Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
5 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

It's like blaming Penicillin for contributing to death from Infection.

I've never been more disappointed in worms in my life.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

dumbest.fucking.timeline

It’s not just dumb. It’s dangerous. Heartless. Sadistic. 

I personally know people whose lives have been saved by SSRI treatment. These fucking jackals are going to get innocent people killed with a witch hunt that makes no sense. But they don’t care because as long as they’re blaming life-saving medication, they can distract from the real issues (the insane prevalence of guns in our society and the lack of social safety nets). Can’t have gun control, so it’s better to fire off an epidemic of suicide and depression.

And of course it won’t make a dent in mass shootings. But by the time the world figures that out, these maniacs will be scapegoating some other innocent group. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
2 hours ago, TexasHooch said:

It's like blaming Penicillin for contributing to death from Infection.

Can we commission a study on the effects of heroin abuse on cognitive function?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, hornmpa96 said:

So Zeus is RFK?

He's a conspiracy nut (Baltimore bridge, SSRIs) in the same vein as PRONGHORN (magnetic fields, sunspots). They both also happen to be racist homophobes. Turns out, PRONGHORN stopped posting after he was called out for saying he was attracted to underage girls in IPHB.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

Welp, throw our national public health apparatus on the ever-growing pile of "stuff that was the absolute envy of the world but we arbitrarily decided to give up because reasons".

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

It’s not just dumb. It’s dangerous. Heartless. Sadistic. 

I personally know people whose lives have been saved by SSRI treatment. These fucking jackals are going to get innocent people killed with a witch hunt that makes no sense.

Yup.  My wife is one.  Clinically diagnosed with severe OCD (nope, not "ermagad I'm so OCD today", the real deal, with the horrible obsessive thoughts).  Had to go off antipsychotic drugs once she got pregnant with our daughter, and Prozac probably saved both their lives.  She's still on it to this day.  Less effective than the alternative but she's also not a zombie.

  • Like 3
Posted
8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yup.  My wife is one.  Clinically diagnosed with severe OCD (nope, not "ermagad I'm so OCD today", the real deal, with the horrible obsessive thoughts).  Had to go off antipsychotic drugs once she got pregnant with our daughter, and Prozac probably saved both their lives.  She's still on it to this day.  Less effective than the alternative but she's also not a zombie.

Similar diagnosis for me. Medication probably saved my marriage. 

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yup.  My wife is one.  Clinically diagnosed with severe OCD (nope, not "ermagad I'm so OCD today", the real deal, with the horrible obsessive thoughts).  Had to go off antipsychotic drugs once she got pregnant with our daughter, and Prozac probably saved both their lives.  She's still on it to this day.  Less effective than the alternative but she's also not a zombie.

Similar.  Pregnancy and its hormone storm literally made my wife batshit.  She realized halfway through here 2nd of 3 pregnancies that she needed help.  Doc put her on Zoloft, and it was life-changing.  She was on it during pregnancy, and for a period after to deal with post-partum issues.

The attacks on SSRIs as the cause of violent/suicidal action strikes me as one of the more absurd "correlation = causation" conclusions imaginable.  

Who is more likely to commit crazy acts of violence/suicide?  People suffering from depression and similar mental disorders.

Who is more likely to be on SSRIs?  People suffering from depression and similar mental disorders.

I would suspect that the percentage of people who commit acts consistent with mental illness would have disproportionately high numbers of actually mentally ill people (and thus people being treated for mental illness) within their ranks.

And again, CONTROLLING for that . . . . other countries have relatively high numbers of SSRI use, yet don't have anywhere near our level of mass shootings and the like.  If SSRIs were the cause, a country with, say, 50% the SSRI use rate as the US would have around 50% the "crazy acts of violence/mass shooting" rate that we have.  They don't.

  • Like 2
Posted

I think it's fair to say that some SSRIs *can* amplify suicidal ideation, but qualitatively I suspect that's pretty close to the "negative side effect" issue with vaccines.  The risk is way overwhelmed by the reward.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I think it's fair to say that some SSRIs *can* amplify suicidal ideation, but qualitatively I suspect that's pretty close to the "negative side effect" issue with vaccines.  The risk is way overwhelmed by the reward.

Bingo.  An (unethical) experiment would be to compare the suicide/violence rates among diagnosed individuals while under SSRI treatment, and then when SSRI treatment is no longer allowed.

There may be an individual here and there who is MORE likely to be violent while on SSRIs.....which would almost certainly be countered (or more than countered) by the number of individuals who are LESS likely to be violent while on SSRIs.  Thus, all-in-all, proper SSRI use almost certainly REDUCES the overall rate of violence among mentally ill individuals.

Posted
15 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Her constituents lit her ass up at a recent event in Maine.

Call me when they actually vote that worthless cunt out.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2025/08/cdc-resignations-tipping-point/684038/

 

Quote

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is coming undone. The White House announced last night that it had ousted the agency’s newly sworn-in director, Susan Monarez, whose lawyers insist that she still has her job because only President Donald Trump himself can fire her. (Yes, it’s a mess.) Four top officials resigned yesterday. Two of them—Demetre Daskalakis, who was the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and Debra Houry, who was the chief medical officer—told me that the group quit together to signal that they believe science is being ignored and that public health is in danger.

 

Quote

The departures leave a leadership void that, according to current and former CDC officials, has demoralized the agency’s staff and will further undermine its ability to provide reliable guidance to Americans. As Lakshmi Panagiotakopoulos, who resigned from the agency in June as co-leader of a group that advises outside experts on COVID vaccines, told me, “It feels like the CDC is over.”

 

Quote

I spoke with Daskalakis this morning just before he and Houry were escorted from the CDC’s Atlanta headquarters. He told me that his decision to resign was prompted by a number of factors, including “the replacement of science with ideology” and “the sidelining of scientists so that their data cannot be seen.” He also fears that important information isn’t finding its way to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. According to Daskalakis, no one from his center had been allowed to brief Kennedy directly on any of the issues that it covers, including polio, measles, COVID-19, and various vaccines. “I’m not sure where he’s getting his information other than Substacks that are erroneous,” he said.

 

Spoiler

A spokesperson for Health and Human Services did not respond to requests for comment. In an interview with Fox & Friends this morning, Kennedy declined to comment on personnel matters. “CDC has problems,” he said, accusing the agency of spreading “misinformation” during the coronavirus pandemic. “We need to look at the priorities of the agency, if there’s really a deeply, deeply embedded—I would say—malaise at the agency, and we need strong leadership that will go in there and that will be able to execute on President Trump’s broad ambitions.”

The CDC had already been in turmoil for months before this week’s departures. Health workers at the agency were caught up in the Trump administration’s mass government layoffs earlier this year. In June, Kennedy removed all 17 members of a respected vaccine-advisory committee and appointed eight new members, including Robert Malone, a prominent COVID-vaccine critic who believes that the United States government has “reality-bending information-control capabilities,” and Vicky Pebsworth, who, like Kennedy, has a long history of insinuating that vaccines can cause autism despite decades of high-quality studies refuting that connection. In response, CDC workers and alumni protested outside the agency’s headquarters, calling for Kennedy to resign. Then, early this month, a 30-year-old man who blamed COVID vaccines for his depression fired nearly 200 shots into the campus, killing a police officer. A letter signed by hundreds of CDC employees after the shooting objected to the “politicized rhetoric that has turned public health professionals from trusted experts into targets of villainization" and accused Kennedy of being “complicit in dismantling America’s public health infrastructure and endangering the nation’s health by repeatedly spreading inaccurate health information.” (After the shooting, Kennedy posted a statement on X in which he lamented the shooting and the officer’s death. “Public health workers show up every day with purpose—even in moments of grief and uncertainty,” he said. “We honor their service.”)

Yesterday’s attempt to remove Monarez as director was the last straw in the four officials’ decision to resign, Houry said. (Along with Houry and Daskalakis, the resignees include Daniel Jernigan, the director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, and Jennifer Layden, who oversaw the agency’s Office of Public Health Data, Surveillance, and Technology.) Houry told me that officials across the CDC were excited for Monarez to take the helm when she was confirmed last month. At the time, Kennedy praised her as a “public health expert with unimpeachable scientific credentials” and a “longtime champion of MAHA values.” (She was apparently not the administration’s first choice for the position: Before nominating Monarez, the White House withdrew the nomination of David Weldon, a physician and former congressman, over concerns that his anti-vaccine views would undermine his Senate confirmation.) Then, just weeks later, Monarez was shown the door. “When we knew that her job was in jeopardy, that we weren’t going to have scientific leadership anymore, that was the final tipping point for us,” Houry told me. “We could not stay if there was not a scientific leader at CDC.”

A statement from Monarez’s lawyers said that she had been targeted by Kennedy because she “refused to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts.” Yesterday afternoon, a post on the Health and Human Services X account said that Monarez was “no longer director” of the agency. But Monarez’s lawyers said that, even though she had been notified by a White House staffer that she’d been fired, she believes that her termination has to come from President Trump himself. A statement from the White House spokesperson Kush Desai said that the director had been fired after “refusing to resign despite informing HHS leadership of her intent to do so.” The statement also said that Monarez is “not aligned with the President’s agenda of Making America Healthy Again.” (Monarez didn’t reply to an interview request.)

Last night and this morning, current and former CDC employees told me that many scientists who remain wonder how they will continue, and whether the agency is still dedicated to providing science-based guidance to the nation. “People are at their wit’s end, and there has been trauma after trauma after trauma,” one longtime CDC official, who asked not to be named for fear of repercussions from HHS, told me today. “I just don’t know how much more our staff can take.”

Daskalakis and Houry told me that they had stayed at the agency despite their misgivings about Kennedy’s views and concern about those he appointed to key positions. They stayed after he cast doubt on the safety of the measles vaccine amid the nation’s largest outbreak since the disease was declared eliminated in 2000. They stayed after he canceled $500 million in funding for mRNA-vaccine development. They felt that as long as they were able to put out accurate data, remaining at the CDC was worthwhile. But after Monarez’s ouster, they no longer believe that’s possible.

They leave behind an agency that is now even more vulnerable to political interference, with fewer people standing between Kennedy and the career scientists whose work he has repeatedly maligned. Current and former officials I spoke with expect more resignations to come.

 

Posted
On 8/13/2025 at 8:13 AM, South Austin said:

The deep frying in oils certainly make it much worse than sliced potatoes that are baked in the oven.

And I enjoy a side of fries every now and then.  But the problem with fries is that a large chunk of the American consumer (1) eats these at a higher frequency than once or twice a month, and (2) eats these along with a main, like a loaded burger or greasy sandwich, that is just as bad if not worse than the fries (and hey, throw in a Coke while you're at it).

I don't mean to declare a war on french fries.  But they are an anchor for a lot of shitty diets in our country.

One could eat a burger every day for lunch, without fries, and be okay. A quarter pound of beef with some onions, tomatoes, lettuce, etc, isn't the worst thing you could eat on the regular. And, yeah, a 48 oz corn fructose chaser is a diabetes bomb.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

 Coincidentally, there are now camps full of organs just waiting to be used

I mean, you laugh.

When you file bankruptcy, you have to list your assets, because if you have stuff worth a lot of money, the court expects you to sell as much of it as possible to satisfy your creditors.  We are within view of a world where you need to list your sellable organs as assets, and your bankruptcy will not be discharged until you have sold all sellable organs with the proceeds going to the bankruptcy trustee.

You think I'm kidding or being hyperbolic.  For the 1000th time, no I'm not, and almost all of this shit we discussed before has ended up coming to pass.   This will too.  You will go into debt, a hole you can't get out of, and the courts literally will not let you out of it until you sell one of your kidneys.

Posted
4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think it's fair to say that some SSRIs *can* amplify suicidal ideation, but qualitatively I suspect that's pretty close to the "negative side effect" issue with vaccines.  The risk is way overwhelmed by the reward.

It's called risk/benefit and the risk of suicidal ideation in the use of psychiatric drugs is one of the most, if not the most, closely watched clinical surveillance topic.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

The issue with SSRIs in this context is activation and increased impulsivity that often front runs resolution of the mood symptoms and suicidal thoughts, esp in children and adolescents. Can be a dangerous set up when initiating therapy and is why there are black box warnings. Clearly the risk benefit equation will almost always favor treatment, but ideally treatment initiation and dose modifications require hyper vigilance and close monitoring for any impulsivity or suicidal inclinations. Requires close monitoring and in case of children and adolescents highly engaged family. 

Posted
Just now, Anastasis said:

The issue with SSRIs in this context is activation and increased impulsivity that often front runs resolution of the mood symptoms and suicidal thoughts, esp in children and adolescents. Can be a dangerous set up when initiating therapy and is why there are black box warnings. Clearly the risk benefit equation will almost always favor treatment, but ideally treatment initiation and dose modifications require hyper vigilance and close monitoring for any impulsivity or suicidal inclinations. Requires close monitoring and in case of children and adolescents highly engaged family. 

So . . . ?  Does that warrant pulling them off the market?

Posted
3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Of course not. 

Wasn't sure of your point. 

It feels like the administration is laying the groundwork for that kind of action, which would be mind-boggling but par for the course.

Posted
1 hour ago, Gap03 said:

Call me when they actually vote that worthless cunt out.

She is the most worthless politician out of the entire lot of cult members. She will be on the grave pissing your when Gritty comes for her. Do the right thing Maine and stop voting for an imbecile with an IQ south of freezing.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wasn't sure of your point. 

It feels like the administration is laying the groundwork for that kind of action, which would be mind-boggling but par for the course. 

 

I have zero problem with more research on this issue. I think there is probably more to it here than confounding by indication. It’s actually been discussed both here and broadly in other areas as well going back years. 

 



×
×
  • Create New...