What do life mongers not understand about mental health institutes being disguised as a holding for people who do not conform to normalcy?

[AbyssalAlien]

Mental health institutes are not a placed where you are helped in the United States. It is a holding and very much a prison for people who show their symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Cause how dare you not just go to your 9-5 or salary wage job and go back to bed and do nothing and not swallow painkillers for chronic pain and pretend they work. If you are a kid, then its, oh how dare you take everything for granted and not be happy 24/7 like every other kid whos been touched by God and has 777 luck from infancy to 18 years old.

Oh and then go ahead and take these cancer causing antidepressants that will leave you with hormonal side effects and withdrawals cause fucking with dopamine and serotonin receptors is such a great idea.

Whats that? None of those work? Then we will lock you up, drain your health insurance for what its worth, put you in a room with a potential killer or grapist as your bunk mate, and if you so much as blink the wrong way we will sedate you by forceful injection.

Then they say, you dare make a forum for yourselves to talk about your suicidal ideation and problems with people who are going through the same thing? Nahhhh lets pass a bill to get those banned and then send bottom of the barrel cops and arbiters to stalk the forum to prey upon members to send PET team to drag them into a hospital by force.

Life mongers smh. "Just get help", help a serving to deez nuts you life insurance gobblers.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

From what I know, SSRIs have been found not to increase the risk of developing cancer. Also, why are you using the term "grapist"? This isn't TikTok. Just say rapist.

Edit: Upon a bit of further research, it seems as though the connection between cancer and SSRIs isn't fully understood yet. There does seem to be some research suggesting that they may actually act as tumour suppressants, thus slightly reducing the risk of developing cancer. However, other studies have found that it may increase the risk of developing cancer in certain situations. I feel like just labelling them "cancer-causing" really downplays how complex the relationship between them and cancer really is. I'm saying this as someone who isn't necessarily a big fan of psych meds in general and who is thankful that their mother went out of their way to prevent them ever having to take them.

 

[PromisedLand]

Oh and then go ahead and take these cancer causing antidepressants that will leave you with hormonal side effects and withdrawals cause fucking with dopamine and serotonin receptors is such a great idea.

Do you mean antipsychotics by any chance? I think they're more likely to affect dopamine?

Our world is cruel to people are are struggling :(

 

[AbyssalAlien]

From what I know, SSRIs have been found not to increase the risk of developing cancer. Also, why are you using the term "grapist"? This isn't TikTok. Just say rapist.

Edit: Upon a bit of further research, it seems as though the connection between cancer and SSRIs isn't fully understood yet. There does seem to be some research suggesting that they may actually act as tumour suppressants, thus slightly reducing the risk of developing cancer. However, other studies have found that it may increase the risk of developing cancer in certain situations. I feel like just labelling them "cancer-causing" really downplays how complex the relationship between them and cancer really is. I'm saying this as someone who isn't necessarily a big fan of psych meds in general and who is thankful that their mother went out of their way to prevent them ever having to take them.

The FDA recalled dozens of antidepressants under Class II for a chemical impurity that is part of the manufacture process, N-nitroso-duloxetine.

It's part of a group of chemicals called nitrosamines, which are used in pesticides.
N-nitroso-duloxetine has been linked to a higher risk of cancer.

This recall occured *after* several studies were promoting SSRIs to modulate tumors.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

The FDA recalled dozens of antidepressants under Class II for a chemical impurity that is part of the manufacture process, Cymbalta.

It's part of a group of chemicals called nitrosamines, which are used in pesticides.
N-nitroso-duloxetine has been linked to a higher risk of cancer.

This recall occured *after* several studies were promoting SSRIs to modulate tumors.

That's only in reference to one particular brand of antidepressants. Also, Cymbalta is an SNRI, not an SSRI. There does seem to be a potential risk of SNRIs increasing the risk of developing lung cancer, but this cannot be used to generalize all antidepressants as being cancer-causing. There are many different types of antidepressants, so their relationship with cancer is a complex one that will likely differ depending on which type of antidepressants you are looking at, the individual meds themself, what kind of cancer you are looking at, etc.

 

[AbyssalAlien]

That's only in reference to one particular brand of antidepressants. Also, Cymbalta is an SNRI, not an SSRI. There does seem to be a potential risk of SNRIs increasing the risk of developing lung cancer, but this cannot be used to generalize all antidepressants as being cancer-causing. There are many different types of antidepressants, so their relationship with cancer is a complex one that will likely differ depending on which type of antidepressants you are looking at, the individual meds themself, what kind of cancer you are looking at, etc.

Do antidepressants cause, promote, or inhibit cancers? - PubMed

Further epidemiologic studies in humans are needed to determine which antidepressants cause, promote, or inhibit cancers.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

For several SSRIs and SNRIs. Why so many? Its a win for them since it keeps us sick and the treatment for mental illness rarely works and has relapse effects because most of the time peoples depression and anxiety will include external environmental factors and not a chemical imbalance.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Do antidepressants cause, promote, or inhibit cancers? - PubMed

Further epidemiologic studies in humans are needed to determine which antidepressants cause, promote, or inhibit cancers.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

For several SSRIs and SNRIs. Why so many? Its a win for them since it keeps us sick and the treatment for mental illness rarely works and has relapse effects because most of the time peoples depression and anxiety will include external environmental factors and not a chemical imbalance.

This study is from 1995. It's outdated.

Here is an excerpt from a study done in 2020 that was looking at the relationship between SSRIs and bladder-cancer

Earlier studies suggested that SSRIs increased the risk of cancer, especially breast cancer and colorectal cancer [4,5,6,7]. However, other, subsequent studies did not support these foregoing findings [8,9,10]. Moreover, an inverse relationship between SSRIs and cancer risk has also been reported suggesting an anti-cancer effect of SSRIs. For example, three population-based studies reported that SSRIs are associated with a lower risk of cancer (i.e., hepatocellular carcinoma, liver, and ovarian cancer) [11,12,13]. A separate study suggested that antidepressant prescription before bladder cancer diagnosis was associated with a lower degree of invasiveness and severity of cancer at the time of diagnosis [14]. Moreover, some animal and human cell in-vitro studies have also demonstrated the tumor suppression effect of SSRIs [15,16,17,18,19,20].

Also, in the study that you linked, when summarizing the results in the first section, the study notes that this is the case for four particular types of antidepressants, not all antidepressants in general. There are a lot of antidepressant medications out there besides the ones mentioned here. Along with that, they also note that the results differed depending which antidepressants they were examining. They also stated that they noticed they were negatively associated with pancreatic cancer.

The human studies showed a transiently statistically significant positive association between amitriptyline and liver cancer and a negative association with pancreatic cancer; and that the antidepressants amitriptyline, nortriptyline, desipramine, and phenelzine may increase risk of breast cancer. Results of the experimental studies differed depending on which antidepressants were examined and which model was used.

The study also states that:

Amitriptyline was found to promote tumour growth, fluoxetine and clomipramine were reported to be both tumour promoters and antineoplastic agents, and imipramine and citalopram both demonstrated antineoplastic properties

Antineoplastic refers to drugs that block the formation of neoplasms, which are growths that may become cancerous.

The conclusion was also that

Further epidemiologic studies in humans are needed to determine which antidepressants cause, promote, or inhibit cancers.

 

[AbyssalAlien]

This study is from 1995. It's outdated.

Here is an excerpt from a study done in 2020 that was looking at the relationship between SSRIs and bladder-cancer


Also, in the study that you linked, when summarizing the results in the first section, the study notes that this is the case for four particular types of antidepressants, not all antidepressants in general. There are a lot of antidepressant medications out there besides the ones mentioned here. Along with that, they also note that the results differed depending which antidepressants they were examining. They also stated that they noticed they were negatively associated with pancreatic cancer.

They differ based on the various antidepressants used in the study. They show a positive association with lung and liver cancer because of the way they are processed. The negative association with pancreatic cancer means nothing if the liver fails since that will lead to pancreatic disease as well. We are not going to start a practice of giving psych meds to cancer patients, especially when the reason their cancers have aggrevated so much can be partially blamed towards the medical community's eagerness to blame symptoms on anxiety.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

They differ based on the various antidepressants used in the study. They show a positive association with lung and liver cancer because of the way they are processed. The negative association with pancreatic cancer means nothing if the liver fails since that will lead to pancreatic disease as well. We are not going to start a practice of giving psych meds to cancer patients, especially when the reason their cancers have aggrevated so much can be partially blamed towards the medical community's eagerness to blame symptoms on anxiety.

Why did you decide to cite a study from around 30 years again and then decided to respond to my comment by trying to reiterate the same stuff I just told you? Also, that's literally the point I'm trying to make. You made a massive generalization on antidepressants, even though the relationship between them and cancer is actually very complicated.

Also, cancer patients are given SNRIs because they aid in helping them manage things, like neuropathic pain. Along with that, as the excerpt I showed before noted, in the case of SSRIs, there are results that do indicate that they can also lower the risk of cancer.

 

[AbyssalAlien]

Why did you decide to cite a study from around 30 years again and then decided to respond to my comment by trying to reiterate the same stuff I just told you? Also, that's literally the point I'm trying to make. You made a massive generalization on antidepressants, even though the relationship between them and cancer is actually very complicated.

Also, cancer patients are given SNRIs because they aid in helping them manage things, like neuropathic pain. Along with that, as the excerpt I showed before noted, in the case of SSRIs, there are results that do indicate that they can also lower the risk of cancer.

While disregarding their positive associations along with their other risk factors, including increasing suicidal ideation. The only neuropathic pain these treat is inhibiting dopamine and serotonin receptors. We may as well be chemically lobotomizing patients and claim they are healed with that line of logic.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

While disregarding their positive associations along with their other risk factors, including increasing suicidal ideation. The only neuropathic pain these treat is inhibiting dopamine and serotonin receptors. We may as well be chemically lobotomizing patients and claim they are healed with that line of logic.

Actually, the whole "antidepressants increase the risk of suicide" thing is very complicated and a lot of researchers don't even agree with that assessment. Either way, this feels unrelated to my main point, which is that claiming that antidepressants are cancer-causing is a huge generalization that downplays how complex this topic is. A lot of your responses so far seem to largely be based on your biases against psychiatry as a whole, trying to argue against antidepressants in general which is something I'm not interested in doing. As I stated before, I'm not a big fan of psychs either. However, my main issue was with you making a huge simplified and generalized claim about them. Continually trying to bash them isn't going to help anyone. When it comes to issues pertaining to things, like forms of psychiatric treatment, they need to be discussed with a degree of nuance.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

Yeah, it's absurd as to how we basically get treated like criminals for wanting to die. It really makes me think that we live in an insane world. I don't even think that many people even question or think about being forcibly sectioned, they just seem to be okay with it because everybody else is saying that it's okay

 

[SilentSadness]

I agree. It's terrible that people enjoy locking others up for disagreeing with their opinion, and for simply wanting their suffering to end. If they were honest, they don't want to help but actually to shut up, because they would do anything to avoid listening to real problems. Most people are like that, they just follow the status quo and have zero empathy for others. Also, a lot of the time antidepressants are literally just random chemicals that were found make some people happy. They don't have any idea what they're supposed to do but they keep pushing for them, oh well it's not them that has to deal with the side effects or the extreme financial cost, and it's definitely not the pharmaceutical companies making unimaginable amounts of money using depressed people as paying test subjects.

 

[FlufflesAway]

While disregarding their positive associations along with their other risk factors, including increasing suicidal ideation. The only neuropathic pain these treat is inhibiting dopamine and serotonin receptors. We may as well be chemically lobotomizing patients and claim they are healed with that line of logic.

Even their efficacy is up for debate. There is no strong correlation between antidepressants and 'recovery'. I'll say the only time I've had a serious suicide attempt was when I was taking antidepressants. Again, you can debate why this phenomena occurs... but all in all, I do not think they're helpful. They're being pushed on to unaware patients because:
a) it makes the Dr. feel better. He's doing something;
b) there's a shit ton of money to be made, and
c) the patient feels like their concerns are being met. They have a drug they can take daily.
Taking a placebo or antidepressant are the same in efficacy. Only the antidepressant has very real "side effects"...

Things that actually do have an affect on depression:
1) time, and
2) poverty.
Take that how you will.

 

[KuriGohan&Kamehameha]

A lot of people don't know what institutions are like because they've never been to one or had a loved one sent there, so their perspective mainly comes from whatever they've seen in the media or been told by healthcare workers.

Doctors and therapists are trained to recommended institutionalisation in certain situations or their jobs will be on the line, so they're not exactly offering an honest and unbiased account of the conditions inside these facilities because it's in THEIR best interest to send patients there if someone is deemed to be a "risk."

Some are likely better than others, the quality is certainly location dependant and will vary based on the personalities of the staff they employ. I'm aware not all psychiatric hospitals are as bad as the nightmares my relatives and friends got shipped off to, but the quality of those institutions was horrific and what those around me went through should have been illegal.

In theory, such places should be about rehabilitation, but you're right that it often seems like a punishment instead. There's a person I used to know who was forced into a psych hospital long term and placed on ECT, this girl can't remember large stretches of her life and suffered profound memory loss. I don't think she got any say in her treatment, and that's the fucked up thing about such places. The patients should have autonomy about what they can and can't consent to, but often this is not the case.

Maybe I'm biased, but one of my friends chose to ctb after a terrible stint in a psychiatric hospital where she was treated terribly. Post-institutionalization, a relative became violent with me and others and was very traumatized. The ones in USA are even more corrupt than in Europe because they often take away patient's devices, so they can't record and document the abuse.

I think the world needs to take a good long look at the harm these places can do. If something is more punitive than healing, that is a jail, not a hospital.

 

[divinemistress36]

A lot of people don't know what institutions are like because they've never been to one or had a loved one sent there, so their perspective mainly comes from whatever they've seen in the media or been told by healthcare workers.

Doctors and therapists are trained to recommended institutionalisation in certain situations or their jobs will be on the line, so they're not exactly offering an honest and unbiased account of the conditions inside these facilities because it's in THEIR best interest to send patients there if someone is deemed to be a "risk."

Some are likely better than others, the quality is certainly location dependant and will vary based on the personalities of the staff they employ. I'm aware not all psychiatric hospitals are as bad as the nightmares my relatives and friends got shipped off to, but the quality of those institutions was horrific and what those around me went through should have been illegal.

In theory, such places should be about rehabilitation, but you're right that it often seems like a punishment instead. There's a person I used to know who was forced into a psych hospital long term and placed on ECT, this girl can't remember large stretches of her life and suffered profound memory loss. I don't think she got any say in her treatment, and that's the fucked up thing about such places. The patients should have autonomy about what they can and can't consent to, but often this is not the case.

Maybe I'm biased, but one of my friends chose to ctb after a terrible stint in a psychiatric hospital where she was treated terribly. Post-institutionalization, a relative became violent with me and others and was very traumatized. The ones in USA are even more corrupt than in Europe because they often take away patient's devices, so they can't record and document the abuse.

I think the world needs to take a good long look at the harm these places can do. If something is more punitive than healing, that is a jail, not a hospital.

ECT is cruel. I cant remember a lot of my life from it either

 

[AbyssalAlien]

Except its already proven by the study I showed you that they do cause cancer cause of their affects on serotonin. Serotonin and cancer are linked. Your handlers know this.