If its a fact I'd like to see the studies please.

It's not a fact. Big Pharma can't do anything, in fact, it is extremely illegal for a doctor to be influenced by the pharmaceutical companies. You can lose your job for that.... Also, if Big Pharma had that much control, the FDA wouldn't have Phase IV and Phase V trials. These are, basically, when scientists use government funding to determine if the Pharmaceutical companies made a legitimate drug, or just mixed some chemicals, called it something, and are hoping to profit on it. If Phase IV or Phase V trials show the drugs are not effective.....the companies just lost millions of dollars (because it takes millions of dollars to study a disease, and use chemistry to synthesize medicine to treat the medicine). If Big Pharma had enough power to force medical associations to keep cannabis illegal, they would have had enough influence to prevent Phase IV and Phase V trials from being a reality, and just synthesize a ****tty drug every year, and make millions of dollars. They don't have this amount of power, hence people blaming Big Pharma from preventing the "medicinal herb" from healing illness are just conspiracy theorists. Or, as Uncle Putin concisely put it, "Hang on, let me get my tin foil hat real quick."

I know it wasn't a fact. I was calling jaguarfury out on their bs.

Oh sorry, misread your post.

[url=http://www.mentalhealthcare.org.uk/view_all_videos/robin_murray_video_clip_1]>>>>[/url] There is significant genetic overlap between major depressive disorder and schizophrenia (with some susceptibility genes, such as DISC1, found in patients with both mental illnesses). It's pretty accepted in the medical community that cannabis can worsen a patient with schizophrenia's condition; likewise, in people predisposed to psychosis; it can help trigger the illness. Depression and schizophrenia.....and bipolar disorder, all share common genes, which is why, for the next edition of the psychiatric textbook used by psychiatrists to diagnose mental disorders (the DSM), they are going to try and group bipolar, schizophrenia and depression under a single category, because of the significant genetic overlap; it is not rare for people with depression to have psychosis, likewise, many patients with schizoprenia develop depression, and require antipsychotics with antidepressant properties as well (mainly Seroquel) or antidepressants. Or in other words, cannabis is a definite no for people with schizophrenia, and since people with depression and bipolar have similar genes that the patient's with schizophrenia have; giving marijuana to a patient with depression is an absolute no; not because of Big Pharma; but because that act goes against current evidence. Back in the day, when Big Pharma came out with the second generation antipsychotics, they marketed them as superior, and Americans bought it; they prescribed the second gen antipsychotics in a ratio of 9:1 to the first generation antipsychotics , making Big Pharma millions in sales. The British were not convinced, and had an elite psychiatrist, by the name of Robin Murray, do a study, which is known as CUTLASS. In the CUTLASS study, Murray and his colleagues showed that second gen antipsychotics were not superiro to the first gen antipsychotics. Basically, everywhere except America, second gen antipsychotics were prescribed in a ratio of 50:50 to first gen antipsychotics. Americans didn't buy it, still prescribed second gen antipsychotics in a ratio of 90:10 compared to first gen antipsychotics. They then were forced to conduct their own study, the CATIE trials, because Robin Murray's study was extremely well performed. Exact same conclusion, Americans were embarrassed on the international scale, and what this ordeal cost Big Pharma was millions of dollars, and such skepticism now that, each time they produce a new drug, it has to go through Phase IV and Phase V trials, which are conducted by the FDA (government funded studies); too make sure the drug companies aren't lying. And the big irony of your post, Robin Murray, the same man who cost Big Pharma millions, was the one who was the key figures who developed the cannabis and psychosis link. If anything, Big Pharma probably loathes him, because he cost them a lot of respect but (most important to them) money; since second gen antipsychotics are not prescribed as much, it cost them mountains of money that they could have earned had he not conducted the CUTLASS study. Also, antidepressants aren't addictive; they act on serotonin and norepinephrine pathways to exert their effects, not on dopamine pathways. All drugs that can cause physical addiction are believed to act on the dopamine system; specifically increasing dopamine in regions such as the striatum. Antidepressants do not alter dopamine levels; hence they can't physical addiction like alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, etc. Or in other words; cannabis addiction is an actual legitimate diagnosable mental disorder, antidepressant addiction does not exist [b]because it can't cause addiction.[/b]

Well said. Although there are some antidepressants that work on dopamine levels although they are highly regulated (at least in Canada) due to the potential for dependency to occur. These are usually used in conjunction with another medication which involves serotonin.

I have never heard of such antidepressant medication that acts on dopamine directly, aside from the Monoamine oxidase inhibitors. Even then, MAOIs, and other forms of antidepressants like SNRIs and SSRIs, don't produce addiction, a discontinuation syndrome is produced sometimes (i.e. withdrawal symtpoms; due to the medicine being in the brain for months, or even years), but those disappear quickly, and are often avoidable if the psychiatrist properly weans you off (as all psychiatrists are medically obligated to) by gradually reducing the dosage of the medication in the months before you stop using the medication. I know, one type of MAOI, tranylcypromine, is the worst; out of all the MAOIs, it produces the most severe withdrawal effects, but as you said, these medicines are rarely used, and usually only in treatment resistant cases of depression; or in the case when the SSRIs or SNRIs (the newer forms of antidepressants) produce too many side effects.

Precisely. They are not commonly used for the reasons you have listed. They are heavily monitored and only used in small doses in conjunction with other medications as an offset. The first course of treatment is always to treat with an ssri or snri.

Now, though, they tend to use ECT or Deep Brain Stimulation (have a surgeon put a machine in your head to stimulate brain cells) in treatment resistant depression because if you can't respond to a SSRI or SNRI, chances are a MAOI isn't going to be of much help. [url=http://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2014/08/26/ketamine_seen_as_promising_new_depression_drug.html]Now they're looking to make new drugs based off of Ketamine which could spur a new generation of antidepressants, [/url] pretty cool stuff.

Very interesting read. I would worry about the possibility of diminishing returns. But it is a start and they could always work with a student a different delivery system. Imagine an inhaler antidepressant that you could take every morning.

Blah blah blah.... TLDR