from today's LA Times
(like we didn't know)
http://touch.latimes...e/p2p-81407820/
Posted 19 September 2014 - 01:18 PM
Posted 19 September 2014 - 03:01 PM
I managed to tract down the abstract on this article. I was a really disappointed. While I have no doubt that they are correct, there is a lack of detail. When you read it, it uses very general terminology. It doesn't give any specific info.
that's the lazy media these day. its not uncommon for me to read an artcile about something and have more questions than i did before i read it. reporters just don't go deep these days. they stopped asking "the why behind the why" a long time ago.
Posted 19 September 2014 - 03:21 PM
My comment wasn't directed toward the article in the LA times but toward the original summary (abstract) posted by the researcher. It is suppose to be a summary of his research but there were no details at all.
Posted 19 September 2014 - 03:45 PM
What they fail to tell you that for some that change to your brain's Architecture is permanent and that you will spend the rest of your life taking other meds in an attempt to keep your brain (and moods) working the way it is supposed too. The chemical balance in the brain is very sensitive and if altered in the wrong way has dire consequences.
Posted 19 September 2014 - 06:09 PM
What they fail to tell you that for some that change to your brain's Architecture is permanent and that you will spend the rest of your life taking other meds in an attempt to keep your brain (and moods) working the way it is supposed too. The chemical balance in the brain is very sensitive and if altered in the wrong way has dire consequences.
Because they make money from it.
Posted 19 September 2014 - 06:36 PM
Posted 19 September 2014 - 09:18 PM
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users