Not all of the returns are in but i can say with a high level of confidence that i got a 3.8 GPA this semester. Check out this hand:

Environmental Biology-A
Human Biology-A
Personality Psychology-A
Adjustment Psychology-A
College Algebra-B

When i actually try, i do well. Strange.

congratulations, dumbass( )...

i think it's great that you've gotten good grades, but weren't you recently telling us how pointless it was to work hard for them at your school?

i hope you become a rhode scholar, if you think it's worth it.

The lower level classes are much easier than they should be. That would be the two bio classes i took. However, i would have got an A if there was a curve or not. I actually set the curve on two of the three tests in environmental bio, which were both nearly 100% anyway. My human bio class, i had such a high grade that i didn't take the final and still got a 95%. The slackers in that class needed an 85% to get an A and the average on all of the assignments was in the low 60's.



That would involve getting accepted to Oxford. If George W. Bush couldn't do it, i definitely couldn't. He is the president after all.

Bill Clinton is a Rhodes. He sure learned how to flavor a cigar!

That is why it wouldn't work for me. I'm not into fat chicks.

In order to refrain from bursting your bubble I wont post my grades.

Grades are a measure of ability, and not of intelligence.
I've known people with more than plenty ability, that couldn't find their way out of a paper bag.

None the less, the grades are impressive as they do represent a lot of persistant hard work.

Doesn't mean shit. The stuff you study is boring that they will give you an A just for showing up to class.



Thankfully i have ability and intelligence.

...and modesty and humility.


All this in such a compact and handsome package with good hair and sharp wit !

You WILL be President.

President Jack. Cool.

President Jack is Off today.
He left us his poodle.

wait, you're claiming to be the smartest member of this board, yet claiming to be less capable of educational achievement then george w bush? on how many levels is that an oxymoron?

WHAT?


Are you kidding? We have to do ACTUAL research and write journal quality reports on it!

Seuss, he is the PRESIDENT. Of course he is smart and furthermore, he deserves our respect and admiration.



Sure i haven't done journal quality research yet but to be fair, you do have a several year head start on me.

Very true, however at ESF this is even a freshman requirement. They are very hardcore outhere. But to be fair, NIU is a great research school as well. Their geology guys are at the top of the field.

What IS your major anyhow?

Psychology.

Strange.


Why did you pick that? I have a friend who WAS poli sci and is not psychology at NIU. Mike White.

I find human behavior to be fascinating. That is probably why i am interested in politics as well, although i find political science to be pretty boring. Plus, i am very good at psychology. It is the only subject area where i have maintained a 4.0

I don't know anyone named Mike White. Since i got to NIU i have really only conversed with young ladies. However, i am joining the psychology club next semester and if he is in that, then we may very well cross paths.

Yes, human behavior is interesting and i wrote a paper on "The chemistry of Homo sapiens sweat and its effects on individual distance". In my animal behavior class we also discussed some human behavior including things like rape.

If your into human behavior, you also might want to look into Anthropology, it's my minor and I enjoyed it.

Jack is gonna be a pill pusher?
Stability through pharmacalogy?

I went through two anthropology courses one semester and thought i was going to kill myself out of boredom.



That is psychiatry. I am going into psychology. Psychology is therapy, psychiatrists are medical doctors who specialize in brain chemisty. Psychologist can only prescribe medication if they earn a doctorate in clinical or counseling psychology and then a master is psychopharmacology. There are also a few undesirable states in this country that allow psychologist to prescribe medication but that isn't worth it. So to answer your question, no i am not going to be a pill pusher.

yeah, damnit! psycholgists don't get kickbacks from pharma companies, they get kickbacks for referals to the pillpushers!

whats the difference between that and doctors who prescribe things like antibiotics and other various drugs to treat illnesses?

All drugs are evil, don't you know that? Some who is schizophrenic should opt not to take drugs, even though there are no other treatment options. They may hear voices telling them to slit their wrists but that is preferable to taking a pills.

That was my point. People often go right after psychiatrists for prescribing medication but no one ever seems to criticize any other doctors.

That's what the pill pusher would say. Only maybe even more defensively.

I would not go so far as to state that these meds are evil. In fact, they have their place and their purpose, and quite often these meds can be true lifesavers.

That said
are either of you willing to tell me that everyone who is prescribed these meds, especially children, should have been prescribed these medications? Even mostly or usually?
Would you be at all willing to admit that prescribers have been far to eager and willing to prescribe?

You guys are shaddow boxing over who's the smartest, let's see some wisdom.

Doctors get "encouraged" to prescribe all kinds of drugs. I don't see a difference. And yes, if the MD gives antibiotics to someone with a virus, I for one would criticize.

So maybe 80-90% of people on psychoactive medication shouldn't be? Is that what you are trying to get me to agree to? We all know that some people are on meds but should be but to say that a vast majority of people on medication don't need it is bullshit. Psychoactive medication is usually reserved for the most serious disorders, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, extreme anxiety. These drugs came out in the 1960's and before then, all they could really try was therapy and with many of these disorders, it didn't work. Many people were actually able to lead somewhat normal lives after these medications came out and were able to reintegrate back into society. So no, i don't think that psychoactive medication is over-prescribed, many times that are in fact necessary.



And that would involve agree with everything you said? Maybe Greenguy and I are not agreeing with your points because we know more about this subject than you.

prozac, zoloft, effexor, paxil, wellbutrin... etc, etc came out in the sixties? then why are there no 20+ year studies to define their efficacy? that's what freaks me out about shrinks, and psych meds. The ones that actually came out in the sixties are rarely perscribed anymore, because of long term studies that show low efficacy, and horrible side effects. They've been replaced by the new school of psych meds that haven't been studied to they point they should be. Wouldn't it scare you to take a med that changed yoour brain chemistry without knowing what it would do to you in the long term... As it is, the mechanics that cause relief in some people aren't known. If you read clinical papers, they'll tell you as much. At least in the case of anti depressants, the are natural and wholistic options like SAMe that have proven their worth over tricyclics and are going through five year trials at mass. general against the SSRI's, proving that people don't need drugs, they need nutrients.

the same goes with many other perscriptions that have nothing to do with psychiatry. there are endless numbers of things that can be used to ward off illness and correct disease and imbalance that work in harmony with the body and cause no side effects. The reason they're not used as much is because they cut into some rich people's profit.

You know you are right. Lets do away with all psychoactive medications. No medication, no problems. Really it is the medication that is the problem, not the illness.

where did I suggest that? i hope you don't generalize that much in your future practice...
i was speaking of the most commonly perscribed psych meds, and showing evidence of viable alternatives. why don't you try to listen to people instead of being contrary for the sake of argument. you'll do much better helping people with their problems that way.

Since I havent seen any evidence outside of anecdotal evidence, I dont really have any opinion.

But im QUITE sure you do have some good evidence to support YOUR point.

http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/2004-0...zac-suicide.mht

http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/2004-0...zac-suicide.htm

http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/2004-0...ren-suicide.htm

http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/2004-0...in%20denial.htm

http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/articles.htm#fda-2004

http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/akathisia-mania.htm

http://www.teenscreentruth.com/

http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/seroto...-hypothesis.htm

http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/whatdrug.htm

edit to add; should have posted this at the top:
http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/antidepressants-ADF.htm

My but we are defensive this evening.
See, a counselor would try to understand why, would discuss the reasons and help seek tools for coping with the defensiveness.

Head doctors though seem to find it to easy to prescribe the problem away. I been there and had to do battle with my ex wife over this very issue and my son. To the point that my education process along that path has taught me that I would rather have my son in the army serving in Iraq rather than be on any of these meds. Sorry, but that's how I see it. This is not a reflection on you personaly Jack. In fact, I kinda like you. But the rest still stands.

Drugs, because of possible known and unknown consequences ought to be the option of very last resort. Instead, all too often they have become the option of choice.

We have to stop teaching our children how to medicate their problems away. Instead, counsel and mentor and teach them the tools they need. And for goodness sake, by all means be a leader by example.

Well, a few didnt work, but from what i DID see i didnt see anything thats exclusive of mental medications. It would seem that the reaction in children are different than that of adults, which we also recently saw in the news with tylenol.

I dont see what this has do do with doctors prescribing when they shouldnt since according to the article, the doctors were left in the dark.

As for the suicide stuff with anti-depressants, my doctor talked thoroughly with me about this and we discussed what I should do about any possible side effects.



Ive always been required to see a counselor before I saw a psychiatrist, along with everyone else ive ever known to be on medication. However, many mental illness are due to chemical imbalances that cant always be corrected by just talking.

With me, i had some crappy side effects from the first medication, so we are slowly transitioning me to another. We have discusses the common, and rare, side effects of the medicines. However, my case is unique in having depression AND adult adhd and the medicines tend to counter act each other. We help my depression, but then my anxiety skyrockets.

I am patient though, I know that not all molecules work with all people so I will keep trying till we find something that works. It just doesnt seem to me that the people who criticize the medicines understand what its like to live with mental illness or understand what its like to live with someone who has a severe mental illness.

have you tried effexor?

never heard of it. I was on lexapro and am switching to stratera

OK, let me be specific. I'm referring directly to the issue of prescribing to children.
Anybody under the age of consent. Over 18 and you're responsible for yourself and your decisions.


I refer again to the issue of drugs for kids to fix their emotional problems.
First, it must be stated that sometimes this is the best course of action. No doubt about it that when prescribed properly these medications are wonder drugs.

The problems is that because these are wonder drugs, they are vastly over prescribed.

1] These chemicals injected into a still growing body have consequences, both physically and emotionally, many of which are still unknown. It was a year ago that many of these medications finally received black box warning labels. Before that? How many assumed the safety of these medications? Dare I say everyone who was prescribed? (which was millions) (It should be noted that the human brain is still growing, maturing and making neural connections into the mid 20's)

2] Why are our children being prescribed at all? Because there is a perceived problem, and the easy answer is in a pill. And it does usually fix the problem, very quickly. The problem is it's a chemical fix, NOT an emotional fix through natural, normal human emotional growth and maturation. Because it's a chemical fix, the child does not need, and does not learn the emotional skills needed to cope with life's normal piss ant problems. In other words, we give them meds so that they don't fall down and get hurt. Unfortunately it's in the falling down that we learn how to NOT fall down. And it's in the falling down that we learn how to get back up again once we do fall down.

3] Because of this chemical "shortcut" the kid doesn't learn the skills needed to cope. Or at least doesn't learn them as completely as otherwise. So, when the child is a young adult, and has not learned how to cope with life's emotions involved with failure and disappointment, he has no other recourse and an emotional expression of the perceived problems will manifest in unhealthy ways. (suicide, violence to others, addictions, etc)

4] Addiction. What is addiction? Basically, it's the inability to deal with certain aspects of our lives, and substituting it with something else. This includes ALL addiction. Alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, sex, etc. If as a teenager we prescribe our kids a chemical solution, we have effectively taught them how to self medicate, or how to become an addict. We have very effectively taught the child how to not deal with life's issues, how to avoid the difficult process of learning how to walk and not fall down, or having to deal with falling down and getting back up again. Got pain? Medicate it and you won't have to deal with why you have pain or what is causing it.

5] The vast Pharmaceutical conspiracy. This is an issue I won't even get into at this time, even though it's intricate in the roots of this problem. We all know about problems with Big Pharma. We all know that health care in this country is run by corporations with a for profit motive. And we all know that health care in this country is without question, broken.

Conclusion] The problem with the children who are prescribed medications to deal with emotional issues almost invariably is not a problem of the child, at least no more than is normal for a teenager. The problem is that of the parent and their inability to deal with issues that confront them as parents. The parents of todays children need to be taught how to be parents. How many of us can honestly say that things are different today then when we were kids? We have become a nation of enablers. Forget the sheeple bullshit. The proper term is, "enabler".

it's an antidepressant/stimulant combo used for some with your combination of issues - before switching, I'd suggest to your doctor that he check into it.

although if i were in your situation (and I was) I'd take 400 - 800 mg's first thing in the a.m. of SAMe for the depression and kava, valerian or theanine (preffered) to counteract anxiety and increase concentration.

No side effects (unless you're on blood pressure meds, as l-theanine dends to drop your blood pressure), and they tend to work better for more people than script's. and they're all available in your local health food store and don't support one of the industries that's destroying our country.

Actually, not really. IF a doctor tells you to take something, any problems associated with it can be the doctors liability.
An almost irrelevant issue that no one was ever really discussing?



evidence?


ITs a pity your opinion on this is irrelevant. who are you to say this is the case?






Once again, since you are SOOOO qualified to make such a conclusion.

Sky, you are no expert on any of this so i think its time for you to just stfu on things you have no clue about.

What is your alternative? You said that these medications are dangerous, so do we wait until we know all of the possible effects and in the mean time, take people off of them? What do those people do then? Not everyone can exercise their depression away. Not everyone can let go of the anxiety through therapy. Not many people with ADD are going to be able to just focus harder. What are people with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia supposed to do, hope it clears up on its own? Of course there are going to be side effects to medication. What medication doesn't have side effects? What medication is perfect and risk free? If i have a severe infection, should i avoid anti-biotics because of potential side effects? The truth is that people with these disorders benefit more from receiving these medications than not. You can clearly see that in the number of people who can lead their lives with conditions that 50 years ago, would have caused them to end up riding out the rest of their days in an asylum. Of course there are going to be side effects and some people will never be fully cured but that is just a sad fact of life that not everything is going to work out for everyone.

Now unless you can prove that a large number of people would be better off without these drugs, that a majority of people who are prescribed these medications don't need them or that a large number of doctors are prescribing these medications out of laziness or for profit, i'm done with this ridiculous conversation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5100701795.html


http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/51754.php


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/us/15bip...&oref=login


http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/...chiatric_drugs/


http://www.uhuh.com/education/drugskill.htm


http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-0...ids-drugs_x.htm


http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0303/30.php


http://www.happinessonline.org/BeTemperate/p1.htm


http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/02/aacap-pre...singenuous.html





And yet, none of this address what I personally consider to be the larger issue.
What happens to a growing body when these chemicals are injected into it? We worry loudly about the possibility of lead paint that may or may not be on toys. We worry about the foods we give our children. We do not want our children to injest a long list of illegal street drugs. Then why do we want to have our children eat things that we cannot without a shaddow of doubt guarante as safe? And why would we, except in the most extreme of circumstances, want to alter a childs emotional and intellectual development by giving them mind altering drugs? Can you even imaging giving a 2 year old these meds?????


The facts remain.....

Big Pharma is a major player in America's for profit medical industry.
As long as this is the case, the problem will remain, and will be largely unchecked.
The real problem is that these children are gonna grow up and have children.

and aint it the best way to make great little non-voters for the corportocracy?

Alternative?

Non-medical counseling for both the child and both parents.
For the child, this is obvious.
For the parent, to help them understand the general problem as well as the individual problem, and to help them figure out how to deal with the issues. And to actively encourage DIRECT parental involvement in the problem, no matter how difficult or uncomfortable. So that being "too busy" is just not a viable excuse.




Edit to add.....


I'm not saying ban the drugs all together, nor am I saying don't ever give them to children.
I'm saying that there are other alternatives that should be tried first almost all the time.
That if possible, because of both known and unknown risks, other non medical options should be used. Unfortunately the profit margin for this non-medical help is somewhat limited, and as such won't be pushed by a for profit industry.

Do you suppose it's just a coincidence that a Psychiatrist can make a 6 figure income, while a counselor makes little more than minimum wage?

I find this argument kind of interesting coming from a crowd that adamantly defends recreational drug use.

Among adults.

Instead of interdiction, offer extensive rehab.

I wasn't taking a side, just noticing.

The difference is, I think, one chooses to "do dope".

If you're ill, or have some psychiatric problems, and go looking for help, you maybe are not being best served if there is a big profit-hungry beast in the room, snuffling over the psychiatrists or Doctors shoulder, leering at you with feral yellow eyes and pushing drugs as the quick 'n' easy "one-stop-pharmacy-shop" cure-all solution.

It's not that I don't think big pharma should NOT make money, nor stop continuing to develop medication to keep the rich alive longer, but I wonder sometimes if we aren't missing the point, and perhaps looking for quick and profitable solutions to problems which really just need more Human care and attention ?
Oh, damn, of course, that's not profitable......

my alternative (to depressive dissorders) are nutrients that aren't foriegn to the human mind or body. things that the body has normally, and may be lacking in psychiatric disorders, that have little or no side effects. Introduce these first, before throwing an untested, misunderstood drug that's pimped by the pharmaceutical industry down an already succeptable mind, in order to remove dependance. if you can find the naturally occuring substance that allieiates the symptoms, then you have a better chance of adjusting dietary habits, and keeping people out of the machinations of the ever growing, increasingly more powerful, without conscience, profit motivated industry of pharmaceuticals.

here's a link to a gvernment report on one of the most effective natural alternatives:

http://www.dogpile.com/clickserver/_iceUrl...mp;_IceUrl=true

my MOST IMPORTANT alternative would be to institute a policy in universities that medical and psych DR.'s wuld have to do at least 120 hrs. of dietary and nutritional training instead of eight.

I wonder where greenguy is. Well i am going to post my grades and see if that bastard can top them. I f*cking doubt it.

Psychopathology-A
Psychological Research Methods-A
Developmental Psychology-A
Neuropsychology-A
Calculus-B