Talk:Major depressive disorder/Archive 2

message: This entry by 80.116.217.117 on 13 June 2004 troubles me.
"Excessive stimulation of the neuroloigical system may lead to clinical depression. The degree and persistence of the depression is directly related to the degree and persistence of the stimulation. This neurological reflex is part of the bodies natural defenses,that have evolved through evolution,to protect itself from harm. Over work,physically or mentally, may over stimulate the neurological system which reflexively responds by creating a sense of tiredness mentally and physically-the desire to do anything is much reduced."
It reads like a 19th century tract on "nerves". I feel more inclined to delete it than to correct the typos. Can anyone substantiate this entry? Isidore 00:04, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I went ahead and removed it and added a sentence about stress under "Life experiences". Isidore 19:06, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  BioMechanical-Neurological causes 

message: Having justs contributed several edits to this page I find they have been reverted by Denni without explanation.  This page is somewhat jumbled, at times repetitive and otherwise unclear.  Others have noted that it needs some rewriting.  Anyone intersted can view my changes in the page history.  For the moment I will pause my rewriting until this issue is clarified.  --CloudSurfer 21:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi CloudSurfer, it looks to me as though Denni intended to restore the heading and the roll-back went too far.  I've restored your changes, and what I believe Denni intended with his.  -- sannse (talk) 21:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that.  You have added unipolar to the list which of course makes perfect sense.  I also now understand Denni's reasons.  I have tried to be NPOV while at the same time attempting to clarify some of the issues.  --CloudSurfer 21:50, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits by CloudSurfer 

message: OK folks.  Under the heading Types of Depression we have two subheadings, Unipolar depression and Bipolar depression.  Under the first heading we then have a description of subtypes of depression.  Since some of these subtypes can occur in both unipolar and bipolar depression it seems to me that a better structure for this section would be:
:No subheading of Unipolar depression with the text down to the second heading as is. This then follows the main heading of Types of Depression.
===Unipolar vs bipolar disorder===
:Bipolar disorder is a cyclical illness in which moods fluctuate between mania (extreme happiness or giddiness and frantic activity) and clinical depression. Bipolar disorder has also been commonly called "manic depression", although this usage is now unpopular with psychiatrists, who have standardised on Kraepelin's usage of the term manic depression to describe the whole bipolar spectrum that includes both bipolar disorder and unipolar depression; they now usually use the term bipolar disorder. This then leaves the term unipolar depression which is used to differentiate it from bipolar disorder.
--CloudSurfer 22:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there has been no comment on this suggested change I have gone ahead and made the changes. --CloudSurfer 04:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of Depression 

message: :Bipolar disorder is a cyclical illness in which moods fluctuate between mania (extreme happiness or giddiness and frantic activity) and clinical depression. Bipolar disorder has also been commonly called "manic depression", although this usage is now unpopular with psychiatrists, who have standardised on Kraepelin's usage of the term manic depression to describe the whole bipolar spectrum that includes both bipolar disorder and unipolar depression; they now usually use the term bipolar disorder. This then leaves the term unipolar depression which is used to differentiate it from bipolar disorder.
--CloudSurfer 22:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there has been no comment on this suggested change I have gone ahead and made the changes. --CloudSurfer 04:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Unipolar vs bipolar disorder

message: The paragraph states that, "Like all forms of psychiatric treatment, electroshock can be given without a patient's consent, but this is subject to legal conditions dependent on the jurisdiction. In Oregon patient consent is necessary by statute."
First of all, this is a contradictory sentence. All forms of psychiatric treatment can be given without patient consent (but not Oregon)? Can psychiatric treatment be given without patient consent everywhere else?--Heyitspeter 07:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) 

message: I have removed everything under self medication and replaced it with a short definition.  I have done this because of the horribly pov and unsourced crap that was there before.
"
Some people with clinical depression may attempt to dull their feelings of despair by consuming alcohol, tobacco, or illicit psychoactive drugs for their mood-altering effects. Although this might be widespread, these substances merely mitigate symthoms and are of no clinical value, and extensive use may bear serious health damage and/or other deleterious consequences, esp. legal.
"Comfort foods" are also used by some. Some foods like chocolate contain psychoactive substances.
"
This is wrong in so many ways.  The first problem is the claim that self-medication is an attempt to dull feelings of despair.  In the case of opiate self medication many people find that they only true normality they experiance is with opaites.  It also cites no sources and is extremely biased.  This has no place on wikipedia, I cannot rewrite that section at the moment, but should I remember I will make an attempt.  If anyone else feels they can improve it please do so. Remember pub med is a great source.  Take a look at the following links.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16756582&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17202003&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum
Foolishben 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-medication pov issue 

message: I have edited the electroshock section to edit out claims of brain damage.  This is not scientifically proven, therefore should not be in an encyclopedia.  For direct evidence please check google scholar and search for the American Psyhiatric Association for their research on ECT and brain damage.
:"Scientifically proven" is a very slippery concept in psychiatry.  A biological cause of depression has yet to be specifically proven but that doesn't stop psychiatrists from assuming that it's the truth.  The American Psychiatric Association is not encyclopaedic -- they are extremely biased in favour of the biomedical model of mental illness and tend to disregard the considerable research that flies in the face of it.  There is a lot of evidence for long-term memory problems after electroshock.  Whether or not this consitutes brain damage is arguable.  Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 05:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: I totally agree with the previous comment about Electroconvolsive therapy. This tone is not what you can expect from an encyclopedia. Do you think we should add a NPOV tag? --Cinoche78 17:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we just delete the whole POV part (starting at the second paragraph, as of this writing). It's basically an advertorial and I don't see any information that could be extracted from it by making it NPOV. Lawrence Lavigne 19:48, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Can we stop the ax-grinding?  I'm referring to the appeal to unnamed authority that "A minority of the US psychiatric establishment view ECT as having more benefits than drawbacks."  I'd like to actually see the figures which support that statement, especially since I think an actual doctor would not answer that question unless given context about the patient -- ECT has drawbacks, but it produces results in some cases where every other modality has failed.  Asking a doctor to judge a treatment like that out of context is like asking them to judge the merits of amputation without telling them the condition of the limb in question. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electroconvolsive therapy 

message: I have removed a lot of rather peculiar material about "atropinic shock" (which has ZERO Google hits, except for this article), and about enemas. -- Karada 22:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several Medline references to Atropine shock treatment. -- ElBenevolente 22:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we are to put it in the article, it should be done with caution, and copious cites, as this does not appear to be a widely-accepted treatment, and all of the cites given above are very old, and do not even give abstracts (the most recent one above is 1964), suggesting it is no longer in use. -- Karada 23:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A brief mention of the therapy in the article would probably be sufficient as a former treatment method.  ElBenevolente 23:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "atropinic shock" and enema stuff 

message: Eh, don't you think that you've removed TOO much?
Almost everything I've added, including things I've fixed:
* Why tricyclics are still used
* Antipsycotics for augmenting antidepressant blood concentrations
* Light therapy and exercises
* Ugly nameless link to Dr. Ivan's depression Central was fixed by me, but now it's ugly again
* Link to Wikibooks - Demystifying Depression removed (this was not added by me)
And more. Don't you think it's a good idea to think before destroying someone's else work?
Yes, thanks to someone from 81.218.179.183 - i don't see any more changes in whole Wikipedia from this one.
I think we must revert. What do you think?
Varnav 12:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large turnback 

message: Okay, I've reverted back to the edition before mr 81.218.179.183 made a big cleanup without any comments.
Now, you complain about that some methods are not actual anymore and article is too large.
And, we can not say that ECT is a replacement for atropinic shock method - these are two completely different methods. Insulin shock method is considered old now, but It's still used.
So, it's probably a good idea to make a cleanup (not so radical)
Varnav 13:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted 

message: Some of us have started a wikibook on the subject of depression,
based on a two-part series I had written for Kuro5hin.
Would you consider adding a link to it?
The book still needs some cleaning up, but it is already
quite useful.  Moreover, it does cover into detail subjects
which most web pages (including this Wikipedia entry)
neglect -- the issue of exercise and depression, for example.
(Which, by the way, you should probably also address into
more detail in this article: too much exercise can worsen
a depression!)
Here is a link to the book:
Name of Feather 6 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)
:Speaking of books, I added John Bentley Mays' memoirs, "In the Jaws of the Black Dogs," to the list near the end of the article. This is a fairly well-known account of life-long depression and I was somewhat surprised that it wasn't listed before. --Todeswalzer 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibook: Demystifying Depression 

message: Should we be linking to online support groups?  If so, should we be linking to one that just reached its first month online? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia:External links, there is no reason not to link to online support groups. I took a look at the new site secretworld and found it to be informative, and not too POV. I'd say let it stay. Gbeeker 15:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online support groups? 

message: Does this exist?
: Very definitely.  Check PubMed, Cochrane reviews, or see e.g.  --Cedders 12:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence based CBT / IPT 

message: Let's say someone comes back from vacation. Then they want to return to their vacation spot. It gets to the point where it depresses them. It stays that way for longer than usual (let's say about two weeks). Could this be considered clinical depression? Scorpionman 02:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be only if symptoms of clinical depression are present. There are different triggers for certain people.  --Dysepsion 02:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: What you propose sounds like an unlikely trigger for clinical depression (as opposed to informal just-feeling-blue "depression") but not at all impossible.  Context is highly important; if they come back from vacation to a work situation where they feel trapped, unappreciated and helpless, then yes, it could be the trigger for clinical depression. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of the these are references to post-euphoric melancholia, and do not constitute...nor would they be likely to activate...a clinical definable depression. Mjformica 12:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the link...post-euphoric melancholia is a fancy way of saying "the crash after the high".  It's self-explanatory. Mjformica 03:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Post-Vacation-Depression 

message: I know St. John's Wort as treatment is listed in a lot of magazines and in some studies.  Granted it is not an "official treatment" by some opinions, but I think it should be mentioned because things people commonly see on the subject should be addressed here.  I think this reasoning should follow for other therapies as well, including older ones that are not used anymore.
Also, when I did a lot of reading into depression I came across an article in a mainstream health or exercise magazine that quotes a study.  The study warns that taking St. John's Wort reduces the effectiveness of birth control pills.  Perhaps it might be wise for someone to find this reference and mention it? (I'm trying but hoping to have some help).  Especially since getting unexpectedly pregnant might not be a positive boon to someone's depression!
--Kat 07:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What reduces the effectiveness of birth control pills? St John's Wort or depression? --bodnotbod 09:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: St.John's Wort. (I re-edited my post for clarity). --Kat 12:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's really overestimating the effects of chocolate. Also the description of the possible mechanism is ridiculous and the source were clearly misinterpreted. First, serotonin doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier. Also, the 1st source directs another source (relating to serotonin), which is a topic on BBC news website, and which says chocolate's mood-elevating properties could be due to its tryptophan and even then it says "many scientists are sceptical that chocolate could produce mood-altering effects in this way. Chemicals like tryptophan and phenylethylamine, which are also found in many other foodstuffs, are present in chocolate only in very small quantities". The case reports talk about increased serotonin levels at the skin area (which doesn't mean it reaches the brain's 5-HT receptors). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xxx-Xtazy (talk • contribs) 13:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Therapies 

message: This article seems biased against people that aren't depressed. Such sayings as "Normal people can't understand how depression is" seems like a large point of view from one side.--Pichu0102 15:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when is a Wikipedia article supposed to be for someone? Isn't a wikipedia article supposed to be an unbiased place of information, not an opinion place?--Pichu0102 05:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: What, so you think a non-diabetic can truly understand what it's like to have diabetes, or someone who's never had cancer can know what it's like to suffer in that way? misanthrope 13:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitely not NPOV 

message: Who in there right mind would even think that Electroshock has no side effects. Just think about it when they use Electroshock they are driving electric waves thru out your but body and also in to your brain. Isn't that the same thing as the electric chair? Yea thank about it, and also like when a child puts something metal in a "plugin" ... So yes of course Electroshock has side effects! why dont you look at the people in the mental hospitals!!!![unknow][2-15-07][s][2:22pm]
Electroshock has no side effects???  You have GOT to be kidding me. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 05:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is certainly not constructive discussion of article content. Will you please behave? JFW | T@lk 22:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: You must be mistaking me for someone else. I have not edited this article for a while (1 October to be correct). I was simply stating that Wikipedia has civility guidelines, and your use of invective and incredulity does nothing for the article. JFW | T@lk 00:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: So you are still accusing me of writing "dangerous trash", despite my reassurance that I have not edited this article for well over a month? Or do you mean that civility is more important than WP:NPOV? Well, describing other POVs as "dangerous trash" is not conductive to agreeing on article content. JFW | T@lk 00:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ECT has both advocates and opponents.  There are many patients who swear by ECT treatment.  The most frequently cited side effect is short-term memory loss.--24.55.228.56 04:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Your version of the history is interesting, but please adhere to WP:NPOV when editing articles. JFW | T@lk 00:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Francesca, we know your opinion. JFW | T@lk 08:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: But it's just dramatics. The best medications are derived from poisons. Warfarin is a good example. As for the negative effects: I'm still waiting for your references to serious research confirming your "minor head injury" analogy. JFW | T@lk 18:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Francesca, I'm sorry but I'm must correct you on the historical aspect of ECT. ECT isn't the toy of some cowboys experimenting with the all-new electricity magic. It came from the clinical observation (late XIX, early XXth century) that people experiencing epileptical seizures we're somehow shielded from psychosis (hallucination, delusion and the like). So those clinicians started to experiment on ways to cause seizures in patients suffering from severe schizophrenia, using for many years chemicals like camphor since they felt it was easier to administrate in a controlled way. Psychosis was somehow lessened, but it is the depressive symptoms who where the most affected by this. This is how it came to be used for depression. In time, electricity (first AC and bilateral, now DC and usually unilateral) came to replace drugs since it is generally safer. It is still widely in use for severe, medically refractory depression, or severe depression with psychotic symptoms. Don't get me wrong, it is not used frequently for the average, my-mother-in-law-has-it type of clinical depression. It is used mainly on those who are very severely incapacitated by their depression, who do not respond to treatment, either pharmaceutical or psychotherapeutical, or who exhibit psychotic symptoms. It is not used in first line, but it produces results, and its side effect are way less severe than 50 years ago, and way under the effects of being severely depressed and psychotic. As such, it's place is discussed in every medical cursus, along psychopharmacology and psychotherapy.   Duf_Sherby 15:57, 3 may 2006 (EAT)
Not according to answers.com, among other NPOV websites:  www.answers.com/topic/electroconvulsive-therapy  208.181.100.47 17:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOP THOSE EDITS! 

message: These two apparently contradictory sentences appear nearly next to each other (in the section "Signs and symptoms", in the paragraph beginning "Because of this profound..."):
:Because of this profound and often overwhelmingly negative outlook, the depressed individual is unlikely to recover on their own without some sort of treatment.
:If left untreated [depression] will generally resolve within six months to two years although occasionally depression becomes chronic and lasts for many years or indefinitely.
Neither of these statements is sourced.  I think this whole paragraph should be removed and replaced with a sourced figure (or range of figures) estimating the likelihood that untreated depression will resolve itself. --Delirium 00:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "six months to two years" bit was discussed at Talk:Clinical_depression/archive 2#Will really untreated clinical depression resolve from 6 to 24 months?.  When I was first told this, I was told that there were studies that show that to be true - but I don't have information on the pages.  Ideally we need those references.  I think the first bit ("unlikely to recover") may be referring to the risk of suicide or those people with long-term or recurring depression.  But I'm not sure, and it's not what I understood to be the usual course of the illness. -- sannse (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal contradiction 

message: References to the website fishoilblog.com keep cropping up in this article as a reference. It is a commerical website designed to get readers to subscribe to a newsletter where fish oil is sold. This is clearly a violation of Wikipedia standards for neutral references. No doubt the owner has used this ploy to improve his search engine postion by getting links from Wikipedia.
:You are correct. If it is your assessment that these are commercial links they may freely be removed. There is lots of spam on Wikipedia. I remove it on sight, although the discussions can be tedious. JFW | T@lk 11:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial Violation 

message: While there are probably more present in this article, given the nature, I am at the moment only taking issue with this particular statement (given that it's the only one I've spotted as of yet):
"People that accept satisfactory outcomes in lieu of "the best" outcome tend to lead happier lives." (under Causes for depression)
While such a statement makes sense, it is at present only justifiable in that it appeals to common sense. However, this statement cannot be proven, and because it cannot be proven, it has not been proven, and because it hasn't been proven, it has no place in this article (see Wikipedia's page on verifiability, although whoever penned the above statement shouldn't in reality need to read that, given that the verifiability page should be familiar to any editor). Given the nature of this article, I think it's in need of a re-evaluation of its conforming to standards... 72.140.7.191 02:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of unproven statements 

message: "Clinical Depression" and diagnoses falling on the Depression spectrum are not the same thing.  As this section has exceeded the recommended limit for content, may I suggest separating the two topic areas?  Mjformica 13:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy in reporting and bifurcation 

message: I've removed this whole subsection to talk, as, without supporting cites, I find it highly dubious.
:Enemas and colon hydrotherapy
:Severe clinical depression is often accompanied by constipation. Tricyclic antidepressants themselves also tend to produce constipation as a side effect.   Laxatives reduce the absorption of an antidepressant in the small intestine, thereby reducing its bioavailability and clinical efficacy.  Warm water enemas, on the other hand, do not interfere with antidepressant absorption, and may have a slight antidepressive effect by increasing serotonin production in thick bowel wall and temporarily raising serotonin level in the bloodstream. 
-- Karada 01:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enemas??? 

message: *Mcman Legal threats, hostile revisions, failure to collaborate, gaming the system (WP:POINT), assuming bad faith(WP:AGF), uncivil behavior (WP:CIVIL), harassment (WP:STALK), ignores consensus (WP:CON), and engages in personal attacks (WP:NPA). --Mjformica 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would respectfully request that other users and contributors disregard this formal RFC, as I believe that Mcman and I have come to a point of resolve without the need for outside intervention.  If you care to comment here, I, personally, would consider it an academic exercise that may bear on the community at large, but would not bear on the resolution to which I feel my Wiki-colleague and I have come. --Mjformica 13:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: User Conduct 

message: Before mjformica posted the above, I had asked an independent mediator to step in to resolve issues between myself and mjformica.
For the record, mjformica deleted my contributions with public comments that included "palpibaly incorrect" and "wrong again." Then he posted me a piece of hate mail saying I "am not a clinican" and to cease writing for Wikopedia.
For the record, I have bipolar disorder and depression is a constant in my life. I have been awarded a major award by the Connecticut Psychiatric Association for my writing on depression and bipolar disorder and Harper Collins will be publishing my book in November. I have 25 years of editorial/journalism/publishing experience. I have a reputation for writing on complex matierial in a very clear manner. I have written full-time on mood disorders for nearly seven years. I am very respectful of clinicians and researchers and they have been very gracious to me. My minor contributions on Wikipedia are based on interviews with the leading experts, as well as their writing.
Now I notice that mjformica has accused me of "legal threats, hostile revisions," etc. All this is wholly untrue. I did tell him he had no right question my credentials or delete my contributions or make the public comments he made. Nevertheless, he continued to delete my contributions.
Then I requested independent mediation.
I am hoping independent mediation will work. Until the matter is settled by a mediator, however, I trust that mjformica respects my writing and does not once again delete my contributions.
Once again, I am sorry for putting all of you through this.
:Unfortunately, I do not believe that the request for independent mediation follows the protocols for RFC, as noted in the Wikipedia policies and procedures, whereas the above post does.  Conflicting editors are first to request contributor arbitration from members on the section talk page, then, if that conflict cannot be resolved in that forum with the participation of at least 2 other contributors, a request for formal arbitration via the Admins may be requested, although it may not be accepted.
:In addition, I did not delete Mcman's posts, but edited, revised and expanded them.  I thought that was the idea.  You will note that all of the information contained in his writing is contained within my revision, along with requests for specific citations as requested by one of the Wiki-Admins.  Therefore, I would argue that it is he, not I, whom is guilty of wholesale deletion.  Mcman is also of the opinion that my language is too dense for Wikipedia.  If someone would comment on this, it would be appreciated.
:Finally, I would quote Mcman here...
::Now I notice that mjformica has accused me of "legal threats, hostile revisions," etc. All this is wholly untrue. I did tell him he had no right question my credentials or delete my contributions or make the public comments he made. Nevertheless, he continued to delete my contributions.
:I did not question McMan's credentials, as an expert patient.  He has no credentials as a clinician, and I made a statement -- albeit somewhat forcefully -- to that effect, in light of what I perceived to be some of his gaming and POV -- my opinion.  Although his standing within the patient, and possible within portions of the professional, community may be substantial, and he is, and I quote myself, "...doing good work as a patient advocate and educator...", he is still not a clinician.
:I will grant there has been hostility and rancor in some of my editorial tags.  I publicly apologize for that.
:Secondly, if (quoting McMan's private posts to me) "...wholly libelous...", and "...serious consequences..." do not constitute legal threats and menacing, then I don't know what would.
:And lastly, in the interest of putting this whole thing to rest, anything Mcman writes from this point forward is fine with me.  Good, bad, or indifferent, I won't touch it without asking, and I would ask the same of him.  To that end, McMan, would you kindly review and revise -- then send along, should you be obliged -- the copy that you deleted which included your work and mine...for which I believe you thanked me, initially.
:I sense at this moment Mcman believes he has proved his point, and won the day.  Regrettably, power goes to the one who yields...Sun Tsu. --Mjformica 12:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology to contributors 

message: Thankyou, Mjformica. I accept your good faith. I trust that the same consideration you extend to me you will extend to all the other contributors. McMan
:This is not a courtesy, it is a compromise, and one I am pleased that you are willing to accept.  It applies specifically to our relationship.  To the best of my knowledge, no one else has a problem with me...quite the contrary.
:That said, would you kindly review the section that I posted to you privately containing your initial work, my expansions, and my edits for readable at your suggestion, then comment.  Thank you. --Mjformica 13:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I note your comments 

message: "The tendency to develop depression may be inherited; there is some evidence that this disorder may run in families."
This is very vague. Can we get this expanded on? Or at the very minium, a resource link??--Jaysscholar 16:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kendler et al 2006 Am J Psych 163(1):109-14 found heritability estimates of 42% in women and 29% in men, but there's plenty of literature on this topic.--Coroebus 13:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You are correct.  The individual who initially contributed this section was operating from a POV that focused on the anxiety-depression connection, and overlooked the inclusion of a clear definition.  No harm, no foul.  Check the re-write.  Mjformica 12:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes of Depression - Heredity 

message: Under External Links, I deleted the MADRs test because the link is broken. 14:27, 25 February 2006 Spikedupback529
:Link readded with new source.  Monkeyman(talk) 19:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: The external links section looks to have a lot of 'dubious quality' links, and far too many links in general. I'm going to do some trimming. Barrylb 20:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the myriad of links with a single link to a directory (dmoz). Barrylb 13:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links cleanup 

message: I am moving the magnesium entry here because this site says that magnesium glutamate and magnesium aspartate can worsen depression, and one manufacturer adds glutamate.
:Magnesium has gathered some attention .
What should we do? Should we write it as,
:Magnesium has gathered some attention , although there is an anecdotal report that magnesium glutamate and magnesium aspartate can worsen depression .
? --Mihai cartoaje 22:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  magnesium 

message: Question on protocol.  Can just anyone, including an anonymous user, just float in and drop a POV or NPOV tag on an article.  And, if so, once done, who has the right/authority to remove said without it being considered vandalism.  I'm not certain this one was justified. --Sadhaka 19:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Identifier... 

message: I'm a little skeptical of this section. I think it's OK to mention well-established (or research-backed) "alternative" treatments, but they should be clearly labeled as such.  Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch has this to say about it (emphasis mine):
:Today's "fad" diagnoses used to explain various common symptoms are chronic fatigue syndrome, hypoglycemia, food allergies, parasites, "environmental illness," "candidiasis hypersensitivity," "Wilson's Syndrome," "leaky gut syndrome," and "mercury amalgam toxicity." The first four on this list are legitimate conditions that unscientific practitioners overdiagnose.  OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it here for a rewrite. -- Barrylb 05:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Psychonutritional Treatment of Clinical Depression 

message: It is rather ironic that you should mention Dr Stephen Barrett, the great self-appointed defender of organized medicine in America.  I hope this is not going to be a sign of your personal bias against alternative medicine. More than half of medical consumers are consulting alternative medical practitioners See: Alternative medicine. Plus Bensousan.
Thus a lot of readers will be interested in an alternative approach to the treatment of depression.
My approach stems from my experiences as a Probation and Parole officer, having worked over 30 year in the field of psychotherapy and Clinical Nutrition. I use a combination of Clinical Nutrition and psychotherapy as explained in my book Getting off the Hook.
Although Clinical nutrition is often classed as Alternative Medicine it is an evidence based medical science, supported by numerous studies.
See: Research Evidence for Hypoglycemia.
Can somebody explain to me why this article has been removed from the main article?? Jurplesman 03:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor who moved your content here said, "moving to talk - needs rewrite" in the Edit summary field.  It could also be because of this WP:NOR.  Monkeyman(talk) 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added an 'advert' tag against your contribution because your writing style sounds like an advertisement and still needs work. -- Barrylb 02:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why has this been removed??? 

message: We have just added article and video content created by key opinion leader Physicians as well as government health organizations and would like to be considered as a useful resource for this page. We are hosting an online symposium on mental health and spirituality and think this would also be a valuable contribution to the community.
Thank you,
Ryan
depressiontreatment com Depression Treatment —This unsigned comment was added by Ryanandrew (talk • contribs) .
: You've already been blocked once for commercial link spamming. What makes you think this is different? OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful Link 

message: Someone recently added these links. They seem like good sites but is this leading to our links section getting too big? Do these sites deserve special mention? -- Barrylb 05:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent links 

message: Sadness is an emotion. Depression is blockage of emotion! Here's one take...
Sadness	vs	Depression
Expression of emotion	vs	Repression of emotion
Cure	vs	Illness
(Solution)	vs	(Problem)
Loss of love	vs	Lack of love
Feel alive	vs	Feel dead
Healthy	vs	Sick
Passes with time	vs	Persists with time
(self-alleviating)	vs	(self-perpetuating)
Cause-effect close and known	vs	Cause-effect distant and often unknown
(e.g. death in family)	vs	(e.g. hereditary)
Attracts sympathy	vs	Attracts scorn
Selfless	vs	Selfish
Draws others closer	vs	Distances others
Widely understood	vs	Widely misunderstood
: What on earth is this??? Dcteas17 01:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's an unsigned comment presumably meant to help editors distinguish features of two meanings of 'depression' for contributing to the respective articles.  This distinction is made fairly clear (despite the potential for overlap) in depression (mood), certainly as regards adaptive/maladaptive distinction and presence of known cause.  (Perceived) 'selfishness' or need and availability for social support is possibly a tricky point that should be covered in one or both articles if the contributor writes again; I have some articles on the subject too but they might apply to both subjects. --Cedders 13:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depression is not a state of sadness 

message: I don't know if this is too theoretical to post, but as a grad student interested in the biology of depression, I am frequently surprised as to how little the new biological basis of depression is being discussed.
I spent about 6 months with an antidepressant lab, and there are 3 new theories for the biological causes that are not discussed here:
1. HPA axis and depression
2. Neurotrophin theory of depression
3. Depression and neurogenesis
1. Briefly, stress causes an increase in the hpa axis: CRF -> ACTH --> cortisol. This was found to occur in patients with depression (Nemeroff) High levels of cortisol are associated with, among other problems, a decrease in the volume of the hippocampus, and damage to the cells in the hippocampus (Sapolsky and McEwen). This finding is still contravercial though, it has been replicated by some, but not other scientists. Excess levels of cortisol have been repeatedly shown to decrease brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in the hippocampus.
2. Antidepressants as well as exercise have been shown to increase the levels of BDNF in the hippocampus (Duman). To paraphrase one article "BDNF does to the brain what sunlight and water do for plants"; i.e. it is essential for normal growht and functioning.
3. More recently, it has been shown that cortisol decreases the number of formation of neural stem cells that normally actively divide in the hippocampus, as well as the number of new neurons that they produce (Duman). Antidepressants and exercise can counteract this loss (Duman).
Scientists are still debating how significant these biological factors are to the actual feeling of depression itself (Duman, Sapolsky).
I might write this up more formally later (with references) on when I have more time. But briefly this comes from the work of Ron Duman at Yale, Robert Sapolsky and Bruice McEwen at Stanford and Rockefeller, and Charles Nemeroff at Emory. Of those four people, I have personally met two, and exchanged e-mails with the other two.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.134.206.170 (talk • contribs) .  15 April
: Sounds good, particularly Sapolsky as source; there's as much evidence for involvement of HPA axis and other neuroendocrine systems as there is for monamines. --Cedders 13:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding to the biological/physiological causes of depression 

message: I'm seeing the warning that the article is getting a little long, just as I'm adding a little more to it.  Even if there weren't the concerns of the person making the pleas above, there is no reason to cut stuff, but it could be moved to create a betetr article.  Firstly, I'd suggest that the section on antidepressants could be merged with the introduction of the article with the same name, since at the moment that article is a bit technical and could do with a clearer historical introduction; and the text included here is mostly to do with differing modes of action and side-effects which are common to treating other conditions and not solely relevant to this article.  There's also no obvious link to the 'other' overview article on antidepressants.
Secondly the two sections on anxiety and hypomania seem to be a bit out of place and unclear, so could perhaps be made into a separate article.  While it's an interesting thesis and some mention must be made of comorbidity between anxiety and depression, the linking of hypomania with depression will be very confusing for some readers.  ICD-10 defines hypomania as 'persistent mild elevation of mood, increased energy and activity, and usually marked feelings of well-being and both physical and mental efficiency' which is clearly the opposite of clinical depression. I'm not sure what is meant by 'Another important point is that hypomania is a diagnostic category that includes both anxiety and depression' - superficially this is false, so I wonder how much of the text to preserve. I think it would suffice to say that positive and negative affect are sometimes considered orthogonal (or the same in better English), or a state of agitation and 'upset' has some of the features of a wider definition of hypomania, i.e. sympathetic arousal. --Cedders 13:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing down? 

message: http://www.depression-tips.com/
The types of depression section appears to be a cut and paste of this site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.15.254.45 (talk • contribs) .
:Looking back in the history of the article all the way back as far as 2003, that section has grown organically over a period of time. Since the web site in question is claiming copyright from 2005, I would suggest that the site's content is possibly a copyright violation of this article, rather than the other way around. --GraemeL (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section in question was created with this edit and evolved from there. --GraemeL (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ..and it looks like credit has since been added at the bottom of that page as coming from this article; whether that appeases copyright violation rules I don't know, too lazy to read into it, but there you go. 66.94.9.51 05:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible copyvio 

message: I removed the following text, added in a recent edit by User:66.81.158.60.
----
::In 2006 , Aiven Andrians , an independent researcher (not a proffesional psychologyst)in the field of psychology classified depression in two distnict catagories of :
::1- Biologycal Depression caused by biologycal factors in the brain and / or the body. Usualy treated with medication by a trained Psychiatrist .
::Common prescribed medications are : prozac , Paxil , Zoloft ,
::Also treated with St. Johns Wort in the case of minor depression in the Europe .
::2- Psychologycal Depression caused by negative chilhood events and / or current negative life events . Usually treated by a trained Psychologist.
----
Obviously it would need some copyediting no matter what, but it struck me as suspicious on three counts (to my knowledge anyway, please correct me if I am wrong):
*I believe the biological/psychological distinction is far older than 2006 and has been discussed by psychologists and other researchers at length.
*I believe that the distinction between biological and psychological origins of depression is largely deprecated these days, on the basis that it is not easy to determine, is not an either/or dichotomy, and is not as helpful for treatment plans as the included text would suggest.
*A Google search for Aiven Andrians didn't provide any relevant hints, casting doubt on the accuracy.
If I'm wrong on any or all of the above three counts, then please feel free to revert (or better still, reinsert an edited version) of the text. Paddles TC 09:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted edit - biological/psychological 

message: any word on which country is the best at treating depression
You would have to define what you mean by that. Do you ask which country has "recovered" the most people in its population that are depressed, or which country has the lowest rate of depression in the first place?--Agent of the Reds 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  treating depression 

message: "clinical depression is a clinical diagnosis and may be different from the everyday meaning of "being depressed". Many people identify this feeling as "being blue", "feeling sad for no reason", or "having no motivation to do anything"."
I think this is rather confusing: what does "this" refer to, clinical depression or the everyday meaning? I was bold and changed it to:
"clinical depression is a clinical diagnosis and may be different from the everyday meaning of "being depressed". Many people identify the feeling of being depressed as "being blue", "feeling sad for no reason", or "having no motivation to do anything". Clinical depression is generally acknowledged to be more serious than normal depressed feelings."
I'm sure it could be worded better, but I think this clears it up a little, at least. If you can word it better please do :-) — Editor at Large(speak) 19:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro wording 

message: "The Ebers papyrus (ca 1550 BC) contains a short description of clinical depression. Though full of incantations and foul applications meant to turn away disease-causing demons and other superstition, it also evinces a long tradition of empirical practice and observation."
Okay, first of all, that papyrus didn't contain a description of "clinical depression" it contained a description of something much different which you're interpreting as similar to clinical depression.  The second sentence is so bad, I can't even make sense out of it.  Actually I'm going to cut this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.58.237.227 (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2006
:If this is true, I have no problem getting rid of it. But just make sure you include an edit summary when you change articles, especially when you delete stuff and when you're anonymous. When I first saw your changes, I thought at first that it was a bit of small drive-by vandalism. -- Tim D 15:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History = Horrible 

message: This article is being reviewed at WP:GA/R for possible delisting of its Good article status. --Ling.Nut 04:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA/R|Good article Review]] 

message: "It is well accepted that the combination of medication and psychotherapy induce full remission of depression in, at most, 50% of patients. Thus it is necessary to look at other scientifically grounded ways of treating depression. Whole psychiatry is an integrative approach that takes the best of traditional psychiatry and in addition, assesses other aspects of the persons functioning, such as spirituality, family systems, nutrition, digestion, absorption, immune function, hormonal function, detoxification, mitochondrial function, oxidative stress, and genetics. See www.wholepsych.com. 66.134.106.27 22:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whole Psychiatry 

message: Seems broken.  Any paragraph that starts with a dictionary definition seems suspect.
Roadrunner 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV problems 

message: There is a lot of unsourced material in this article for which no citations have been provided in a while.  I suggest removing all material so marked in the near future. DPetersontalk 15:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is now time to remove the statements that are not attributable to a reliable source.  DPetersontalk 15:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Unsourced material 

message: How come the DSM-IV classification isn't listed along with the ICD? -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 07:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea.  I would think it should be.  Sorry for making this useless comment, but... I like your sig. :) (Oh, actually I just found something relevant: Template talk:Infobox Disease#DSM and ICD9.  Hope this helps, still like the sig.) --Galaxiaad 07:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DSM-IV Classification 

message: I think this section needs to be made clearer. I've got a degree in biology, as well as special interests in evolution and depression, and I can't understand it.  I think that's setting the bar a bit high for the average reader.  The sentences seem to degnerate into lists of terms, such that it becomes hard to follow the relationships between different (lists of) terms.  Also, the 15% Prinicple is mentioned, but it's not clear how said principle is applied, much less what it is.
Could someone that understands this section perhaps make it a little more reader-friendly? Orange32 01:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwinian Psychiatry 

message: [edit] Evolutionary biological hypotheses of depression
Evolutionary biological hypotheses of depression: Evolutionary analyses usually consider possible functions for depressed mood as well as clinical depression.
What is this talking about? Is it referring to biological evolution? If so, the link is not even stated. The section should be deleted if it isn't expanded.
Yoda921 14:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution: Potential adaptive advantages of clinical depression 

message: "People become dependent on drugs and alcohol because of a genetic predisposition, not a conscious choice to use them for some specific purpose."
I took this statement out, as it's not a fact. Wikipedia's own entry on addiction lists several proposed models for dependence. Orange32 21:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-medication 

message: I removed a link to , because it appeared to me to be mostly advertising their 'Depression Recovery Program', and was therefore inappropriate under WP:EL. There is other free information on the site, but to me it seems biased and unreliable. But the link was added back by another editor, and I don't want to get into a revert war. I don't think the link is appropriate, does anyone else agree?
Cheers, Eve 11:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: # I grouped subsections to facilitate reading.
# I also reordered the sections in descending order of rough frequency of use; rather than historic development.
Whereas I think #1 definitely helps readability and to me #2 helps much as well, no hard feelings if anyone wants to revert to sorting by historical development.Badgettrg 04:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medication section 

message: I recall adding a small section regards Meditation as a method to treat depression quite a long time ago alongside some expoundings on other methods. Someone added "In some cases, meditation may make the sufferer worse." - this comment is uncited and seemingly untrue. Thus where does it come from? Should we find sources or merely remove the sentance altogether? -- D-Katana 01:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meditation 

message: Section 5.1.3 claims that certain illnesses, such as hepatitis, may contribute to depression.  From my reading of the literature, it would seem that hepatitis does not contribute to depression.  Rather, interferon therapy (used to treat hepatitis) may contribute to depression.  Does anyone care to discuss this distinction?  Ehb 23:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  The statement in the article is nonesense.  I've had several "frequent flyers" at the hospital at which I consult who have been receiving Interferon therapy for everything from Hep C to MS, and they are all dragged into a state of depression and/or triggered into a recurrence of a standing condition. --DashaKat 23:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks!  I'm new (well, not experienced) to wiki, so I'm not precisely sure on the protocol for making changes...  But based on my reading and the comment by DashaKat, it would seem that the statement in question should maybe be modified?  Ehb 02:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hepatitis as a medical cause of depression? 

message: Many Lyme patients were firstly diagnosed with other illnesses such as Juvenile Arthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Reactive Arthritis, Infectious Arthritis, Osteoarthritis, Fibromyalgia, Raynaud's Syndrome, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Interstitial Cystis, Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, Fifth Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, scleroderma, lupus, early ALS, early Alzheimers Disease, crohn's disease, ménières syndrome, reynaud's syndrome, sjogren's syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, colitis, prostatitis, psychiatric disorders (bipolar, depression, etc.), encephalitis, sleep disorders, thyroid disease and various other illnesses. see 
Source:  Canadian Lymes Association
This material may apply to a variety of illnesses.  Like my research has suggested the testing for this one possible cause is difficult, and if overlooked then the patient has very little chance of cure.
It is hoped that someone who has more time than I do, will use the key words to find relevant links and information to expose that this missing link, is ignored, for the simple reason, it is too simple, too easy to treat and cure ?
--Caesar J. B. Squitti  :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The missing link: A bacterial infection. 

message: Because of the controversial nature of many dietary claims relating to depression, it is particularly important that any dietary claims are supported by cites from the medical literature.
Therefore, I've removed the following uncited material from the dietary supplement section:
:There is a complex relationship and synergistic effect that involve a multitude of vitamins and minerals, such as magnesium, zinc, calcium, selenium, Vitmamin B6, Vitamin B-12, Vitamin D, and many others.  Often a depletion or overconsumption of one can cause a depletion in another, or affect it's absorption, which can lead to a deficiency.  For example, Vitamin D is required to absorb calcium, which may lead to a calcium deficiency, but treating it with calcium alone may not effectively cure the deficiency.  Because of this, in order to treat depression that may be a result of a deficiency, a broad spectrum of minerals and vitamins may be required to treat it effectively.
Can anyone provide a cite from reliable sources to back up these assertions? -- Karada 08:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you find offensive about the fact that depression may be caused dietary deficiencies? There are many studies now which look at amino acid depletion through dietary intervention with sometimes drastic results. If a dietary deficiency was the cause of depression, would you ignore it because you find it offensive?--Funkbrother3000 08:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed material from dietary supplement section 

message: I suggest adding paragraphs about yoga, bibliotherapy and computer-assisted psychotherapy under "Other methods of treatment". Something like:
Yoga
Yoga practice can help alleviate depression by reducing the physiological manifestations of stress and by raising the levels of endorphins. Like meditation, yoga requires a long-term commitment since it does not produce fast results.
Bibliotherapy
Bibliotherapy is using books to overcome emotional problems. These books can provide a relief by helping understanding the problem and presenting alternative ways of thinking and action. Bibliotherapy can also be used as a complementary therapy to speed up the recovery along another type of therapy.
Computer-assisted psychotherapy
There are computer programs now available that provide psychotherapy. Like bibliotherapy, such a treatment lacks human communication, but it helps users to organize their thoughts and actions and may contribute to healthier thinking and behavior. These programs are usually based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natural123 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you find references before adding such content. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  These links point to research about suggested therapies.
yoga
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15055096&dopt=Citation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16185770&dopt=Citation
bibliotherapy
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/102527282/ABSTRACT
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9086697&dopt=Abstract
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/176_10_200502/jor10311_fm.html
computer-assisted psychotherapy
http://www.finddepressiontreatment.com/depression-software.html
This page is an overview of computer-assisted psychotherapy and it ranks number 1 on Google for "computer-assisted psychotherapy depression". It also contains links confirming efficiency of this therapy.
Natural123 15:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More methods of treatment