Similar to the Google flu trends system, which tracks web searches related to flu-related information according to region, and uses it to generate a different kind of look at the spread of influenza.

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/feb/20/news/mn-28924
Antidepressant drugs are prescribed in Utah more often than in any other state, at a rate nearly twice the national average. . . . .
Other states with high antidepressant use were Maine and Oregon.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/10/25/antidepressant-use-up-400-percent-in-us/30677.html
Antidepressant Use Up 400 Percent in US
By Janice Wood Associate News Editor
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on October 25, 2011
The rate of antidepressant use in the United States increased nearly 400 percent over the last two decades, according to a report released Oct. 19.
The report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics found that 11 percent of Americans over the age of 12 takes an antidepressant, with about 14 percent taking the medication for more than 10 years.

It would be interesting to find out the current numbers of use in our state. Has the use here also gone up 400%?

It seems the NY Times is extraneous of this story, verifying the report, which is provided at chairman Altman's bio lab in Stanford.
So any internet-connected earthling in the whole world can and may get the news at the source while never never ever in mind of the NY Times.

But, perhaps one 'netted' earthling can not possibly see all news from all bio labs, say, real-time and live, so someone like an editor on the pay of some institution like the NY Times which sees ALL news and chooses selections to reprint as internet echo.

Maybe such (newspaper) 'popular' publication is a valuable service for people of a certain mind (in a hurry daily).
And equally Maybe, such editor selecting 'popular' news is, in effect, making incarnate Big Brother -- he or she personifies Big Brother ... and directing or controlling your life or your thoughts, (or however Big Brother 'influence' affects an earthling), more by news (void) selected out, (defining unpopular), and less affective with news selected in defining 'popular' (popular of, by, and for Big Brother, that is, 'figuring out').

It hardly works (for me) to imagine Will Rogers in today's newsworld, 'netted'earthling, saying an update of his popular quote, like, 'all I know is what I read in the internet.'

Back in the Eighties, I was friends with a considerable number of University of Texas students, all living in Austin. Every last one had various stories of being broke and needing money for everything from a surprise trip back home to a new guitar, so they'd all volunteer for drug testing at a big testing facility in Austin. Most would spend anywhere from a weekend to a week on a particular regimen, with the idea that they'd get paid a predetermined amount at the end of the study.

What scared me about this was a regular theme in the tales. I made the acquaintance of several research physicians since then, some of whom who both worked as volunteers as students and ran their own tests as doctors, and they all told me over and over that they wanted to know any and all side effects of new medications. They kept emphasizing that they'd never remove someone from testing for bad side effects and then not pay them for their trouble, and they found the idea of kicking out a volunteer without pay so unethical as to be physically disgusting to them. That didn't keep them, or my other friends, from relating that constant fear that they'd get a doctor with such pressure to show positive results on a new drug that s/he wouldn't try to sweeten the research by removing the negative results. And if removing the negative results meant subtle or overt threats not to admit to previously known side effects on pain of not getting paid, well, it's better to ignore the suicidal thoughts or sudden tremors long enough to get the check and get out of there.

In subsequent years, I've thought about that a lot, especially when looking at the number of antidepressants pulled off the market due to various nasty side effects. Someone approved these based on human research, but how do we know how many bad drugs were approved because some college student needed the cash and either knew or assumed that he wouldn't get it if he flunked out?

Apparently 80% of antidepressants are prescribed by Primary Care and Internal Med. doctors when they should be prescribed only by Psychiatrists trained to wrap their head around those drugs with the available information they have.

Antidepressants can do irreparable damage,
also withdrawals making them difficult to titrate off of.

It would be interesting to find out the current numbers of use in our state.

I am asking again, is there anyone who has stats on the anti-depressant use in Oregon?