Rfk drops ball

[RileyG]

RFK Jr. Goes After Widely Used Antidepressants, Claiming They Could Be A Threat To Americans​

Thanks for the link

 

[FreeinChrist]

Doesn't lawyer RFK Jr. know that there has been a great deal of research on that class of meds and the effects already? That the FDA put those drugs through the wringer, so to speak, before ever approving the drugs to be prescribed?

Does lawyer RFK Jr. realize he is not a medical doctor or a pharmacist who also know a great deal about those drugs?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Doesn't lawyer RFK Jr. know that there has been a great deal of research on that class of meds and the effects already? That the FDA put those drugs through the wringer, so to speak, before ever approving the drugs to be prescribed?

Does lawyer RFK Jr. realize he is not a medical doctor or a pharmacist who also know a great deal about those drugs?

RFK Jr. Is also a collector of dead things, had a brain worm, and also has a Cabinet position. Looks like I just may dust off my resume and see if I can get in on this.

 

[probinson]

If FDA gives approval then they are fit for medication.

I'll bet the tens of thousand of people that took FDA-approved Vioxx and died from it would strongly disagree.

 

[probinson]

The FDA's failures have directly contributed to the Opiod crisis in America.

Take a few minutes to read how.

Over the past 25 years, pharmaceutical companies deceptively promoted opioid use in ways that were often neither safe nor effective, contributing to unprecedented increases in prescribing, opioid use disorder, and deaths by overdose. This article explores regulatory mistakes made by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in approving and labeling new analgesics. By understanding and correcting these mistakes, future public health crises caused by improper pharmaceutical marketing might be prevented.​

​

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-fda-failures-contributed-opioid-crisis/2020-08​

​

Calling these "mistakes" is being quite charitable.

I know it's more comforting to pretend like the FDA is in the business of ensuring safe and effective medications, but the reality is far different. Just because the FDA has approved something does't mean it's either safe or effective, and there are numerous examples of this throughout recent history.

 

[DaisyDay]

The FDA's failures have directly contributed to the Opiod crisis in America.

Take a few minutes to read how.

Over the past 25 years, pharmaceutical companies deceptively promoted opioid use in ways that were often neither safe nor effective, contributing to unprecedented increases in prescribing, opioid use disorder, and deaths by overdose. This article explores regulatory mistakes made by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in approving and labeling new analgesics. By understanding and correcting these mistakes, future public health crises caused by improper pharmaceutical marketing might be prevented.​

​

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-fda-failures-contributed-opioid-crisis/2020-08​

​

Calling these "mistakes" is being quite charitable.

I know it's more comforting to pretend like the FDA is in the business of ensuring safe and effective medications, but the reality is far different. Just because the FDA has approved something does't mean it's either safe or effective, and there are numerous examples of this throughout recent history.

Compared to what? You must know how bad things (food, medicine) were before there was an FDA and how bad off countries are which have no FDA of their own. Is it perfect? No. Could it be improved? Almost certainly. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[probinson]

Compared to what? You must know how bad things (food, medicine) were before there was an FDA and how bad off countries are which have no FDA of their own. Is it perfect? No. Could it be improved? Almost certainly. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It's worse when you have an agency that is ostensibly looking out for your health and wellbeing but is actually more interested in enriching themselves and shoring up their careers.

Do yourself a favor and read up on the Opiod crisis. The FDA's role in this crisis is appalling.

Or Vioxx. The FDA assured everyone that Vioxx was a safe and effective pain killer. They neglected to mention that it caused heart problems, tens of thousands of which led to death.

Or read up on how the FDA doesn't require any evidence of efficacy for accelerated drug approvals.

The FDA regularly approves drugs that have shown no benefit (see aducanumab)

In the background of FDA decision-making lingers the time-limited nature of an official’s tenure at the agency, which is especially true for political appointees on whom rest some of the agency’s most critical decisions. To believe that a regulator will make decisions unaffected by the prospect of lucrative private-sector employment in a regulated industry places unrealistic faith in the idea that human behavior is the product of conscious choices over which we have full control. The dangers of the revolving door can be understood as a product of conscious and unconscious influence that generates a risk of bias in favor of regulated entities with whom private employment may later be sought. As with bias in adjudication, it is that risk, even in the absence of actual proven bias, that requires mitigating measures.​

​

This article in the BMJ suggests that regulatory agencies are for hire.

Light says it is no longer possible for doctors and patients to receive unbiased, rigorous evaluations from drug regulators. He suggests setting up non-profit organisations like Germany’s Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, which was established to carry out evaluations of approved drugs that are independent of industry, rigorous, unbiased, and transparent. “The question is why weren’t drug regulators doing this trustworthy, transparent, rigorous, unbiased job in the first place?” says Light.​

​

From FDA to MHRA: are drug regulators for hire?

Patients and doctors expect drug regulators to provide an unbiased, rigorous assessment of investigational medicines before they hit the market. But do they have sufficient independence from the companies they are meant to regulate? Maryanne Demasi investigates Over the past decades, regulatory...

www.bmj.com

​

​

So you'll forgive me if I don't jump on board the "better than nothing" approach. There have been countless instances of the FDA not acting in the best interest of the public they are allegedly serving. Rather, they act in the best interest of the pharmaceutical companies that fund them and where they will likely work one day. But what makes this more dangerous than nothing at all is their assurances that they are working in the best interest of the public. People believe (wrongly) that the FDA is only interested in making sure drugs are safe and effective. They think "FDA approved" means that it's been through rigorous testing. But it does not. It simply means the pharmaceutical companies have their own advisers on the committees and paid enough money so that they were able to get that FDA stamp of approval.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Good News about Tina Smith:

Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith won’t seek reelection in 2026​

Smith’s exit opens up a Senate seat in a state that has shown signs of erosion for Democrats, despite Minnesota’s long history of voting blue — former President Joe Biden won the state by 7 points in 2020, while former Vice President Kamala Harris won by 4 points in 2024. Smith won her race in 2020 by about 5 points.

And it follows the exit of another Midwestern Democrat, Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, who announced last month that he also was not seeking reelection in 2026.

The prospect of defending two open seats in 2026, where Democrats had previously expected the advantage of incumbency, could strain the party’s campaign budget, threatening efforts to expand its current 47-seat minority. And both races are occurring in states that moved toward Republicans in 2024.

 

[RileyG]

Good News about Tina Smith:

Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith won’t seek reelection in 2026​

Smith’s exit opens up a Senate seat in a state that has shown signs of erosion for Democrats, despite Minnesota’s long history of voting blue — former President Joe Biden won the state by 7 points in 2020, while former Vice President Kamala Harris won by 4 points in 2024. Smith won her race in 2020 by about 5 points.

And it follows the exit of another Midwestern Democrat, Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, who announced last month that he also was not seeking reelection in 2026.

The prospect of defending two open seats in 2026, where Democrats had previously expected the advantage of incumbency, could strain the party’s campaign budget, threatening efforts to expand its current 47-seat minority. And both races are occurring in states that moved toward Republicans in 2024.

I’m very happy to hear that!

 

[probinson]

Another recent instance of corruption at the FDA.

The investigation also reveals that seven of the eight doctors appointed by the FDA to review donanemab received direct payments from drug companies.​

​

Three had financial ties to Lilly, two had ties to Roche, Lilly’s development partner in creating a new blood test for Alzheimer’s disease, and two others have patents on amyloid antibodies, and the eighth doctor had research funding from Janssen for another Alzheimer’s drug.​

​

Using the public database OpenPayments, members’ CVs, disclosures in published articles, and the Google patent ownership database, The BMJ found that individual advisers received up to $62 000 (£47 000; €56 000) for consulting and speaking fees and up to $10.5m in research grants from 2017 through 2023.​

​

Asked about the extensive financial conflicts among the physician advisors found by The BMJ, the agency stated, “The FDA does not comment on matters related to individual members of an advisory committee.”​

​

Questions over safety and effectiveness of new Alzheimer’s drug - BMJ Group

Investigation raises concerns about excess deaths, missing safety data, questionable effectiveness, and financial ties among expert advisors 7 of the 8 doctors on review panel received direct payments from drug companies The safety and effectiveness of donanemab - an Alzheimer’s drug recently...

bmjgroup.com

​

​

This provides some evidence for the link I posted yesterday that said the FDA is for hire.

 

[probinson]

If you want to understand what fuels anti-vax sentiment the most, take a few minutes to read this account of an undisclosed adjuvant in the Gardasil vaccine.

Failing to disclose the presence of an unapproved secondary adjuvant violates transparency and informed consent. Millions worldwide have received this vaccine without full knowledge of its contents or its potential immunological effects.​

​

This is not just an ethical failure; it may also constitute a legal violation. Patients had the right to be informed about the secondary adjuvant and its associated risks before vaccination.​

​

https://substack.com/inbox/post/157245391​

​

It's worth noting that Gardasil is brought to you by Merck, the same people who brought you Vioxx.

 

[wing2000]

...meanwhile, there is a measles outbreak in a Texas county. As of 2/14:

"The Texas measles outbreak has doubled in size to 48 cases, including 13 hospitalizations mostly among kids. None were vaccinated, and the majority of cases are in Gaines County. "

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fecb96ebc-ce92-4455-a64f-312a2d74bbe2_1600x1128.png?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

As consequence of politicizing immunizations.....


In 2019, 67 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners told Gallup that childhood immunizations were “extremely important,” compared with 52 percent of their Republican counterparts. Five years later, the enthusiasm among the Democratic grouping had fallen slightly to 63 percent. For Republicans and G.O.P. leaners it had plunged to 26 percent.

Today, 31 percent of Republicans say “vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they were designed to protect.” Just 5 percent of Democrats say the same.

“There seems to be a divide in terms of people’s feelings about science and skepticism towards the government,” said Dr. Natasha Bagdasarian, chief medical executive for Michigan. “I think some of those divisions are becoming apparent in vaccination rates.”

Childhood Vaccination Rates Were Falling Even Before the Rise of R.F.K. Jr.

The declines began with the pandemic, well before routine vaccines became part of the national political conversation.

www.nytimes.com

 

[probinson]

As consequence of politicizing immunizations.....


In 2019, 67 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners told Gallup that childhood immunizations were “extremely important,” compared with 52 percent of their Republican counterparts. Five years later, the enthusiasm among the Democratic grouping had fallen slightly to 63 percent. For Republicans and G.O.P. leaners it had plunged to 26 percent.

Today, 31 percent of Republicans say “vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they were designed to protect.” Just 5 percent of Democrats say the same.

“There seems to be a divide in terms of people’s feelings about science and skepticism towards the government,” said Dr. Natasha Bagdasarian, chief medical executive for Michigan. “I think some of those divisions are becoming apparent in vaccination rates.”

Childhood Vaccination Rates Were Falling Even Before the Rise of R.F.K. Jr.

The declines began with the pandemic, well before routine vaccines became part of the national political conversation.

www.nytimes.com

It's almost like public health authorities have completely destroyed the trust they had by politicizing and overplaying the efficacy of COVID vaccines and mandating them on people who absolutely did not need them.

Take a listen to this clip. Dr. Paul Offit shares how Fauci knew that vaccines should have been targeted to specific populations but instead decided to pushed them on everyone because he thought "a nuanced message was a garbled message".


You are correct that politicizing immunizations has consequences. Those who foolishly supported broad COVID vaccine mandates are now seeing the real-world consequences of their actions.

 

[probinson]

The collapse in trust in vaccination was entirely predictable, even by rank amateurs such as myself. In May 2021 (which is nearly 4 years ago, for those of you keeping score at home), I posted this on this forum.

What's at stake is trust in all vaccinations.

As the post above mine shows, trust in vaccines was pretty consistent between Democrats and Republicans until 2020. A picture is worth a thousand words, so here is the chart from the Gallup poll referenced above.

Something clearly happened in 2020 to cause trust in vaccines to plummet. I'll give you three guesses as to what that was and the first two don't count.

Overstating the efficacy of the COVID vaccines, downplaying their adverse effects, and making them a precondition of employment and education was a perfect recipe for destruction of trust. The ACLU warned of this in their 2008 Pandemic Preparedness Plan aptly titled "The Need for a Public Health - Not a Law Enforcement/National Security - Approach". In the section titled "Lessons from History", they said this.

American history contains vivid reminders that grafting the values of law enforcement and national security onto public health is both ineffective and dangerous. Too often, fears aroused by disease and epidemics have justified abuses of state power. Highly discriminatory and forcible vaccination and quarantine measures adopted in response to outbreaks of the plague and smallpox over the past century have consistently accelerated rather than slowed the spread of disease, while fomenting public distrust and, in some cases, riots.​

​

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/privacy/pemic_report.pdf

​

​

So don't buy it when you read articles today talking about people didn't know any better. We absolutely did. We were very aware that forcible vaccination measures foment public distrust. And now we're reaping what was sown by those forcible mandates. The public health agencies and governments that pushed those mandates and anyone who supported them now own the declining rates of childhood vaccination, whether they will admit it or not.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

The collapse in trust in vaccination was entirely predictable, even by rank amateurs such as myself. In May 2021 (which is nearly 4 years ago, for those of you keeping score at home), I posted this on this forum.



As the post above mine shows, trust in vaccines was pretty consistent between Democrats and Republicans until 2020. A picture is worth a thousand words, so here is the chart from the Gallup poll referenced above.

View attachment 361221

Something clearly happened in 2020 to cause trust in vaccines to plummet. I'll give you three guesses as to what that was and the first two don't count.

Overstating the efficacy of the COVID vaccines, downplaying their adverse effects, and making them a precondition of employment and education was a perfect recipe for destruction of trust. The ACLU warned of this in their 2008 Pandemic Preparedness Plan aptly titled "The Need for a Public Health - Not a Law Enforcement/National Security - Approach". In the section titled "Lessons from History", they said this.

American history contains vivid reminders that grafting the values of law enforcement and national security onto public health is both ineffective and dangerous. Too often, fears aroused by disease and epidemics have justified abuses of state power. Highly discriminatory and forcible vaccination and quarantine measures adopted in response to outbreaks of the plague and smallpox over the past century have consistently accelerated rather than slowed the spread of disease, while fomenting public distrust and, in some cases, riots.​

​

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/privacy/pemic_report.pdf

​

​

So don't buy it when you read articles today talking about people didn't know any better. We absolutely did. We were very aware that forcible vaccination measures foment public distrust. And now we're reaping what was sown by those forcible mandates. The public health agencies and governments that pushed those mandates and anyone who supported COVID them now own the declining rates of childhood vaccination, whether they will admit it or not.

I didn't expect this negative information about President Trump and his Operation Warp Speed that rushed to get a non existing vaccine developed and ready to start giving out in seven months so it would be ready by January 2021 to show how good President Trump and his administration was. President Trump started, funded, and praised Operation Warp Speed.

 

[probinson]

Just how much did "experts" overstate the efficacy of the COVID vaccines? Well, you may remember this report which was trumpeted with much fanfare by the media, claiming that in the first 2 years of COVID vaccination, 3,255,656 deaths had been "averted" by the COVID vaccine. But this doesn't even pass the sniff test.

Let's break that number down. They are claiming that for the first two years, 1,627,828 deaths were "averted" by COVID vaccination. Given 365 days in a year, that means they are claiming that ~4,460 people were saved by vaccines every day for a year. In other words, if vaccines had not been introduced an additional 4,460 people would have died EVERY SINGLE DAY FOR TWO YEARS. This is sheer lunacy on its face.

Let's return to reality and look at the daily number of deaths reported throughout the pandemic and up to today.

According to this chart, there was only a single day at any time in the pandemic where daily deaths exceeded 4,460, and that was February 14, 2021 when 5,021 deaths had been reported. But remember, this data shows what actually happened WITH vaccination. You would have to add an ADDITIONAL 4,460 deaths ON TOP of those numbers for "the study" which claimed that 1.6 million lives were saved each year to be correct. I mean, does anyone actually believe that 9,481 people would have died on February 14, 2021 if not for vaccines? If you do, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

Here's what that would look like cumulatively vs. reality.

Source: Correcting the Congressional Record on Covid Vaccines

Yet people to this day are still pretending like "millions of lives were saved" by COVID vaccines because that's what they were told by some "study" with a horribly flawed model.

You don't have to be an "expert" to see the ridiculousness of this claim. You just have to think for yourself for just a minute instead of uncritically swallowing what the "experts" tell you.

This overselling of COVID vaccine efficacy was done to compel people to comply with mandates. But the result is that once people came down from their panic and started analyzing the completely nonsensical things they were told, it was inevitable that they were going to stop trusting the people who lied to them for so long.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Just how much did "experts" overstate the efficacy of the COVID vaccines? Well, you may remember this report which was trumpeted with much fanfare by the media, claiming that in the first 2 years of COVID vaccination, 3,255,656 deaths had been "averted" by the COVID vaccine. But this doesn't even pass the sniff test.

Let's break that number down. They are claiming that for the first two years, 1,627,828 deaths were "averted" by COVID vaccination. Given 365 days in a year, that means they are claiming that ~4,460 people were saved by vaccines every day for a year. In other words, if vaccines had not been introduced an additional 4,460 people would have died EVERY SINGLE DAY FOR TWO YEARS. This is sheer lunacy on its face.

Let's return to reality and look at the daily number of deaths reported throughout the pandemic and up to today.

View attachment 361222

According to this chart, there was only a single day at any time in the pandemic where daily deaths exceeded 4,460, and that was February 14, 2021 when 5,021 deaths had been reported. But remember, this data shows what actually happened WITH vaccination. You would have to add an ADDITIONAL 4,460 deaths ON TOP of those numbers for "the study" which claimed that 1.6 million lives were saved each year to be correct. I mean, does anyone actually believe that 9,481 people would have died on February 14, 2021 if not for vaccines? If you do, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

Here's what that would look like cumulatively vs. reality.

View attachment 361223

Source: Correcting the Congressional Record on Covid Vaccines

Yet people to this day are still pretending like "millions of lives were saved" by COVID vaccines because that's what they were told by some "study" with a horribly flawed model.

You don't have to be an "expert" to see the ridiculousness of this claim. You just have to think for yourself for just a minute instead of uncritically swallowing what the "experts" tell you.

This overselling of COVID vaccine efficacy was done to compel people to comply with mandates. But the result is that once people came down from their panic and started analyzing the completely nonsensical things they were told, it was inevitable that they were going to stop trusting the people who lied to them for so long.

That report may very well have overestimated the amount of deaths that might have resulted from not having a vaccine.

But let's not pretend that you and your graphs aren't guilty of similar errors.

For one thing, your entire argument is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. For what it's worth, I don't think it's necessarily incorrect, but at the same time, it's conceivable that the winter of '21-22 (i.e. the first with a large percentage of people who'd received the vaccine) could have been far, far worse than the winter of '20-21 (i.e. very very early in the vax rollout when supplies were still restricted). I don't recall which variants were active at that time, but it's hardly an implausible scenario.

Second, using the deaths in 2020 as support for this incredulity is misleading at best. The disease wasn't even discovered until the end of 2019 and deaths weren't being recorded in the US until the second half of March 2020. The number of active cases took off in late 2020. 2021 was the first full year where it was everywhere. Even with the vaccines, the number of recorded covid deaths in 2021 was 20% higher than in 2020.

Third, your green "herd immunity" curve is absurd on its face. How does the development of herd immunity -which requires letting the disease run through the population- result in fewer deaths than a largescale vaccination effort? If the vaccine was completely ineffective, it would result in the same amount of deaths as the herd immunity plan. Some positive efficacy would result in fewer deaths, not more.

I mean, does anyone actually believe that 9,481 people would have died on February 14, 2021 if not for vaccines?

No, and that's not what their estimate claims. If you read the article and look at their charts, you'll see that the bulk of their estimated increased caseload comes in a wave that they predict would've happened in July-October 2021.

If I'm understanding the article correctly, one of their factors is the increased rate of morbidity with reinfections.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Just my opinion but upon taking office, he wanted to do this with SSRIs

SSRIs are an incredibly important to to fight against depression and anxiety. It's a whole CLASS of drugs as opposed to a single drug.

My problem with this...he's looking at the dangers of ssris instead of wondering what is causing the prevelance and need in the population. My guess is because that would require some significant navel gazing into American culture and, more importantly as the saying goes amongst psychologists "Many peoples mental health issues would be resolved if they made a sustainable income."


It's weird that they are going after a SOLUTION to a problem but not doing anything to address the ACTUAL problem. Why not investigate the reasons for the need of these prescriptions?

It's pretty simple. America is getting poorer and sicker. But an investigation would lend more credence and could lead to more improvements.

"Many peoples mental health issues would be resolved if they made a sustainable income."

I don't know that we can necessarily chalk it up to purely an income thing.

I say that for a few reasons:

• Iceland, Portugal, and the United Kingdom have the highest consumption rate of antidepressants in 2022 5.
• Other countries with significant antidepressant consumption include Canada, Australia, and Sweden 4.

The countries listed have taken much larger steps toward inequality-addressing measures (especially Iceland, Portugal, and Sweden).

There are also some studies and polls that would suggest that SSRI consumption is just as high among higher-income households vs. lower-income households. (even when controlling for the aspect of access to insurance that covers it)


What seems to be a unique pattern (in the US) is that issues involving both depression and anxiety seem to be more prevalent at both ends of the financial bell curve.

My guess (and this is just a guess) is that the people who occupy both ends of the financial curve have stress/depression coming in from different sources.

Where one guy may be experiencing stress due to "How am I going to make my house payment next month and pay for my kid's doctor bill???", another may be stressed, not for money reasons, but because "I've got 8 meetings a day, I'm on the road half the year and barely see my family"

Whereas middle & middle-upper class folks tend to have the benefit of being financially stable (not rich, but stable), and a better chance of having a reasonable work-life balance.

Apart from the money aspect, I suspect we saw some steep increases in depression/anxiety due to some other factors as well.
1) Many people who were prescribed some of the original SSRI drugs in the 90s (back before the waning efficacy and need for medication rotation was as well-understood), would've been in that waning efficacy period between 2008 and 2018. (and that was combined with an obviously contentious time period, socio-politically speaking)

2) There were some "interesting" parenting approaches being tried in the late-90's, that led to a generation of somewhat fragile kids becoming fragile adults who had a harder time dealing with things like rejection, failure, and disappointment than their predecessors born in the 70's and 80's.

 

[probinson]

That report may very well have overestimated the amount of deaths that might have resulted from not having a vaccine.

It sure did. By a metric ton.

But apparently the researchers called it a "conservative estimate", meaning they thought it was even worse than their absurd model showed.

For one thing, your entire argument is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. For what it's worth, I don't think it's necessarily incorrect, but at the same time, it's conceivable that the winter of '21-22 (i.e. the first with a large percentage of people who'd received the vaccine) could have been far, far worse than the winter of '20-21 (i.e. very very early in the vax rollout when supplies were still restricted). I don't recall which variants were active at that time, but it's hardly an implausible scenario.

Let's presume that your counterfactual of things being "far, far worse" were true.

In 2020, there were 352,004 deaths between March 2, 2020 and December 31, 2020.

In 2021, there were 295,019 deaths between March 2, 2021 and December 30, 2021.

But remember, in the counterfactual assessment that 3.26 MILLION deaths had been averted, that means that an ADDITIONAL 4,460 deaths would have happened every day without vaccination. There are 303 days between March 2 and December 30, which means that there would have been an ADDITIONAL 1,351,380 deaths in that time period, for a TOTAL death count of 1,646,398 between March 2, 2021 and December 30, 2021.

That is an increase of over 367% from the same time period in 2020. Are you telling me that you think that's a plausible scenario? Is that what you mean by "far, far worse"?

Am I incredulous? You bet I am. The numbers simply do not add up.

Second, using the deaths in 2020 as support for this incredulity is misleading at best. The disease wasn't even discovered until the end of 2019 and deaths weren't being recorded in the US until the second half of March 2020. The number of active cases took off in late 2020. 2021 was the first full year where it was everywhere. Even with the vaccines, the number of recorded covid deaths in 2021 was 20% higher than in 2020.

I accounted for that in my calculations above by including the same number of days from each year.

No, and that's not what their estimate claims. If you read the article and look at their charts, you'll see that the bulk of their estimated increased caseload comes in a wave that they predict would've happened in July-October 2021.

That is precisely what their estimate claims. There's no way to "avert" 3.26 million deaths in 2 years without averting an average of 4,460 deaths every single day.

 

[rambot]

"Many peoples mental health issues would be resolved if they made a sustainable income."


I don't know that we can necessarily chalk it up to purely an income thing.

Ohhh....to be CLEAR I would DEFINITELY not only chalk it up to an income thing. Just that it is certainly a contributing factor.

I say that for a few reasons:

• Iceland, Portugal, and the United Kingdom have the highest consumption rate of antidepressants in 2022 5.
• Other countries with significant antidepressant consumption include Canada, Australia, and Sweden 4.

The countries listed have taken much larger steps toward inequality-addressing measures (especially Iceland, Portugal, and Sweden).

That's true but that doesn't mean that it is sufficient. The US also has welfare and social supports.

There are also some studies and polls that would suggest that SSRI consumption is just as high among higher-income households vs. lower-income households. (even when controlling for the aspect of access to insurance that covers it)

I am having a lot of trouble finding studies that deal specifically with that though I HAVE found one that briefly says only "There was no variation in antidepressant use by income group".

What seems to be a unique pattern (in the US) is that issues involving both depression and anxiety seem to be more prevalent at both ends of the financial bell curve.

My guess (and this is just a guess) is that the people who occupy both ends of the financial curve have stress/depression coming in from different sources.

Where one guy may be experiencing stress due to "How am I going to make my house payment next month and pay for my kid's doctor bill???", another may be stressed, not for money reasons, but because "I've got 8 meetings a day, I'm on the road half the year and barely see my family"

Fair points. While I would personally argue that those are two different kinds of stress, ultimately, they ARE both very legitimate stressors.

Whereas middle & middle-upper class folks tend to have the benefit of being financially stable (not rich, but stable), and a better chance of having a reasonable work-life balance.

Maybe but my understanding is that there is no difference ALL the way across the spectrum.

Apart from the money aspect, I suspect we saw some steep increases in depression/anxiety due to some other factors as well.
1) Many people who were prescribed some of the original SSRI drugs in the 90s (back before the waning efficacy and need for medication rotation was as well-understood), would've been in that waning efficacy period between 2008 and 2018. (and that was combined with an obviously contentious time period, socio-politically speaking)

2) There were some "interesting" parenting approaches being tried in the late-90's, that led to a generation of somewhat fragile kids becoming fragile adults who had a harder time dealing with things like rejection, failure, and disappointment than their predecessors born in the 70's and 80's.

I'd argue those TRULY started in the aughts but I have thought the same thing. Parents doing EVERYTHING they can to protect their child from negative experiences ends up creating a child that cannot handle negative experiences.

BUT, with that said, I am NOT that kind of parent. I am happy to have my kids go through tough stuff. But my daughter has certainly developed at least a low level of anxiety.