or some other smart-ass technicality. The purpose of Life is the maximisation of physical and mental suffering. Suffering is not compensated by pleasure or happiness because the latter two are relative goods, while suffering is an absolute evil.

Not only is Life bad, but it is bad in many different ways. Being born is always a harm and the dead weight of human culture is needed to hide this fact, whose recognition would imply that instead of saying "thank you mum & dad for giving me life", we would blame those two for selfishness, immorality and irresponsibility. Creating new life is selfish, immoral and irresponsible.

This is the mother of all taboos, a bigger taboo even than the big enough sexual taboos plaguing human society. An elephant so big that it doesn't fit inside any room.

Edited August 6Aug 6 by JackGats
spelling

47 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Remember, 30+ years and thousands of articles , books, and personal experience.

Please feel free to add citations for the valid research articles you have read.....

WAITING....

3 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Please feel free to add citations for the valid research articles you have read.....

WAITING....

I've read 3 books on depression and all the articles I can find, from 1996 until now.

5 minutes ago, JackGats said:

Your view is typical of the view held by 99% of people. It is fully in keeping with human culture, whether popular culture (religion, common wisdom) or erudite culture (philosophy, epistemology etc.). The sole purpose of human culture is hiding the fact that sentient life is a tragedy. The purpose of Life is not DNA replication or reverse entropy or some other smart-ass technicality. The purpose of Life is the maximisation of physical and mental suffering. Suffering is not compensated by pleasure or happiness because the latter two are relative goods, while suffering is an absolute evil.

Not only is Life bad, but it is bad in many different ways. Being born is always a harm and the dead weight of human culture is needed to hide this fact, whose recognition would imply that instead of saying "thank you mum & dad for giving me life", we would blame those two for selfishness, immorality and irresponsibility. Creating new life is selfish, immoral and irresponsible.

This is the mother of all taboos, a bigger taboo even than the big enough sexual taboos plaguing human society. An elephant so big that it doesn't fit inside any room.

The purpose of life is to follow God's rules, find a partner, maybe have children, be good to others, and believe in another better place God has waiting for us. Sorry your life didn't go the way you wanted, but that's true for most of us, whether we remain single or have children and wives. Temporary test.

5 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

I've read 3 books on depression and all the articles I can find, from 1996 until now.

Did you become suitably depressed after reading them?

Just now, scottiejohn said:

Did you become suitably depressed after reading them?

No, but it happens reading some member replies here.

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Have you watched this nice vid, as I suggested?

Well, 95% is not 100%.

And I don't have time to watch the video to see his arguments and how he comes up with this number.

But you believe in "nothing" -- neither in medications and not in talk therapy either.

As though the entire field of psychology is quackery and not needed in society because all human beings are perfectly well-adjusted.

It seems like you have never met people with psychological issues.

28 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

No, but it happens reading some member replies here.

Thankfully, almost all of my Topics are uplifting.

If it were not so, then I would not upload them to TV.

13 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Well, 95% is not 100%.

And I don't have time to watch the video to see his arguments and how he comes up with this number.

But you believe in "nothing" -- neither in medications and not in talk therapy either.

As though the entire field of psychology is quackery and not needed in society because all human beings are perfectly well-adjusted.

It seems like you have never met people with psychological issues.

It seems to me that you, for one, do not have psychological issues, or if you do...then they are exceedingly minor in nature.

15 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Well, 95% is not 100%.

And I don't have time to watch the video to see his arguments and how he comes up with this number.

But you believe in "nothing" -- neither in medications and not in talk therapy either.

As though the entire field of psychology is quackery and not needed in society because all human beings are perfectly well-adjusted.

It seems like you have never met people with psychological issues.

Only if he never leaves his house.

Just now, GammaGlobulin said:

And I don't have time to watch the video to see his arguments and how he comes up with this number.

Your loss, I would say.

If you do not have time to watch the vids, then you will gain nothing from them.

Your loss, as I say.

Just now, GammaGlobulin said:

Your loss, I would say.

If you do not have time to watch the vids, then you will gain nothing from them.

Your loss, as I say.

Videos are fine, abridged of course, so not as good as reading the actual books written, but i do listen to videos all the time, and have all along, as they're easy to put on while you're lying in bed before sleep. I listened to every one of Dr. Les Carter's and Dr. Ramani's on narcissism.

4 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

I listened to every one of Dr. Les Carter's and Dr. Ramani's on narcissism.

Too bad there's no PILL for narcissism.

Just now, save the frogs said:

Too bad there's no PILL for narcissism.

It would improve the world overnight, after they took effect.

55 minutes ago, JackGats said:

Your view is typical of the view held by 99% of people. It is fully in keeping with human culture, whether popular culture (religion, common wisdom) or erudite culture (philosophy, epistemology etc.). The sole purpose of human culture is hiding the fact that sentient life is a tragedy. The purpose of Life is not DNA replication or reverse entropy or some other smart-ass technicality. The purpose of Life is the maximisation of physical and mental suffering. Suffering is not compensated by pleasure or happiness because the latter two are relative goods, while suffering is an absolute evil.

Not only is Life bad, but it is bad in many different ways. Being born is always a harm and the dead weight of human culture is needed to hide this fact, whose recognition would imply that instead of saying "thank you mum & dad for giving me life", we would blame those two for selfishness, immorality and irresponsibility. Creating new life is selfish, immoral and irresponsible.

This is the mother of all taboos, a bigger taboo even than the big enough sexual taboos plaguing human society. An elephant so big that it doesn't fit inside any room.

You sound like you’ve read a lot of Benatar or Schopenhauer?

7 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Too bad there's no PILL for narcissism.

This man is spot on about narcissism. Taught me a lot I wasn't aware of regarding the covert variety. This is his last video. Good listening all of his, and has your eyes opened about the tactics used by them.................https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1y1ioAYJA8.

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

You sound like you’ve read a lot of Benatar or Schopenhauer?

Or maybe Jean Paul Sartre.

Hell is other people.

18 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

This man is spot on about narcissism. Taught me a lot I wasn't aware of regarding the covert variety. This is his last video. Good listening all of his, and has your eyes opened about the tactics used by them.................https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1y1ioAYJA8.

Do narcissists recognize narcissism in themselves, or mainly in other people?

Looking at the Abrahamic religions, I also find it interesting that many of the traits associated with narcissism and other mental health disorders can appear in the way God is described. Perhaps that says as much about the humans who wrote the texts as it does about the character they were describing.

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Do narcissists recognize narcissism in themselves, or mainly in other people?

Looking at the Abrahamic religions, I also find it interesting that many of the traits associated with narcissism and other mental health disorders can appear in the way God is described. Perhaps that says as much about the humans who wrote the texts as it does about the character they were describing.

They all look at others as disposable. Narcissistic personalities see others as themselves through projection. It's their defense mechanism.

They know how they are, mostly coming from a low self esteem and hatred towards their caregivers, where they learned their behavior, but they don't see themselves as flawed.

They know what works for them, as them is all they care about, so feel no need to change, as it gets them what they want. When they are called out, they put their actions on others to deflect it away from themselves.

God did create the narcissistic trait, like all other human emotions and traits.

Most everyone has a little narcissistic traits, as they build self confidence and are helpful in problem solving, but the disorder, NPD, is a totally different animal, with no empathy nor sympathy for others, and only within them for personal gains.

Edited August 6Aug 6 by fredwiggy

36 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Or maybe Jean Paul Sartre.

Hell is other people.

Well, that’s a remarkable observation. If people cultivate that philosophical outlook, I am not surprised the consumption of coloured pills goes up. 😉

To be fair to Sartre, other people can also be the way out of hell.

16 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

They all look at others as disposable. Narcissistic personalities see others as themselves through projection. It's their defense mechanism.

They know how they are, mostly coming from a low self esteem and hatred towards their caregivers, where they learned their behavior, but they don't see themselves as flawed.

They know what works for them, as them is all they care about, so feel no need to change, as it gets them what they want. When they are called out, they put their actions on others to deflect it away from themselves.

God did create the narcissistic trait, like all other human emotions and traits.

Most everyone has a little narcissistic traits, as they build self confidence and are helpful in problem solving, but the disorder, NPD, is a totally different animal, with no empathy nor sympathy for others, and only within them for personal gains.

I think that is an important observation. We as humans can show traits that look like many different diagnoses without actually having the diagnosis itself. It is often about time, place and circumstances, some within our control and some outside it. At the same time, some people carry an underlying vulnerability that may stay hidden for years until the right circumstances trigger it.

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

I think that is an important observation. We as humans can show traits that look like many different diagnoses without actually having the diagnosis itself. It is often about time, place and circumstances, some within our control and some outside it. At the same time, some people carry an underlying vulnerability that may stay hidden for years until the right circumstances trigger it.

Like most other things, going to extremes is usually not a good thing. We all have a blend of personality types, and all have anger and a desire to help, but with them, it's all about personal gain instead of a real desire to help. A desire to control or for admiration, acting superior when they're many times cursed with self hatred. Yes, some people keep things inside a long time, not wanting to look vulnerable, and they come out when stressed.

Please forgive me if I, at this particular time, interject input from Gemini, as a very brief and abbreviated recap and synopsis of what has been stated, by all, thus far.

If Gemini Pro has misinterpreted the meanings of any comments, then please do not blame the messenger.

I do not wholly agree with Gemini's synopsis, since it leaves out salient and strange points made by some contributors, here.

Still, Gemini is not yet completely sane, and, so far, merely a machine.

I think Gemini had done fredwiggy an injustice in not adding fredwiggy's views about religion, but maybe Gemini is smarter than I, which would not be a significant stretch.

ANYWAY, enjoy the synopsis if you will:

Systemic Overview of Pharmacological Discourse

The provided forum thread operates as an analytical debate regarding the biological efficacy and systemic risks of psychotropic medications. The discourse deconstructs the application of exogenous chemicals to alter neural pathways, fracturing into three primary theoretical frameworks: absolute pharmacological rejection, regulated clinical application, and integrated lifestyle intervention.

Contributor Analysis and Theoretical Frameworks

GammaGlobulin (Author) Initiates the primary thesis. Asserts that neuroadaptation renders long-term psychotropic drug use ineffective and harmful. Identifies pharmaceutical companies as profit-driven entities suppressing data on habituation and withdrawal mechanisms. Rejects unverified clinical anecdotes and demands empirical, controlled long-term trials demonstrating benefit over placebo.

fredwiggy Establishes the clinical defense framework. Argues that psychotropic medications correct acute chemical imbalances in severe clinical depression and schizophrenia. Emphasizes the necessity of continuous medical monitoring and dosage adjustment. Rejects lifestyle-only interventions for biological clinical disorders, citing empirical data that medication prevents suicides in acute cases.

Hummin Introduces an integrated biological model. Acknowledges the short-term utility of medication for crisis intervention but highlights the risk of tachyphylaxis (tolerance) and severe withdrawal. Emphasizes neuroplasticity through consistent lifestyle modifications (diet, exercise, cognitive restructuring). Notes the unpredictability of individual genetic responses to SSRIs, citing observational instances of subsequent suicides.

novacova Advocates for exclusive orthomolecular and dietary interventions. Argues that strict dietary protocols (raw foods) and meditation can resolve severe psychiatric conditions, including schizophrenia. Rejects pharmaceutical interventions as toxic and distrusts AI and pharmaceutical corporate models.

unblocktheplanet Provides empirical observation from clinical employment within a psychiatric facility. Describes psychiatric prescription practices as trial-and-error. Confirms that psychotropic medications physically alter neural pathways, necessitating rigorous tapering protocols to avoid severe withdrawal distress. Advocates for controlled psychedelic use but warns against contraindications with SSRIs.

atpeace Corroborates the systemic failure of long-term prescription retention, noting high patient drop-off rates. Provides observational data on the destructive biological consequences and severe withdrawal cycles of benzodiazepine addiction. Prioritizes lifestyle interventions over chemical solutions.

save the frogs Identifies environmental and behavioral variables (nutrient deficiency, lack of sunlight, auditory stimuli) as primary catalysts for depression. Notes the documented risk of increased suicidal ideation linked to specific antidepressants. Defends the necessity of psychotherapeutic intervention (the "talking cure") for individuals lacking social support structures.

Tourist2 Employs a sociological conspiracy framework. Equates pharmaceutical reliance to systemic social degradation. Attributes increased drug consumption to the disruption of traditional nuclear family structures by feminist ideologies and equates the pharmaceutical industry to witchcraft.

newbee2022 Provides pharmacological classification. Categorizes psychiatric drugs into discrete functional classes (antidepressants, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, stimulants) and defends their efficacy when administered by specialized medical personnel.

ArchieBunker Contrasts Eastern and Western medical philosophies. Asserts that Traditional Chinese Medicine targets fundamental immune system failures and root causes, whereas Western pharmacology only suppresses superficial symptoms using chemical compounds.

JackGats Introduces an antinatalist biological perspective. Defines the human organism as a malfunctioning system designed for suffering. Rejects the premise that medical intervention can correct inherent biological tragedies, viewing the body's resistance to medication as evidence of systemic failure.

Taboo2 Links psychotropic medication to violent behavioral anomalies. Specifically cites mass casualty events (Columbine) and military suicide rates as direct consequences of increased prescription rates.

zmisha Differentiates between situational grief and biological depression. Concludes that chemical interventions induce emotional apathy ("a vegetable" state) rather than resolving external environmental stressors.

Airalee Identifies the failure of medical practitioners and consumers to acknowledge severe contraindications and black box warnings on pharmaceutical products.

Sigmund Highlights neuro-gastric connections. Links depression directly to the vagus nerve, exacerbated by the consumption of alcohol, processed meats, and lack of physical exercise.

WDSmart States a theoretical belief in psychiatric drugs but abstains from consumption. Notes past subjective alterations in belief systems caused by hallucinogen intake.

cjinchiangrai Rejects the author's thesis. Defends the existence and clinical utility of pharmaceutical drugs under direct physician supervision.

Photoguy21 Attributes high pharmaceutical consumption rates to specific cultural conditioning within the United States, where populations demand pharmacological solutions regardless of necessity.

KhunLA Briefly categorizes drug use as a recreational activity of the past.

Gottfrid Interprets the author's intense focus on pharmacology as a manifestation of extreme chemical tolerance and a disguised request for stronger narcotics.

Globalres Inquires about the specific objections to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) raised by the author.

Thematic Integration

The forum demonstrates a clear systemic division regarding human neurology. The data points isolate two conflicting methodologies: treating mental health as an isolated chemical imbalance requiring continuous exogenous molecular regulation (the allopathic/pharmacological model), versus treating it as a systemic response to environmental, dietary, and psychological stimuli requiring behavioral and nutritional restructuring.

====================

After reading the above, from Gemini, I must agree that robots are becoming smarter than humans.

First came chess, and then GO, and now the TV-Forum.

Such a sad day, but also a GLAD day....IMHO.....

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

It seems to me that you, for one, do not have psychological issues, or if you do...then they are exceedingly minor in nature.

Everyone has their own neurosis to deal with.

And then you have to deal with other people's neurosis.

Lately, I have spent a lot of time alone, so it's not a problem.

Being around neurotic family, problematic girlfriend, neurotic co-workers, bosses, and a stressful job, it can accumulate fast and be overwhelming.

And that's one reason so many people reach for the meds.

This is one of the most famous paintings of all time.

It's a guy who can't deal with all the insanity around him.

Edited August 6Aug 6 by save the frogs