[excerpted from a newspaper columnist]

"Two things led to today's column. First, I was watching the news on TV
the other night and couldn't help but notice that every other
commercial was for some drug that, aside from a host of nasty side
effects, was something I just had to ask my doctor about right away."

"Second, I received here at the paper a big, fancy package from
pharmaceutical giant Pfizer ... explaining why direct-to-consumer, or
DTC, advertising is a vital component of modern health care."

"The timing of Pfizer's outreach isn't arbitrary. The Food and Drug
Administration plans to hold hearings this month on DTC ads and their
impact on consumers. The agency has warned that existing rules may be
rewritten."

"At issue is whether such ads mislead consumers into seeking
unnecessary and often expensive treatments, and whether pushing
prescription drugs on TV and in print drives up health-care costs."

"...we need to make sure that consumers aren't being misled or deceived
by promotional activity that violates the law," FDA Commissioner Mark
McClellan said in a speech last month."

"DTC ades have been especially effective, I think, in conveying the
message that conditions like depression and anxiety are more common
than people think and are treatable disorders."

"What concerns me - and, not incidentally, the FDA - is the fact that
these ads aren't just public service spots. They're selling a product."

"The New England Journal of Medicine published a study on DTC drug
advertising last year in which it noted that 'demand by patients is the
most common reason offered by physicians for inappropriate
prescribing.'"

"In other words, a patient will insist on that purple pill he saw on
TV, and no amount of explaining about alternative treatments will
change that person's mind."

"The Journal also observed that DTC ads increase doctor's workloads 'by
requiring them to help patients interpret the information presented by
advertisers.'"

"Meanwhile, the Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park released a study
this summer showing that DTC drug ads are having a substantial impact
on consumers' wallets."

"Spending on prescription drugs climbed by a $2.6 billion as a result
of DTC advertising, the study found. That may be a drop in the bucket
compared with almost $141 billion spent overall on prescription drugs,
but that's $2.6 billion that could have gone to other uses."

"Moreover, the Kaiser study determined that DTC ads have a clear impact
on drug companies' bottom lines. For every dollar spent by the industry
on DTC ads, it found, drug manufacturers reaped an additional $4.20 in
sales."

"That's a pretty good return," said Janet Lundy, senior program officer
at the foundation.

"When the FDA hears testimony on this subject Sept. 22 and 23,
hopefully someone will suggest that the DTC ads be refocused so that
greater emphasis is placed on information about medical conditions and
less prominence is given to the hawking of specific drugs."

"Ultimately," said Lundy at the Kaiser Family foundation, "we have to
ask if this is the best thing for the patient."


-----------
"The benefits of psychiatric drugs are vastly exaggerated, their
disadvantages are too often minimized, and there is far too little
information about how to *stop* taking them."

"In recent years, the virtues of psychiatric drugs have been widely
extolled, but an informed decision can be made only when people also
have access to both a more critical view of drugs and a frank analysis
of their hazards. The law also supports the right of people to be fully
informed about potential hazards before agreeing to a doctor's
recommendation for a drug."

"Do not let anyone pressure you into starting or continuing psychiatric
drugs. As a competent adult, you have ethical and legal right ... to be
completely informed in advance about the dangers of any psychiatric
drug, including its withdrawal effects."

"No matter how many doctors favor one or another psychiatric drug, you
can and should decide for yourself. Your decisions about taking or
rejecting drugs need to be made without coercive pressure from doctors
and in the absence of exaggeration, misinformation, and deception."

"Even if you and your doctor don't realize it, the psychiatric drugs
that you are taking could be causing you serious mental, emotional, or
physical harm. Your doctor may fail to appreciate that some of your
problems are being caused by the prescribed medication and, instead,
mistakenly increase your dose or add another drug to your regimen. This
prescription cycle - a common occurance - could expose you to increased
risks of adverse drug effects."

" When you reduce or skip your medication, you may experience painful
emotional or physical reactions as the effects of your drug wear off.
This is due to drug withdrawal between doses. But if you don't realize
that you are undergoing interdose withdrawal, you may wrongly assume
that you will *always* feel that uncomfortable if you stop the
medication. Similarly, your doctor may mistakenly insist that your
discomfort is proof that you need to take *more* of the drug or
additional drugs to control your discomfort."

"The reader may assume that these negative reactions to psychiatric
drugs are rare, but, in reality, they are quite common. Moreover, the
harm they cause often goes unrecognized or is attributed to something
other than the medications."

"In fact, stopping is often the only way to discover that psychiatric
drugs have been the source of your persistent symptoms."

Dr. P. Breggin & Dr. D. Cohen

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:120920031856047482%virtualoso@dot.com...
>
> [excerpted from a newspaper columnist]
>
> "Two things led to today's column. First, I was watching the news on TV
> the other night and couldn't help but notice that every other
> commercial was for some drug that, aside from a host of nasty side
> effects, was something I just had to ask my doctor about right away."
>
> "Second, I received here at the paper a big, fancy package from
> pharmaceutical giant Pfizer ... explaining why direct-to-consumer, or
> DTC, advertising is a vital component of modern health care."
>
> "The timing of Pfizer's outreach isn't arbitrary. The Food and Drug
> Administration plans to hold hearings this month on DTC ads and their
> impact on consumers. The agency has warned that existing rules may be
> rewritten."
>
> "At issue is whether such ads mislead consumers into seeking
> unnecessary and often expensive treatments, and whether pushing
> prescription drugs on TV and in print drives up health-care costs."
>
> "...we need to make sure that consumers aren't being misled or deceived
> by promotional activity that violates the law," FDA Commissioner Mark
> McClellan said in a speech last month."
>
> "DTC ades have been especially effective, I think, in conveying the
> message that conditions like depression and anxiety are more common
> than people think and are treatable disorders."
>
> "What concerns me - and, not incidentally, the FDA - is the fact that
> these ads aren't just public service spots. They're selling a product."
>
> "The New England Journal of Medicine published a study on DTC drug
> advertising last year in which it noted that 'demand by patients is the
> most common reason offered by physicians for inappropriate
> prescribing.'"
>
> "In other words, a patient will insist on that purple pill he saw on
> TV, and no amount of explaining about alternative treatments will
> change that person's mind."
>
> "The Journal also observed that DTC ads increase doctor's workloads 'by
> requiring them to help patients interpret the information presented by
> advertisers.'"
>
> "Meanwhile, the Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park released a study
> this summer showing that DTC drug ads are having a substantial impact
> on consumers' wallets."
>
> "Spending on prescription drugs climbed by a $2.6 billion as a result
> of DTC advertising, the study found. That may be a drop in the bucket
> compared with almost $141 billion spent overall on prescription drugs,
> but that's $2.6 billion that could have gone to other uses."
>
> "Moreover, the Kaiser study determined that DTC ads have a clear impact
> on drug companies' bottom lines. For every dollar spent by the industry
> on DTC ads, it found, drug manufacturers reaped an additional $4.20 in
> sales."
>
> "That's a pretty good return," said Janet Lundy, senior program officer
> at the foundation.
>
> "When the FDA hears testimony on this subject Sept. 22 and 23,
> hopefully someone will suggest that the DTC ads be refocused so that
> greater emphasis is placed on information about medical conditions and
> less prominence is given to the hawking of specific drugs."
>
> "Ultimately," said Lundy at the Kaiser Family foundation, "we have to
> ask if this is the best thing for the patient."
>
>
> -----------
> "The benefits of psychiatric drugs are vastly exaggerated, their
> disadvantages are too often minimized, and there is far too little
> information about how to *stop* taking them."
>
> "In recent years, the virtues of psychiatric drugs have been widely
> extolled, but an informed decision can be made only when people also
> have access to both a more critical view of drugs and a frank analysis
> of their hazards. The law also supports the right of people to be fully
> informed about potential hazards before agreeing to a doctor's
> recommendation for a drug."
>
> "Do not let anyone pressure you into starting or continuing psychiatric
> drugs. As a competent adult, you have ethical and legal right ... to be
> completely informed in advance about the dangers of any psychiatric
> drug, including its withdrawal effects."
>
> "No matter how many doctors favor one or another psychiatric drug, you
> can and should decide for yourself. Your decisions about taking or
> rejecting drugs need to be made without coercive pressure from doctors
> and in the absence of exaggeration, misinformation, and deception."
>
> "Even if you and your doctor don't realize it, the psychiatric drugs
> that you are taking could be causing you serious mental, emotional, or
> physical harm. Your doctor may fail to appreciate that some of your
> problems are being caused by the prescribed medication and, instead,
> mistakenly increase your dose or add another drug to your regimen. This
> prescription cycle - a common occurance - could expose you to increased
> risks of adverse drug effects."
>
> " When you reduce or skip your medication, you may experience painful
> emotional or physical reactions as the effects of your drug wear off.
> This is due to drug withdrawal between doses. But if you don't realize
> that you are undergoing interdose withdrawal, you may wrongly assume
> that you will *always* feel that uncomfortable if you stop the
> medication. Similarly, your doctor may mistakenly insist that your
> discomfort is proof that you need to take *more* of the drug or
> additional drugs to control your discomfort."
>
> "The reader may assume that these negative reactions to psychiatric
> drugs are rare, but, in reality, they are quite common. Moreover, the
> harm they cause often goes unrecognized or is attributed to something
> other than the medications."
>
> "In fact, stopping is often the only way to discover that psychiatric
> drugs have been the source of your persistent symptoms."
>
> Dr. P. Breggin & Dr. D. Cohen


'nuff said?

Bobby L

I loved that ad for a sleeping pill. The ad where everyone uses a glowing
rope to lasso the moon.

"common side effects may include drowsiness..."

No shit, really?

"Shawster" <shawster@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
newswv8b.53309$Mb2.1722236@twister.tampabay.rr.c om...
> I loved that ad for a sleeping pill. The ad where everyone uses a glowing
> rope to lasso the moon.
>
> "common side effects may include drowsiness..."
>
> No shit, really?
>
>
>

Some great ads here:

http://www.adbusters.org/creativeres...s/misc/prozac/

Peace
Michael H.

Good post. Raises a lot of recent "arguments" we've had lately. Give us more
when you can, please!


PS) I would love to respond to some of the nonsense in the article, but I
don't lmow where to begin.




"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:120920031856047482%virtualoso@dot.com...
>
> [excerpted from a newspaper columnist]
>
> "Two things led to today's column. First, I was watching the news on TV
> the other night and couldn't help but notice that every other
> commercial was for some drug that, aside from a host of nasty side
> effects, was something I just had to ask my doctor about right away."
>
> "Second, I received here at the paper a big, fancy package from
> pharmaceutical giant Pfizer ... explaining why direct-to-consumer, or
> DTC, advertising is a vital component of modern health care."
>
> "The timing of Pfizer's outreach isn't arbitrary. The Food and Drug
> Administration plans to hold hearings this month on DTC ads and their
> impact on consumers. The agency has warned that existing rules may be
> rewritten."
>
> "At issue is whether such ads mislead consumers into seeking
> unnecessary and often expensive treatments, and whether pushing
> prescription drugs on TV and in print drives up health-care costs."
>
> "...we need to make sure that consumers aren't being misled or deceived
> by promotional activity that violates the law," FDA Commissioner Mark
> McClellan said in a speech last month."
>
> "DTC ades have been especially effective, I think, in conveying the
> message that conditions like depression and anxiety are more common
> than people think and are treatable disorders."
>
> "What concerns me - and, not incidentally, the FDA - is the fact that
> these ads aren't just public service spots. They're selling a product."
>
> "The New England Journal of Medicine published a study on DTC drug
> advertising last year in which it noted that 'demand by patients is the
> most common reason offered by physicians for inappropriate
> prescribing.'"
>
> "In other words, a patient will insist on that purple pill he saw on
> TV, and no amount of explaining about alternative treatments will
> change that person's mind."
>
> "The Journal also observed that DTC ads increase doctor's workloads 'by
> requiring them to help patients interpret the information presented by
> advertisers.'"
>
> "Meanwhile, the Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park released a study
> this summer showing that DTC drug ads are having a substantial impact
> on consumers' wallets."
>
> "Spending on prescription drugs climbed by a $2.6 billion as a result
> of DTC advertising, the study found. That may be a drop in the bucket
> compared with almost $141 billion spent overall on prescription drugs,
> but that's $2.6 billion that could have gone to other uses."
>
> "Moreover, the Kaiser study determined that DTC ads have a clear impact
> on drug companies' bottom lines. For every dollar spent by the industry
> on DTC ads, it found, drug manufacturers reaped an additional $4.20 in
> sales."
>
> "That's a pretty good return," said Janet Lundy, senior program officer
> at the foundation.
>
> "When the FDA hears testimony on this subject Sept. 22 and 23,
> hopefully someone will suggest that the DTC ads be refocused so that
> greater emphasis is placed on information about medical conditions and
> less prominence is given to the hawking of specific drugs."
>
> "Ultimately," said Lundy at the Kaiser Family foundation, "we have to
> ask if this is the best thing for the patient."
>
>
> -----------
> "The benefits of psychiatric drugs are vastly exaggerated, their
> disadvantages are too often minimized, and there is far too little
> information about how to *stop* taking them."
>
> "In recent years, the virtues of psychiatric drugs have been widely
> extolled, but an informed decision can be made only when people also
> have access to both a more critical view of drugs and a frank analysis
> of their hazards. The law also supports the right of people to be fully
> informed about potential hazards before agreeing to a doctor's
> recommendation for a drug."
>
> "Do not let anyone pressure you into starting or continuing psychiatric
> drugs. As a competent adult, you have ethical and legal right ... to be
> completely informed in advance about the dangers of any psychiatric
> drug, including its withdrawal effects."
>
> "No matter how many doctors favor one or another psychiatric drug, you
> can and should decide for yourself. Your decisions about taking or
> rejecting drugs need to be made without coercive pressure from doctors
> and in the absence of exaggeration, misinformation, and deception."
>
> "Even if you and your doctor don't realize it, the psychiatric drugs
> that you are taking could be causing you serious mental, emotional, or
> physical harm. Your doctor may fail to appreciate that some of your
> problems are being caused by the prescribed medication and, instead,
> mistakenly increase your dose or add another drug to your regimen. This
> prescription cycle - a common occurance - could expose you to increased
> risks of adverse drug effects."
>
> " When you reduce or skip your medication, you may experience painful
> emotional or physical reactions as the effects of your drug wear off.
> This is due to drug withdrawal between doses. But if you don't realize
> that you are undergoing interdose withdrawal, you may wrongly assume
> that you will *always* feel that uncomfortable if you stop the
> medication. Similarly, your doctor may mistakenly insist that your
> discomfort is proof that you need to take *more* of the drug or
> additional drugs to control your discomfort."
>
> "The reader may assume that these negative reactions to psychiatric
> drugs are rare, but, in reality, they are quite common. Moreover, the
> harm they cause often goes unrecognized or is attributed to something
> other than the medications."
>
> "In fact, stopping is often the only way to discover that psychiatric
> drugs have been the source of your persistent symptoms."
>
> Dr. P. Breggin & Dr. D. Cohen

OK, why not...I just have some few things to add ( I know this article doees
not necessarily represent your personal opinions, Virtualoso, I may come off
as a little harsh, but just ignore it.)

> "The benefits of psychiatric drugs are vastly exaggerated, their
> disadvantages are too often minimized, and there is far too little
> information about how to *stop* taking them."

First of all, do you know what the authors are doctors of? Psychiatry or
psychology? I will assume it is psychology....But please, if you can figure
it out, I would be glad. I assume they are mainly aiming at SSRIs, and
not anti-psychotics, tranquilizers and the like.

"The benefits of psychiatric drugs are vastly exaggerated...." that is one
statement that millions of people around the world would disagree with,
since they have had the luck of being cured of several psychiatric disorders
such as anxiety, panic attacks, depression, etc.that cognitive therapy can
not cure, and certainly not on a short-term basis.

"Disadvantages" I interpret as side-effects. These are well-known for SSRIs,
and they have been through extensive control and have been used for almost
20 years without any truly serious side-effects. One fatal side effect can
occur, Serotonin Syndrome, but this usually only occurs when combined with
recreational drugs (we're talking less than 5 incidents in 20 years, which
is incredible compared to non.psychotropic drugs)- which leads me to a very
important point concerning the doctor-patient relationsship.

But first, the so-called dependency problem and the problem of stopping the
medication. Real withdrawal symptoms usually only occur when the patient
does not understand or follow the specific instructions told by the doctor.
Tapering is key to this; I admit that some doctors may have a problem
explaining the importance of this to the patient, but usually a schedule for
tapering is made. Then the patient goes home, forgets to take his pills as
directed, says "hey, no bad feelings, I'll just stop them now", a few days
pass and withdrawal symptoms set in. Patient thinks he has brain damage from
the pills..This is definetely a problem, and something should be done to
extend proper information to the patient.

However, there are certain SSRIs that are very hard to taper from; you may
have heard of the Paxil-case. This is due to the very short half-life of the
drug, which means that the drug leaves the body quickly, and this can be
hard to manage. This is why people feel that Paxil has damaged them in some
way, and IMO, SSRIs with short half lives should only be used under strict
observation.

Furthermore, an important fact: There are NO studies that show that SSRIs
cause brain damage in any way. A slight change of neurons can be seen up to
14 days after tapering off, then things return to normal again.

>
> "In recent years, the virtues of psychiatric drugs have been widely
> extolled, but an informed decision can be made only when people also
> have access to both a more critical view of drugs and a frank analysis
> of their hazards. The law also supports the right of people to be fully
> informed about potential hazards before agreeing to a doctor's
> recommendation for a drug."

No need to comment on this. It should be obvious. (even though the authors
seem to say that the patient should *only* know about the sideeffects, and
not the potential benefits.)

> "Do not let anyone pressure you into starting or continuing psychiatric
> drugs. As a competent adult, you have ethical and legal right ... to be
> completely informed in advance about the dangers of any psychiatric
> drug, including its withdrawal effects."

Well, adults in difficult situations may have a hard time asserting
themselves, correct, but I do not like the way they talk about "competent"
adults; many psychiatric patients are *not* competent and pose an ethical
dilemma I won't discuss now.

More later.

>
> "No matter how many doctors favor one or another psychiatric drug, you
> can and should decide for yourself. Your decisions about taking or
> rejecting drugs need to be made without coercive pressure from doctors
> and in the absence of exaggeration, misinformation, and deception."
>
> "Even if you and your doctor don't realize it, the psychiatric drugs
> that you are taking could be causing you serious mental, emotional, or
> physical harm. Your doctor may fail to appreciate that some of your
> problems are being caused by the prescribed medication and, instead,
> mistakenly increase your dose or add another drug to your regimen. This
> prescription cycle - a common occurance - could expose you to increased
> risks of adverse drug effects."
>
> " When you reduce or skip your medication, you may experience painful
> emotional or physical reactions as the effects of your drug wear off.
> This is due to drug withdrawal between doses. But if you don't realize
> that you are undergoing interdose withdrawal, you may wrongly assume
> that you will *always* feel that uncomfortable if you stop the
> medication. Similarly, your doctor may mistakenly insist that your
> discomfort is proof that you need to take *more* of the drug or
> additional drugs to control your discomfort."
>
> "The reader may assume that these negative reactions to psychiatric
> drugs are rare, but, in reality, they are quite common. Moreover, the
> harm they cause often goes unrecognized or is attributed to something
> other than the medications."
>
> "In fact, stopping is often the only way to discover that psychiatric
> drugs have been the source of your persistent symptoms."
>
> Dr. P. Breggin & Dr. D. Cohen

> > "No matter how many doctors favor one or another psychiatric drug, you
> > can and should decide for yourself. Your decisions about taking or
> > rejecting drugs need to be made without coercive pressure from doctors
> > and in the absence of exaggeration, misinformation, and deception."

Naturally. Now, I am not exactly sure if doctors are money-chasing quacks in
the States (I know they are not in Denmark, where I live), but the authors
make it sound like that a little bit. ("Deception"?) Patients should always
choose the medication best suited for their needs, and the doctor should be
competent enough to know this. Otherwise something is rotten in the States
of America.

> >
> > "Even if you and your doctor don't realize it, the psychiatric drugs
> > that you are taking could be causing you serious mental, emotional, or
> > physical harm.

Again, there is NO scientific studies to support these allegations. 20 years
of experience with SSRIs have not even shown any anecdotal evidence, except
for the seldom allergic reaction, that SSRIs causes serious damage -
especially not physical. What are they thinking?!

Your doctor may fail to appreciate that some of your
> > problems are being caused by the prescribed medication and, instead,
> > mistakenly increase your dose or add another drug to your regimen. This
> > prescription cycle - a common occurance - could expose you to increased
> > risks of adverse drug effects."

This is true of the group of drugs called benzodiazepines (and some other
types of drugs), but the dangers of these drugs have actually been
acknowledged in the last couple of years. These drugs should be used
short-term only, because they cause true dependence and horrible
withdrawals.

> >
> > " When you reduce or skip your medication, you may experience painful
> > emotional or physical reactions as the effects of your drug wear off.
> > This is due to drug withdrawal between doses. But if you don't realize
> > that you are undergoing interdose withdrawal, you may wrongly assume
> > that you will *always* feel that uncomfortable if you stop the
> > medication. Similarly, your doctor may mistakenly insist that your
> > discomfort is proof that you need to take *more* of the drug or
> > additional drugs to control your discomfort."

True, although I do not like this tendency to distrust doctors - are they
really that bad over there?

> >
> > "The reader may assume that these negative reactions to psychiatric
> > drugs are rare, but, in reality, they are quite common. Moreover, the
> > harm they cause often goes unrecognized or is attributed to something
> > other than the medications."

SHOW ME THE STUDIES.

> >
> > "In fact, stopping is often the only way to discover that psychiatric
> > drugs have been the source of your persistent symptoms."

Pure BS. True of benzodiazepines, but not SSRIs, which is prescribed much
more.

> >
> > Dr. P. Breggin & Dr. D. Cohen

Doctors of what? Or just doctors?

In article <N5y8b.71091$Kb2.3277900@news010.worldonline.dk> , blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> OK, why not...I just have some few things to add ( I know this article doees
> not necessarily represent your personal opinions, Virtualoso, I may come off
> as a little harsh, but just ignore it.)
>
> > "The benefits of psychiatric drugs are vastly exaggerated, their
> > disadvantages are too often minimized, and there is far too little
> > information about how to *stop* taking them."
>
> First of all, do you know what the authors are doctors of? Psychiatry or
> psychology? I will assume it is psychology....But please, if you can figure
> it out, I would be glad.

Psychiatry. And endorsed by (among others):

Dr. C. Pert, Research Prof. of Physiology and Biophysics at Georgetown
Univ. Medical Center

Dr. L. Mosher, Former Chief of a Center at the Nat'l Institute of
Mental Health

Dr. B. Karon, Prof. of Clinical Psychology, Mich. State Univ.

Dr. S. Rose, Prof, of Biology and Director of Brain and Behavior
Research Group, Open Univ.

Dr. T. Stanton, Psychiatric Consultant

Dr. A. Fergusson, Psychiatrist and Institute Director

Dr. M. Shore, Former Pres. American Orthopsychiatry Assoc. & recipient
of the Am. Psychological Assoc. Award

Dr. F. Bemak, Prof. & Section Head for the Wellness and Human Services
College of Education, Ohio State Univ.

Dr. D. Smith, Psychiatrist

Dr. W. Wolfensberger, Research Prof. of Education, Syracuse Univ.

Dr. R. Fisher, Clinical Psychologist

Dr. T. Greening, Prof. at Saybook Graduate School

Dr. T. Scheff, Prof. Emeritus, Univ. of CA.

Dr. D. Jacobs, Clinical Psychologist, CA Institute of Human Science

> "The benefits of psychiatric drugs are vastly exaggerated...." that is one
> statement that millions of people around the world would disagree with,
> since they have had the luck of being cured of several psychiatric disorders
> such as anxiety, panic attacks, depression, etc.that cognitive therapy can
> not cure, and certainly not on a short-term basis.

Biopsychiatry has not come up with even ONE "cure". Not one. What is
being testified to is that various drugs, among all that they do or
might do to the brain, do diminish various "symptoms" (usually while
inducing others, including seriously deleterious or outright harmful
onesl.)

Meanwhile, in the numerous tests the drug companies conducted in order
to get their own products passed by the FDA (which takes only two
"positive" tests), overall the plain sugar pills did as well as, or
better than, the "antidepressants." I'm guessing that all those
millions of people around the world regaling the antidepressants
probably weren't sold... er, given the sugar pills, though.

> "Disadvantages" I interpret as side-effects. These are well-known for SSRIs,
> and they have been through extensive control and have been used for almost
> 20 years without any truly serious side-effects.

Sure there are serious side effects. Commonly. In fact, about half the
folks that have ever taken them, to date, have quit at one time or
another specifically because of the "side effects." And experts in
psychiatry, neurology, and other such disciplines have been seriously
pondering whether the "side effects" may, in fact, be the main or only
effects -- acting as a "placebo booster" since when folks suffer... er,
experience them it convinces them that they are taking "powerful
medicine" supposedly to "treat" their "problem." Yet, some of the
serious side effects of the drugs include inducing depression, anxiety,
suicidal thinking, brain chemical imbalances and brain function
disruption and disabling, other physical discomforts, impotence, etc.

> One fatal side effect can
> occur, Serotonin Syndrome, but this usually only occurs when combined with
> recreational drugs (we're talking less than 5 incidents in 20 years, which
> is incredible compared to non.psychotropic drugs)- which leads me to a very
> important point concerning the doctor-patient relationsship.

It's not the only one. In fact, many "symptoms" that occur during
"treatment" with the drugs, especially when on the all too common
series of "trying" various dosages, other drugs, etc. are induced by
taking the drugs and only mistakenly regarded as "the problem" that's
being "treated" by the drugs.

> But first, the so-called dependency problem and the problem of stopping the
> medication. Real withdrawal symptoms usually only occur when the patient
> does not understand or follow the specific instructions told by the doctor.

Instructions about... what? Why, about withdrawal. Yet, we hear they
are not "habit forming". Then what's with the special withdrawal
instructions? Yet, this is commonly avoided by never really taking
anyone off the drugs, once their begun. That is one of the usual
"cures" isn't it -- just stay drugged?

> Tapering is key to this; I admit that some doctors may have a problem
> explaining the importance of this to the patient, but usually a schedule for
> tapering is made. Then the patient goes home, forgets to take his pills as
> directed, says "hey, no bad feelings, I'll just stop them now", a few days
> pass and withdrawal symptoms set in. Patient thinks he has brain damage from
> the pills..This is definetely a problem, and something should be done to
> extend proper information to the patient.

More often, once the discomforts of withdrawal are experienced,
everyone assumes they are suffering from a "chemical imbalance" that's
"returning" without the drugs. And so they're then put back on drugs.

> However, there are certain SSRIs that are very hard to taper from; you may
> have heard of the Paxil-case. This is due to the very short half-life of the
> drug, which means that the drug leaves the body quickly, and this can be
> hard to manage. This is why people feel that Paxil has damaged them in some
> way, and IMO, SSRIs with short half lives should only be used under strict
> observation.

Funny you never hear much anything about that, especially in the ads
for stuff like that. Nor in prescribing doctors offices prior to
dispensing the scripts.


> Furthermore, an important fact: There are NO studies that show that SSRIs
> cause brain damage in any way. A slight change of neurons can be seen up to
> 14 days after tapering off, then things return to normal again.

Are you aware of any studies that have checked for that?

> > "In recent years, the virtues of psychiatric drugs have been widely
> > extolled, but an informed decision can be made only when people also
> > have access to both a more critical view of drugs and a frank analysis
> > of their hazards. The law also supports the right of people to be fully
> > informed about potential hazards before agreeing to a doctor's
> > recommendation for a drug."
>
> No need to comment on this. It should be obvious. (even though the authors
> seem to say that the patient should *only* know about the sideeffects, and
> not the potential benefits.)

The only potential benefit is that some "symptom" might be drugged out
of their experience, somehow. At known costs. Rather than a sugar pill
or other options that are easier, less costly, less risky, etc.

> > "Do not let anyone pressure you into starting or continuing psychiatric
> > drugs. As a competent adult, you have ethical and legal right ... to be
> > completely informed in advance about the dangers of any psychiatric
> > drug, including its withdrawal effects."
>
> Well, adults in difficult situations may have a hard time asserting
> themselves, correct, but I do not like the way they talk about "competent"
> adults; many psychiatric patients are *not* competent and pose an ethical
> dilemma I won't discuss now.

Uh huh. Other options for anyone regarded by... someone... as
"incompetent" are severe electrical shocks and cutting parts of the
brain. Granted, that drugging them is comparatively "gentler."

> More later.

Okay.

In article <%ly8b.71094$Kb2.3278080@news010.worldonline.dk> , blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > "No matter how many doctors favor one or another psychiatric drug, you
> > > can and should decide for yourself. Your decisions about taking or
> > > rejecting drugs need to be made without coercive pressure from doctors
> > > and in the absence of exaggeration, misinformation, and deception."
>
> Naturally. Now, I am not exactly sure if doctors are money-chasing quacks in
> the States (I know they are not in Denmark, where I live), but the authors
> make it sound like that a little bit. ("Deception"?) Patients should always
> choose the medication best suited for their needs, and the doctor should be
> competent enough to know this. Otherwise something is rotten in the States
> of America.

Then perhaps something is rotten in the USA, including quite a bit of
likely well-meant blunders. Wouldn't be the first time.

> > > "Even if you and your doctor don't realize it, the psychiatric drugs
> > > that you are taking could be causing you serious mental, emotional, or
> > > physical harm.
>
> Again, there is NO scientific studies to support these allegations. 20 years
> of experience with SSRIs have not even shown any anecdotal evidence, except
> for the seldom allergic reaction, that SSRIs causes serious damage -
> especially not physical. What are they thinking?!

Apparently, they're looking at both the absence of "studies" that do
conclusively establish either any such thing as the supposed "chemical
imbalance" and they're looking at the obvious harmful "side effects"
(which are far more known and established) and if these "powerful
drugs" are mucking about with "brain chemistry" and "brain function"
and despite years of effort to show that it's the one thing it's
guessed but can't be shown, then something else is going on.

And it seems that the US does have more evidence of what that is than
Denmark. That is, assuming you're up on all the info there, too.

> Your doctor may fail to appreciate that some of your
> > > problems are being caused by the prescribed medication and, instead,
> > > mistakenly increase your dose or add another drug to your regimen. This
> > > prescription cycle - a common occurance - could expose you to increased
> > > risks of adverse drug effects."
>
> This is true of the group of drugs called benzodiazepines (and some other
> types of drugs), but the dangers of these drugs have actually been
> acknowledged in the last couple of years. These drugs should be used
> short-term only, because they cause true dependence and horrible
> withdrawals.

Gosh. "Actually been acknowledged" lately, eh? You mean the dangers
weren't acknowledged before? Imagine that.

> > > " When you reduce or skip your medication, you may experience painful
> > > emotional or physical reactions as the effects of your drug wear off.
> > > This is due to drug withdrawal between doses. But if you don't realize
> > > that you are undergoing interdose withdrawal, you may wrongly assume
> > > that you will *always* feel that uncomfortable if you stop the
> > > medication. Similarly, your doctor may mistakenly insist that your
> > > discomfort is proof that you need to take *more* of the drug or
> > > additional drugs to control your discomfort."
>
> True, although I do not like this tendency to distrust doctors - are they
> really that bad over there?

Sometimes we don't really like the truth, eh?

> > > "The reader may assume that these negative reactions to psychiatric
> > > drugs are rare, but, in reality, they are quite common. Moreover, the
> > > harm they cause often goes unrecognized or is attributed to something
> > > other than the medications."
>
> SHOW ME THE STUDIES.

NGs always arrive at this pretty quickly don't they? Try some Googling
and DejaNews first, and maybe I'll get around to some reposts.

> > > "In fact, stopping is often the only way to discover that psychiatric
> > > drugs have been the source of your persistent symptoms."
>
> Pure BS. True of benzodiazepines, but not SSRIs, which is prescribed much
> more.

So you say. Show me the studies.

blackout wrote:

> Naturally. Now, I am not exactly sure if doctors are money-chasing quacks in
> the States (I know they are not in Denmark, where I live), but the authors
> make it sound like that a little bit. ("Deception"?) Patients should always
> choose the medication best suited for their needs, and the doctor should be
> competent enough to know this. Otherwise something is rotten in the States
> of America.

There's plenty rotten in the USA around drug prescriptions. My step
daughter has been on the receiving end of same. Details later. It's
late.

Welcome to araa.

Frank
From a long line of Rasmussen's by way of Copenhagen about a century
back.