Leading Drugs for Psychosis
 

Psychosis can be fun.

It would be more beneficial to see what is being said currently, rather than 6 years ago.

Is everything written in the past not pertinent to the present?

In a lot of cases, no it is not. In medical research something from six years ago is significantly out of date. There will be ongoing studies which would be more beneficial to read.

Then it could well be considered that such basis of modern psychiatry; such as some of the work of Emil Kraepelin could be considered long past it's sell by date. Can we safety scrap all research, medical knowledge & studies done before 2003, as no longer being relevant in any way whatsoever.

How about this; it's from 2007.

http://theicarusproject.net/articles...s-as-marketing

No, of course not. Although it must be taken in to account that the chances of it being out of date are extremely likely and using more up to date analysis would be better.

I'm unsure as to why you would think that the study is not pertinent? What are you basing this assumption on?

That medical science, like all sciences progress at such a rapid rate. It has recently been announced that Bonjela (a mouth ulcer treatment) could be harmful to under 16s but last month you would have given it without a second thought.

If I was to write an academic paper using sources only from, say, ten years ago it would be thrown out by my supervisor. Citing the most up-to-date research is crucial since things can move so fast. Unless there are points which have been raised in the past which have yet to be refuted, in which case it is fine to use.

The entire basis of orthodox psychiatry can be easily refuted.

Does that mean in 7 years time Bonjela will no long be dangerous? The research no longer applies? Excuse the questions; I am just trying to understand your logic.

Which is why there is so much academic debate around the subject, and why any drugs designed to help with mental conditions take years to be researched and then put through all the trial stages before being accepted.

The study of conditions, syndromes and illnesses may be relvent from previous years, the study of medication usually isn't, unless it's a longterm study over a period of ten, twenty years, for example.

No, it means it will be unless there has been another study saying that it's not, or Bonjela change something about their product.

There is a very famous academic in my subject who wrote a book on a topic, then a couple of years later wrote something which entirely contradicted (and refuted in the process) his other one. So for me to say that he is of his first opinion is wrong, because there is more recent evidence to suggest otherwise.

I am pretty sure that there will be more recent evidence on the drugs since these things move quickly and there is usually a lot of similar research going on at the same time.

I have a friend who used to work in psychiatric drug trials - I can assure you 100% that there is no such thing as 'years of research', these drugs are tested on MH patients. Drug trials are very short. A-Typical Anti-psychotics have been with us considerable time; even 7 years ago they were not new out. I've been on them close to 12 years. How many years are we talking here - 50? 100? Before studies into their efficacy can be considered relevant. There are vast amounts of research into 'anti-psychotics'.

It takes years of development, just actually creating a drug that works like it is supposed to. Then there are preliminary tests to sort of the major kinks, and then other tests to prove they are safe for human use. There will be several places undergoing similar, as well as different, tests and having longitudinal studies alongside the early trials and early dispensing of the drug.

I don't share your faith in the pharmaceutical industry. The question - are Anti-psychotics safe? deserves a thread all of it's own. Surely your not telling me Zyprexa (& others) are healthy for you!

The predominant trials are done in the community on mental patients. Drug concoctions are also never tested before release. If someone is placed on an anti-depressant & anti-psychotic - that will have never been clinically tested.

there doesn't seem to be an alternative at the moment, though. it's either the typicals or the atypicals, both with their merits and negatives. all medication comes with potentially dangerous side-effects so you have to weigh up whether your psychosis poses a greater risk or the medication.

I would argue that no drug is really safe for long-term use, but as a short-term thing they can be beneficial. Especially if carefully monitored.