Yeah. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to make your head explode. Here's a tissue.
At 05:22 PM 9/27/2009, Carrol Cox wrote:
>What shag's source argues about SSRIs may be true; I am somewhat
>sceptical of their usefulness myself, and they never helped me much.
>
>But the evidence is mighty thin, partly of course because the drug
>companies do probably cover up a lot. But even alloowing for that, the
>evidence is mighty thin -- and if it were a non-controversial subject,
>shag herself would scoff at drawing conclusions of any kind.
>
>Moreover, we are in the same atmosphere as that of various food faddists
>that both Dwayne and shag have mercilessly mocked in the past.
>Individuals who cherry pick evidence to fit their beliefs and write it
>up in sparklingt prose. And leftists who are leftists _because_ they are
>suspiciou of corporate behavior, and who know so much about the crimes
>of corporations and governments over a century or so, are apt to be real
>suckers for anything negative that comes along in reference to any
>scoundrel (all corporations are coundrels, but no coundrel, corpororate
>or individual, is a souncrel 24 hours a day. And it takes a lot of
>evidence, which individuals can't r eally hope to collect, to rach
>solid conclusions on complex research.
>
>Amatyyeur judgments of medical issues are often correct -- and often not
>correct. And there is no way for amateurs to recognize which is which.
>It's too much like conspiracy theories: even if true, they are
>politically uselfess because political action can be organized only
>about issues on which the facts are evident from the daily headlines,
>without even reading the articles.
>
>Carrol
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk