Quoted from 55tbird

I cannot beleive the dead children's bodies are still in the school and may be until SUNDAY, according to news reports.....why?
to investigate....what??? The shooter is DEAD. Let these parents have their children...they should be the priority.

Quoted from bumblethru

So was this young adult on some kind of psyco drug too??????

Quoted Text

Question: What Is Cognitive Psychology?
Answer:
Cognitive psychology is the branch of psychology that studies mental processes including how people think, perceive, remember and learn. As part of the larger field of cognitive science, this branch of psychology is related to other disciplines including neuroscience, philosophy and linguistics.

The core focus of cognitive psychology is on how people acquire, process and store information. There are numerous practical applications for cognitive research, such as improving memory, increasing decision-making accuracy and structuring educational curricula to enhance learning.

Until the 1950s, behaviorism was the dominant school of thought in psychology. Between 1950 and 1970, the tide began to shift against behavioral psychology to focus on topics such as attention, memory and problem-solving. Often referred to as the cognitive revolution, this period generated considerable research on topics including processing models, cognitive research methods and the first use of the term "cognitive psychology."

The term "cognitive psychology" was first used in 1967 by American psychologist Ulric Neisser in his book Cognitive Psychology. According to Neisser, cognition involves "all processes by which the sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, recovered, and used. It is concerned with these processes even when they operate in the absence of relevant stimulation, as in images and hallucinations... Given such a sweeping definition, it is apparent that cognition is involved in everything a human being might possibly do; that every psychological phenomenon is a cognitive phenomenon."

How is Cognitive Psychology Different?

Unlike behaviorism, which focuses only on observable behaviors, cognitive psychology is concerned with internal mental states.

Unlike psychoanalysis, which relies heavily on subjective perceptions, cognitive psychology uses scientific research methods to study mental processes.
Who Should Study Cognitive Psychology?

Because cognitive psychology touches on many other disciplines, this branch of psychology is frequently studied by people in a number of different fields. The following are just a few of those who may benefit from studying cognitive psychology.

Students interested in behavioral neuroscience, linguistics, industrial-organizational psychology, artificial intelligence and other related areas.

Teachers, educators and curriculum designers can benefit by learning more about how people process, learn, and remember information.

Engineers, scientists, artists, architects and designers can all benefit from understanding internal mental states and processes.

Quoted Text

Current work

Social psychiatry has been important in developing the concept of major "life events" as precipitants of mental ill health, including for example bereavement, promotion, moving house, having a child.
Originally inpatient centers, many therapeutic communities now operate as day centers, often focused on borderline personality disorder and run by psychotherapists or art therapists rather than psychiatrists.
Social psychiatrists help test the cross-cultural use of psychiatric diagnoses and assessments of need or disadvantage, showing particular links between mental illness and unemployment, overcrowding and single parent families.
Social psychiatrists also work to link concepts such as self-esteem and self-efficacy to mental health, and in turn to socioeconomic factors.
Social psychiatrists work on social firms in regard to people with mental health problems. These are regular businesses in the market that employ a significant number of people with disabilities, who are paid regular wages and work on the basis of regular work contracts. There are approximately 2,000 social firms in Europe and a large percentage of people with disabilities who work in social firms have a psychiatric disability. Some are specifically for people with psychiatric disabilities.(Schwarz, G. & Higgins, G: Marienthal the social firms network Supporting the Development of Social Firms in Europe, UK, 1999)
Social psychiatrists often focus on rehabilitation in a social context, rather than "treatment" per se. A related approach is community psychiatry.
Facilitating the social inclusion of people with mental health problems is a major focus of modern social psychiatry.

Quoted Text

The Truth About Antidepressants And Psychiatric Treatment Of Depression
Posted: 02/15/10 12:48 PM ET

Submit this story
In November of 2009, I posted an article in the Huffington Post titled, "Psychiatry's Dirty Little Secret." If you read that article you will clearly see that I do not see antidepressant medications as an easy cure all for Major Depression. I noted that antidepressants give good results in only a minority of depressed patients, and that many patients are hardly helped at all by these medications. However, in an article posted in the Huffington Post on January 29th, psychologist and researcher, Irving Kirsch, Ph.D., describes antidepressants as, "The Emperor's New Drugs". He states that, "Depression is not a brain disease, and chemicals don't cure it." He included his belief that "the chemical cure of depression is a myth." Although he did not state it, he clearly implied that antidepressants are a hoax, they don't work, and they shouldn't be prescribed at all.


To his credit, Dr. Kirsch noted that the process by which the FDA approves medications, including antidepressants, is often insufficient if not suspect. He correctly stated the benefits of standard antidepressant medications are often negligible and difficult to separate from mere placebo, and that in many cases treatments other than drugs are effective and spare patients the side effects of these medications. However, what he should have said, and what I believe he was negligent in leaving out, is that severe depression is an extraordinarily complicated condition that is biological, psychological and social in nature, and in some cases medical treatment is necessary and life saving. Indeed, I believe that the misunderstanding that needs to be clarified is not simply that standard antidepressant treatment is often ineffective, but that the psychiatric evaluation and treatment of severe depression should extend far beyond the mere prescription of an antidepressant.

The most important first step in evaluating depressed mood is to determine its severity and if it makes sense in this person's life. Sometimes a patient will come to me with complaints of anxiety and depression, and then reveal that they have just lost their job, had their house foreclosed, and received divorce papers from their spouse. I explain that it is normal to feel despondent under such circumstances! A sympathetic ear and, perhaps, something to ensure a good night's sleep for the next few days may be all this individual needs. Other people are chronically unhappy with their lot in life due to errors in the way they have learned to see themselves and their place in the world. I tend to refer these patients to a Cognitive Behavioral Psychotherapist. Sometimes, there is no obvious "cause" of the emotional discomfort, but if mild or moderate in nature, improvements in diet, reduction of stress, getting some extra exercise, better sleep, and opening up a bit more with a spouse, family and friends can slowly, but surely reverse the unhappiness.

However, as a psychiatrist, I often see patients who have been referred to me because they have not responded to simple measures. Some have already tried fish oil, herbs, exercise, and yoga without significant relief. Some are referred by psychotherapists because they are not getting better. Others have already been prescribed antidepressants that have not worked or may have even been made worse by those medications. These individuals are not merely, "blue". They are tearful and tell me they have no joy in life. They often are unable to sleep, feel tired, but are unable to rest due to anxiety. They have no appetite, or, in some cases, they spend the day shoving food into their mouth to stifle the unbearable sense of emptiness. They feel hopeless, helpless, and terribly guilty. Often they confess that they wish they were dead. Among patients I see in the psychiatric ward of the hospital are some who have already tried to end their lives. Some even hear voices telling them to kill themselves. Severe depression is not a trivial condition.

The first imperative in treating severe depression is a proper diagnosis. Not everyone with depression suffers Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Some, for example, suffer a form of Bipolar Affective Disorder (BPAD). It is people with BPAD that are most likely to be made worse by antidepressants. These patients need a medicine known as a mood stabilizer, either alone or in addition to an antidepressant. Another imperative is a thorough review and re-evaluation of medication. Although antidepressants do not help everyone, they are repeatedly shown to be of significant value in severe depression. In some cases a different type of antidepressant can turn a non-responder into a responder. Other people with MDD can become responders by augmentation of the antidepressant with a second type of medication.

A third but equally important imperative is to rule out contributing medical factors, such as thyroid disease; hormone imbalances; and deficiencies in folic acid, vitamin B12, or vitamin D. Anemia, inflammatory disorders, autoimmune diseases, gastrointestinal disorders, and other medical conditions can also contribute to severe depression. Finally, it is still necessary to evaluate all the other lifestyle factors, such as the diet, stress reduction, substance abuse, relationship problems, self-destructive and self-sabotaging behaviors that can contribute to and in some cases be the initial trigger of a severe episode of depression. All of the above measures are part of the Bio-psycho-social approach to psychiatric illness that is taught in medical schools.

I agree completely that simply "throwing pills" at patients with depression is deplorable and often useless treatment. I also agree that many people with depression can get better without medication. However, to suggest that antidepressants are worthless, and then go on to suggest that all psychiatry has to offer is an antidepressant is more than false. It deprives a significant number of severely ill people the chance to live without depression. In some cases, it deprives them of life itself.

Quoted Text

Abstract
Several investigators have recently challenged the belief that antidepressants can precipitate mania or rapid cycling between mania and depression. With one exception, there appear to be no placebo- controlled studies of switches into mania in bipolar patients during antidepressant treatment. Patients most likely to switch into mania during antidepressant therapy have probably been excluded from maintenance treatment studies and are probably overrepresented in studies at special research facilities. On balance, the available evidence suggests that some bipolar patients become manic, and a few experience rapid cycling, when they are treated with antidepressants. The prevention of these responses will require further research on risk factors and on the antimanic efficacy of coadministered lithium or other mood stabilizers.

Quoted Text

Short abstract
How safe and effective are antidepressants in children and adolescents? The authors of this review have found disturbing shortcomings in the methods and reporting of trials of newer antidepressants in this patient group

Antidepressants introduced since 1990, especially selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and venlafaxine, have been used increasingly as first line treatment for depression in children.1,2 The safety of prescribing antidepressants to children (including adolescents) has been the subject of increasing concern in the community and the medical profession, leading to recommendations against their use from government and industry (box 1). In this paper, we review the published literature on the efficacy and safety of newer antidepressants in children.

Go to:
Methods
Having criticised the way in which Keller et al interpreted the results of their study,3,4 we sought to check the quality of methods and reporting of other published trials of newer antidepressants in children (box 2). Of seven published randomised controlled trials of newer antidepressants for depressed children published in refereed journals, six used a placebo control.3,5-9 We analysed each study's methods and the extent to which authors' conclusions were supported by data. The seventh study, which compared a newer antidepressant with a tricyclic antidepressant without finding significant difference,10 was not included in the analysis but appears in the table on bmj.com.

Box 1: Warnings about antidepressants in children

June 2003—Letter from GlaxoSmithKline to all medical practitioners in the United Kingdom actively discouraging the use of paroxetine in patients less than 18 years of age, on the basis of recently disclosed trial results showing unacceptable risk of serious adverse effects, including hostility and suicidality. http://www.researchprotection.org/risks/PaxilRisks0603.html (accessed 17 Mar 2004)

June 2003—Warning from the UK Committee on Safety of Medicines against the use of paroxetine in children. http://www.mhra.gov.uk/news/2003/seroxat10603.pdf (accessed 1 Mar 2004)

August 2003—Warnings about venlafaxine, promulgated by the manufacturer. http://www.effexor.com/pdf/Wyeth_HCP.pdf (accessed 30 Dec 2003)

December 2003—UK Committee on Safety of Medicines bans all remaining selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, except fluoxetine, for use in patients under 18 years of age. medicines.mhra.gov.uk/ourwork/monitorsafequalmed/safetymessages/ssrioverview_101203.pdf (accessed 30 Dec 2003)

March 2004—FDA issues. Public Health Advisory on cautions for use of antidepressants in adults and children. http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2004/ANS01283.html (accessed 27 Mar 2004)

Summary points

Investigators' conclusions on the efficacy of newer antidepressants in childhood depression have exaggerated their benefits

Improvement in control groups is strong; additional benefit from drugs is of doubtful clinical significance

Adverse effects have been downplayed

Antidepressant drugs cannot confidently be recommended as a treatment option for childhood depression

A more critical approach to ensuring the validity of published data is needed

Quoted Text

National patterns in antidepressant medication treatment.
Olfson M, Marcus SC.
Source
Department of Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA. mo49@columbia.edu
Abstract
CONTEXT:
Antidepressants have recently become the most commonly prescribed class of medications in the United States.
OBJECTIVE:
To compare sociodemographic and clinical patterns of antidepressant medication treatment in the United States between 1996 and 2005.
DESIGN:
Analysis of antidepressant use data from the 1996 (n = 18 993) and 2005 (n = 28 445) Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys.
SETTING:
Households in the United States.
PARTICIPANTS:
Respondents aged 6 years or older who reported receiving at least 1 antidepressant prescription during that calendar year.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Rate of antidepressant use and adjusted rate ratios (ARRs) of year effect on rate of antidepressant use adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, annual family income, self-perceived mental health, and insurance status.
RESULTS:
The rate of antidepressant treatment increased from 5.84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.47-6.23) in 1996 to 10.12% (9.58-10.69) in 2005 (ARR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.55-1.81), or from 13.3 to 27.0 million persons. Significant increases in antidepressant use were evident across all sociodemographic groups examined, except African Americans (ARR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.89-1.44), who had comparatively low rates of use in both years (1996, 3.61%; 2005, 4.51%). Although antidepressant treatment increased for Hispanics (ARR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.60-1.90), it remained comparatively low (1996, 3.72%; 2005, 5.21%). Among antidepressant users, the percentage of patients treated for depression did not significantly change (1996, 26.25% vs 2005, 26.85%; ARR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.07), although the percentage of patients receiving antipsychotic medications (5.46% vs 8.86%; ARR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.31-2.3 increased and those undergoing psychotherapy declined (31.50% vs 19.87%; ARR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.72).
CONCLUSIONS:
From 1996 to 2005, there was a marked and broad expansion in antidepressant treatment in the United States, with persisting low rates of treatment among racial/ethnic minorities. During this period, individuals treated with antidepressants became more likely to also receive treatment with antipsychotic medications and less likely to undergo psychotherapy.
Comment in
Increased antidepressant and antipsychotic use in the USA between 1996 and 2005. [Evid Based Ment Health. 2010]
PMID: 19652124 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Quoted from Box A Rox

WOW!  A Senders 7fer!