how about watching a comedy instead, a good dose of laughter couldn't hurt. Do you have any friends you can hang out with a good sense of humor??? Visit friends more often or try some outdoor excercise with a neighbors. I've heard having a dog or a cat can do wonder. We all need a loyal friend. good luck.

Depression is very complicated and often required the combination of professional counseling along with a psychiatrist prescribing medications.

This study is too small and premature to really tell us much, but it's a step towards more research into vulnerability to depression.

I am interested in why a percentage of depressed people seem never able to completely wean off antidepressants without their mood worsening. What may be causing this long term brain dysfunction? Heredity, low cholesterol, tramatic brain injury, chronic pain/disability, abuse, personality disorders, medical diseases, and stress all affect whether a person is/stays depressed.

Neurochemical imbalances?

Also: the economy, abuse, rape, broken homes, poverty, and many other issues that not all people are lucky enough to avoid.

Take... what the F? I'm wondering if I'm confusing you, given my shock at a response on another thread... but anyway, trust me... 32 people watching movies didn't cost ish. I could do that tomorrow for replication purposes for free. It's NOT the sort of thing that anyone would require funding for.

I'm not saying they aren't experiencing sadness. I'M SAYING THAT DOESN'T QUALIFY AS DEPRESSION.

WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?!?

BTW- I've NEVER sought your advice for any "confusion". Just to remind you.

Nor would I. Again, just to remind you.

The sadness they feel during a movie doesn't qualify as depression. However, the type of sadness they experience during the movie serves as an indicator of whether or not they will relapse with depression, which is not caused by the movie, merely predicted by it. This isn't a waste of research funding. It provides insight into how the brains of people with depression are different, which could lead to future treatments that could be more effective.

So the psycho/pharma industry is "predicting relapses" based on responses to movies now.

And what exactly is the purpose of this study and this news article?

The purpose of this study is to learn more about the brains of depressed people. The purpose of this news article is to bring this research to the attention of people who have the comprehension skills to understand why it matters.

The purpose of this study is to learn more about the brains of depressed people. The purpose of this news article is to bring this research to the attention of people who have the comprehension skills to understand why it matters.

RIGHT, as I said...

#3 all for the purposes of increasing the PSYCHO/PHARMA REVENUE STREAM.

selling more drugs.

This wasn't to sell drugs, and you have let your stop the "PSYCHO/PHARMA REVENUE STREAM" agenda cloud your reading abilities. They were seeing if those who tend to relapse into depression have different brain reaction to stimuli that often cause sadness in a person. Some people get sad for a little while and some people get sad and have trouble shaking it. It is a microcosmic trial of how they might respond to life in general, and if you read it they didn't say DRUG THOSE PEOPLE MORE!!!!!!

They said the people who tended to relapse might need some more coping skill training, actually. That might actually help them NOT take so much medicine and thereby reduce that revenue stream you are so worked up about. This study should get you all tingly with happiness...but maybe you need some additional help with that?;)

... and if you read it they didn't say DRUG THOSE PEOPLE MORE!!!!!!

Then what, in your opinion is the purpose of creating a press release and a "news" article letting the world know of this 'study'? Like its just so much "community calendar" news in the local rag--

**The Glee Club will have to postpone their rehearsal because the Sewing Circle and the Knitting Krew will have a pot-luck in the utility room this Friday.

**The Rotarians will sponsor Millie McGuillacudy and her prize Heffer at the State Fair next week in Springerville

**And BTW- this just in-SEEING SAD MOVIES MIGHT YOU MORE SAD

I don't think so.

When you begin to look at the categories in the DSM and their ever increasing numbers, you begin to see that the purposes of such 'news articles' has NOTHING to do with publicizing a possible area of concern for the public at large but setting up or creating a category addition or expansion in the DSM. The DSM is currently in the response phase of its scheduled next revision in 2012. These "revisions" are voted upon by the APA, as the publisher of the DSM, by a show of hands in the revision committee and at yearly conferences. More categories in the DSM transfer into increased office visits and thereby increased drug sales. These revision votes have NO BASIS IN ANY TYPE OF SCIENTIFIC PROCESS AT ALL.

Or rather, a better way to clarify that statement of fact, would be to say that a popular vote of the APA is responsible for their Association's position that a state of "epidemic in mental health care" exists based on the increasing categories in the DSM. THAT position is used to both seek increased funding to "treat these under-represented demographic groups" as well as solidify the psychiatric and psychological support systems AS A DELIVERY APPARATUS FOR THE PHARMA INDUSTRY.

That position ISN'T a scientific position OR a health care position, in any way.

ITS AN ADVERTISING & MARKETING POSITION.

So you see, while this particular "news article" might not have increased or new drugs in it, when you look at the totality of "news article" and "studies" they fit into a larger advertising scheme both to increase sales and, of course, keep the psycho/pharma industry in the news. Which, of course, will drive additional people into their offices and pharmacies seeking their products.

All this "study" actually reveals is THAT FILM MAKING IS AN EFFECTIVE ARTFORM.

And for the $50,000 $75,000 or $100,000 it took to produce this study, some other researcher might have found the cure for __________— and saved the world.

Instead...psycho/pharma gets some more customers.

Everyone just ignore take2la. I think it's clear that he'll keep up his pharma conspiracy theories no matter what we say.

Isn't it fascinating how anyone who disagrees with the APA "partyline" must "be crazy" or wear a "tinfoil hat" but when sought out for help, that same "partyline" gives ANYONE a snappy, glib, cookiecutter checklist of questions and in 15 minutes walks out of the office with any one of over 300 lifelong diagnosis and a prescription to purchase their product. For the rest of their life.

Occum's Razor states that

All things being equal, the simplest explanation will be the most correct.

SO what is more plausable?

That I'm crazy and 50 years of documentation of crime, abuse, graft, corruption, and conflict of interest are rife in the psycho/pharma industry.

And "sad" movies cause relapses of mental illness.

OR

That a group of physicians and chemists figured that if they made up a set of "diseases" and "remedies" and a delivery system to reach every man, woman, and child, in ever increasing numbers, they could create the perception of an "epidemic" and thereby extract BILLIONS from governments and the public, the world over.

And then decided these disease are genetic. Ensuring their revenue stream for generations.

So YES! PLEASE, doubt my data.

When you see my posts and comments, question whether or not I'm standing on a soapbox or wearing a "tinfoil" hat on the corner, or pushing a shopping cart begging for your change.

Then take your child, grandmother, husband, wife, father, grandfather into a psychiatrists office.

And see what you get when you leave.

Or, watch a loved one have something obviously wrong with them for years, take them to a psychiatrist's office, and see their condition improve, without the use of medication.

I never said you were crazy, I just said you were wrong. And yes, it's more plausible that one person is wrong than that thousands of people have created a conspiracy.

I've done my own research. The fact remains that drugs help some people with mental illnesses. Is the mental health industry up to the standard of the physical health industry? No. Does it help some people who genuinely need help? Yes. It's not perfect, but it's not a complete scam either.