Problems Other Than Alcoho...

[Virtualoso]

[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

[Bobby L.]

"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

[Shawster]

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?

[Michael H.]

"Shawster" <shawster@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Dwv8b.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/creativeresistance/spoofads/misc/prozac/

Peace
Michael H.

[blackout]

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

[blackout]

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

[blackout]

> > "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?

[Virtualoso]

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.

[Virtualoso]

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.

[`F.H]

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.

[Virtualoso]

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

> ... I assume they are mainly aiming at SSRIs...
> millions of people around the world ... 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.

In the tests conducted by the companies that make and sell SSRI's,
sugar pills did as well, or better.

> However, there are certain SSRIs that are very hard to taper from; you may
> have heard of the Paxil-case. ...

There are NO studies that show that SSRI's "correct" any so-called
"chemical imbalances" - nor involving serotonin, specifically, although
that is the main S in SSRI. If there's no way to tell that, then why
take SSRI's in the first place, and along with the known and proven
unfortunate or harmful "side effects," risks and withdrawal problems?

"There is still no valid biological test for depression"
- Dr. C. Chan

"A serotonin deficiency for depression has not been found.* ...* Still,
patients are often given the impression that a definitive serotonin
deficiency in depression is firmly established.* ...* The result is an
undue inflation of the drug market..."
- Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard
Medical School

A panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology
Assessment reported that "Prominent hypotheses concerning depression
have focused on altered function of the group of neurotransmitters
called monoamines (i.e., norepinephrine, epinephrine, serotonin,
dopamine), particularly norepinephrine (NE) and serotonin.*...
studies of the NE [norepinephrine] autoreceptor in depression have
found no specific evidence of an abnormality to date.* Currently, no
clear evidence links abnormal serotonin receptor activity in the brain
to depression.*... the data currently available do not provide
consistent evidence either for altered neurotransmitter levels or for
disruption of normal receptor activity" ( The Biology of Mental
Disorders , U.S. Gov't Printing Office )

[Ian W]

"blackout" <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%ly8b.71094$Kb2.3278080@news010.worldonline.d k...
>
> 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?

See:-
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/breggin.html for Breggin's background

To quote:

Research? Unique private communications? Access to "secret" documents?
A big conspiracy? As far as I can tell, Breggin has made no systematic
clinical reports, and the book provides no relevant "insider
information" or alleged facts about any conspiracy. The suits to which
he refers were filed during the year 2000 in California, Florida, New
Jersey, Puerto Rico, and Texas and were not legitimate. The California
and Texas suits were dismissed by the courts for failure to state a
proper cause of action [20]. The New Jersey suit was withdrawn after
the judge made it clear that he was highly skeptical of plaintiffs'
allegations of conspiracy [21], and the others were quietly withdrawn.


Dr Cohen is a professor of social welfare ............
>
>

[blackout]

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

Hey! A fellow dane, almost! Good to meet you Rasmussen!

[blackout]

>
> > ... I assume they are mainly aiming at SSRIs...
> > millions of people around the world ... 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.
>
> In the tests conducted by the companies that make and sell SSRI's,
> sugar pills did as well, or better.

Think about how many companies produce SSRIs - there are quite a few, so
maybe we should be careful about putting them all in the same basket. Are
you thinking of a certain company?

But yes, it's correct, however, as I think you said earlier, the placebo
effect is not something to be taken lightly. Taking into consideration the
somewhat "staged" and artificial nature of these studies, I think that the
placebo effect can be even more powerful than normal. That *could* explain
this weird phenomenon,

Celexa, the currently most popular SSRI (it is the most selective of all the
SSRIs and it has a long halflife), and its succcesor, whatsitsname,
Celebrex? (basically the same drug, but "cleaner" in the sense that both
isomers are active, where Celexa only has one active isomer - less inactive
isomers could mean fewer side effects and lower dosages) was actually made
in Denmark by the medicinal company Lundbeck (but marketed in the States by
some other company), and as far as I remember, it fared a lot better on the
double-blind studies than usual.

> > However, there are certain SSRIs that are very hard to taper from; you
may
> > have heard of the Paxil-case. ...
>
> There are NO studies that show that SSRI's "correct" any so-called
> "chemical imbalances" - nor involving serotonin, specifically, although
> that is the main S in SSRI. If there's no way to tell that, then why
> take SSRI's in the first place, and along with the known and proven
> unfortunate or harmful "side effects," risks and withdrawal problems?

I think the "chemical imbalance"-explanation has been refined somewhat -
refer to my other post. (coming after this one, I just wrote the explanation
in another post)

>
> "There is still no valid biological test for depression"
> - Dr. C. Chan

Actually, in Denmark, researchers have come up with a scanner-like device
that can actually measure serotonin levels (and other relevant
neurotransmitters, if I remember correctly), and thus a patient with
depression can be diagnosed. It also makes it possible to pinpoint the areas
in the brain that are damaged by untreated long-term depression. Yes,
untreated long-term depression actually destroys certain neural systens .
and now it's possible to actually see it on-screen.

> "A serotonin deficiency for depression has not been found. ... Still,
> patients are often given the impression that a definitive serotonin
> deficiency in depression is firmly established. ... The result is an
> undue inflation of the drug market..."
> - Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard
> Medical School

Well, you read my paragraph on the device that actually does this - but that
doesn't mean that the drug market isn't inflated. It is truly a great
financial burden on our society (in Denmark, medicine is paid partly by the
state) But you could "translate" lost work hours and other negative effects
on the economy caused by depression (which is widespread in DK) to *money*
if you are open-minded, and I think an approximation was made that indicated
that the treatment of depression made up for some of the economic loss
caused by depression.


> A panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology
> Assessment reported that "Prominent hypotheses concerning depression
> have focused on altered function of the group of neurotransmitters
> called monoamines (i.e., norepinephrine, epinephrine, serotonin,
> dopamine), particularly norepinephrine (NE) and serotonin. ...
> studies of the NE [norepinephrine] autoreceptor in depression have
> found no specific evidence of an abnormality to date. Currently, no
> clear evidence links abnormal serotonin receptor activity in the brain
> to depression. ... the data currently available do not provide
> consistent evidence either for altered neurotransmitter levels or for
> disruption of normal receptor activity" ( The Biology of Mental
> Disorders , U.S. Gov't Printing Office )

But think of roengten rays (x-rays?), for example; it wasn't measurable or
detectable before the right equipment was there.

(ok bad example, but I'll leave it in anyway).

[blackout]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:120920032346194975%virtualoso@dot.com...
> 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"

The "chemical imbalance" is just a simplified way of explaining what
actually happens. The current theory is that once serotonin is increased in
and between synapses, a receptor downgrade happens, which means that the
brain actually has *less* serotonin to play around with. When serotonin
receptors are downgraded, the 5-HT levels stay more or less constant (which
results in the side effect of "not caring"), but it also has the effect of
levelling out the patient's mood. This in turn removes symptoms ( as you
say), but it also makes the patient able to deal with the disease more
easily.

That the diseases are not cured is correct, but that is because psychiatric
diseases are in fact epileptic damage, which cannot be repaired. This is the
reason why depression, anxiety, panic attacks have a tendency to surface
again, exactly like epileptic attacks.

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.

Yes, the epileptic nature of psychiatric disorders..

> 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.

You would think so, with that much funding, but see my other post.
>
> > 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.

You do know that doctors hardly ever prescribe benzos now, compared to just
5-10 years ago...and before that, they handed them out like candy.

> > > > "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.

I was actually adressing the article ;) how can they postulate that kind of
crap without references?

>
> > > > "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.

I don't think any serious studies will be made about SSRIs causing the
symptoms. That is simply not something that will be accepted by the medical
community (in DK, anyway), because it is simply without reason. There can be
"allergic" reactions, granted, but psychiatric disorders? Never.

[blackout]

> Dr Cohen is a professor of social welfare ............


He seems to be very critical of pathology and medicating, both in the
articles and the text in the link.
But I don't get it - conspiracy? How does this relate to the other posts,
except that it makes Dr. Cohen seem less trustworthy?

[blackout]

> > "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.)

You're right, cured is not the right word. But they do "diminish varíous
symptoms" as you say, to the degree that the disorder is supressed. It may
resurface, because of psychiatric disorders' likeliness to epilepsi (refer
to my other post).

> 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.

Well, I know it ain't scientific evidence, but anecdotal evidence clearly
shows us that SSRIs work.I didn't want to bring it up, but my father is a
psychiatrist (in AA, btw), and he works with this every day. He dishes out
SSRIs every day. He sees the results. He knows they work, because he is in
close contact with his patients.

Maybe it would help if you could mention the specific SSRIs you are talking
about?

> > "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."

Yes. But you have to differentiate between the different SSRIs, since they
are different and have different side effects. A lot of people stop eating
them because of weight gain, which is their choice to live with the symptoms
and not gain a few pounds. There are many reasons, but some SSRIs are not
that selective and therefore can make you feel "different", which is not
exactly a great feeling.

[blackout]

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.


Those side effects are very rare with the newer SSRIs. Well, some of
them....impotence, some physical discomfort, those are not that rare, but
still (I remember saying this before); if I had the choice between taking a
good SSRI and the risk of having side effects, or being depressed, my choice
is clear.

> > 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.

The only *fatal* one I've heard about. Are there others?

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 it should be easy to differentiate between the original diagnosis and
side effects. The side effects first starts after (in some cases, weeks)
treatment has begun.

> > 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?

Habit-forming is a word that is problematic, because you can form habits
from almost everything, from eating candy to watching TV, If you said
"addictive", it would be another discussion; SSRIs are not addictive
according to the formal criteria for addiction.

The only addiction that may pose a problem is psychologically, when the
disorder isn't completely supressed. But that's a question of making a
schedule with your doctor.
Again, tapering is extremely important (some SSRIs are worse than others),
and if it's done wrong (which happens often), the result may look and feel
like addiction.

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?

Not as far as I know. SSRI treatment, if it works for the individual, should
continue for 6-12 months in order to ensure proper suppression. Depends on
the exact diagnosis.

>
> > 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.

Which they should be, so they can taper properly. This can take a LONG time,
depending on the SSRI, and many patients do not have the patience to taper
for months.
>
> > 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.

Yes, I never quite understood the reason for producing a drug like Paxil. I
agree that finances may play too large a role in this; so we don't have that
problem in DK. We don't even allow ads for ADs.

>
>
> > 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?

About neurotransmitter levels returning to normal again? Yes, they exist for
sure, but no link, I'm afraid.

> > 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.

But what are you proposing? Cognitive therapy? Sugar pills ;)?
>
> > > "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."

I was not aware that you still used surgery in the States. In DK,
electroschock is only used in extreme cases where nothing else works, and
the patient poses a threat to himself or others.

[`F.H]

blackout wrote:
>
> > 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.
> Thanks!
> >
> > Frank
> > From a long line of Rasmussen's by way of Copenhagen about a century
> > back.
>
> Hey! A fellow dane, almost! Good to meet you Rasmussen!

Rasumssen is on my mothers side. Around here I'm Frank or Gramps (and a
few other less complimentary monikers).

Frank

[blackout]

> > Hey! A fellow dane, almost! Good to meet you Rasmussen!
>
> Rasumssen is on my mothers side. Around here I'm Frank or Gramps (and a
> few other less complimentary monikers).

Seems like I've had the same welcome commitee ;)
Ok, Frank, ya know, vikings are tough; we can take the abuse ;) But they'll
have to watch out for our longboat invasions...We've done it before, and
we'll do it again!

[Virtualoso]

In article <7SC8b.71247$Kb2.3282291@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, in Denmark, researchers have come up with a scanner-like device
> that can actually measure serotonin levels (and other relevant
> neurotransmitters, if I remember correctly), and thus a patient with
> depression can be diagnosed.

Please do reveal this. People have been looking forsomething like this
for decades. Where do I learn more?

[Virtualoso]

In article <v3D8b.71251$Kb2.3282230@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Apparently, they're looking at both the absence of "studies" that do
> > conclusively establish either any such thing as the supposed "chemical
> > imbalance"
>
> The "chemical imbalance" is just a simplified way of explaining what
> actually happens. The current theory is that once serotonin is .... [snip]

I'm aware of various "theories." The core fact is that, among the
several in vogue, none of them have been medically substantiated. And
there are anomalies to all of them.

For instance, even if we suppose that serotonin levels in a person's
livinng brain can be measured, and lowered levels are found in some
ratio of "depressed persons," it's still completely a conjecture that
that is a "cause" and not an "effect" of "depression." It's all still
basically at the "what if" and "let's suppose" phase, with no
particular reason to expect anything further.

> That the diseases are not cured is correct, but that is because psychiatric
> diseases are in fact epileptic damage, which cannot be repaired. ....

That would be yet another one among a number of pure theories, right?

> > > ..... 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.
>
> You do know that doctors hardly ever prescribe benzos now, compared to just
> 5-10 years ago...and before that, they handed them out like candy.

All the prior "antidepressants" eventually became "acknowledged" as
having had known dangers, too. And all the current ones, when they are
current ones, get hawked as though that's not the case.

> > So you say. Show me the studies.
>
> I don't think any serious studies will be made about SSRIs ... [snip]

Show me any studies that have conclusively shown that "depression" is a
biochemical "imbalance" in the brain, or that SSRI's do, indeed,
"correct" that. Not theory, but medical fact. I just haven't been able
to locate any yet.

[Virtualoso]

In article <tAE8b.71283$Kb2.3283664@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > 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.)
>
> You're right, cured is not the right word. But they do "diminish varíous
> symptoms" as you say, to the degree that the disorder is supressed. It may
> resurface, because of psychiatric disorders' likeliness to epilepsi (refer
> to my other post).

Until Denmark maybe shares this secret medical proof of epilipsi, then
everyone else must continue with all the other, wholly mistaken
"theories" that everyone is being misled with.

> > 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.
>
> Well, I know it ain't scientific evidence, but anecdotal evidence clearly
> shows us that SSRIs work......

Scientific evidence have gotten as far as demonstrating "work" to mean
placebo effect. Enough so, that now experts in the field are exploring
the "placebo boosting" aspect of the drugs and their "side effects"
which function as the "boosting" trick.

> > 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."
>
> Yes. But you have to differentiate between the different SSRIs, since they
> are different and have different side effects. .....

On what basis are the different ones being given to people? Any actual
medical tests involved? Or is it all really just a matter of "trying"
to see if people like it, regardless of manifest biophysiology?

[GaryE]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 15:37:19 +0200, "blackout"
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

..I would be interested in knowing both of you 'credentials'. I know
Virt is not going to give us his, because I don't' think he has any,
but how about you? I see your dad is a MD psychiatry...are you?

To comment on an observation for comparison, I see that AA as mostly
'placebo' effect. Yet I think Virt is a thumper, at least a pseudo
thumper in the 'science' of the AA Big Book. So, as a general rule,
his arguments opposing the field of medicine with sweeping
generalizations (obscuring even that by suggesting that
'pharmaceuticals' someone control the minds of all of the medical
profession as if they just sat around and dished out medications as
ignoramuses) . Virt is special and a very special intellect you see,
but sometimes he just gets a little extreme and binary.

It works if you work it, though. AA principle and most favorite
slogan. Proof is in the pudding and not in the preparation. And I
suppose the same 'principle' could apply to medicine, right? Who
really gives a shit if people find relief from suffering in AA or with
anti depressants (and yes, you are correct, they are not all alike in
their effects, as I experienced them. I took them for years until but
not for over a year now. Perhaps I can't know for sure what they did
for my depression, except that I had it less, far less, and other
people noticed a change in my mood, particularly family members.
Maybe it was sheer coincidence. The side effect most prominent was
not anything mind altering that I could tell, but sexual dysfunction.
I think that is what drives most people up a wall. It's a hell of a
trade off.

But folks who, as far as I can tell, have no skin in this medication
game, are crusaders, self appointed and if it weren't for Usenet,
would be totally ignored, because most of them (and us) are
irrelevant to larger questions of society, politics, medicine, the big
lot. . The problem as always, has been people vulnerable and open to
'advice' from people who have no credentials, period. And its not
related to alcohol, which, of course is the Thumpers area of expertise
and authority. Why anyone, with no skin in the game, would want to
interfere with others treatment of pain and misery is beyond me.
Narcissistic insensitivity, maybe. Ironically, I have found more
than a few 'insensitive assholes' in AA who know the 'scripture' by
heart, but that's about it. We've got a few of them in this NG who
practice pomposity more often than not. Go figure.

Best,
GaryE

[blackout]

> > Actually, in Denmark, researchers have come up with a scanner-like
device
> > that can actually measure serotonin levels (and other relevant
> > neurotransmitters, if I remember correctly), and thus a patient with
> > depression can be diagnosed.
>
> Please do reveal this. People have been looking forsomething like this
> for decades. Where do I learn more?

It is extremely exciting! Problem is, the device is located at some hospital
here, and I can't remember where, but I think it is Aarhus Kommunehospital
(if you got that one ;) If you somehow can search on google about it, do it,
but I will ask around and try to search on some Danish search engines. My
dad hadn't heard about it, strangely enough, but his area is
geronto-psychiatry (is that a word in English?). My mom is a nurse, but she
doesn't work there, so that's no help. If nothing else comes along, I will
call the hospital and get the facts straight and pass 'em on.

[Virtualoso]

In article <E7F8b.71292$Kb2.3284490@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Those side effects are very rare with the newer SSRIs. Well, some of
> them....impotence, some physical discomfort, those are not that rare, but
> still (I remember saying this before); if I had the choice between taking a
> good SSRI and the risk of having side effects, or being depressed, my choice
> is clear.

Apparently, quite some number of people would rather take drugs that
have them feeling ways they prefer, even if there are some distinct
deleterious effects of that. Some of the drugs are legal, some are not.

> 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 it should be easy to differentiate between the original diagnosis and
> side effects. The side effects first starts after (in some cases, weeks)
> treatment has begun.

Why "should it be easy"? Isn't "the diagnosis" mainly or exclusively
based simply on people reporting that they feel "depressed" and the
like? I mean, there aren't any actual medical tests involved, are
there? However, one of the glaring anomalies of the theories of the
drugs, is that there isn't any conclusive medical basis for why they
might "take weeks" to induce their "effects." Of course, since most
depressions naturally quell after about the same time span, it's not
necessarily surprising at all that a lot of people would feel better by
then. Unless the drugs have then been causing some havoc with their
brains and prolonging and/or inducing discomforts. Then, typically it's
time to tinker dosages and/or "try" other drugs. Etc.

> > > 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?
>
> Habit-forming is a word that is problematic, because you can form habits
> from almost everything, from eating candy to watching TV, If you said
> "addictive", it would be another discussion; SSRIs are not addictive
> according to the formal criteria for addiction.

The "formal criteria"? What's that? Otherwise, a "physical dependency"
is a generally useful criteria for "addiction." And if one is in a
position of facing bad enough "withdrawal" then one is physically
depending on taking the drug to avoid that suffering of discontinuing.

> Again, tapering is extremely important (some SSRIs are worse than others),
> and if it's done wrong (which happens often), the result may look and feel
> like addiction.

Or it may look and feel as though the symptoms of a "mental illness"
are re-emerging, and so lead to being put back on drugs.


> 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?
>
> Not as far as I know. SSRI treatment, if it works for the individual, should
> continue for 6-12 months in order to ensure proper suppression. Depends on
> the exact diagnosis.

How are "exact diagnosis" made? Are there any real, biophysical medical
tests involved?

> > 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.
>
> Which they should be, so they can taper properly. This can take a LONG time,
> depending on the SSRI, and many patients do not have the patience to taper
> for months.

Uh... just what is taking such a long time, if there is no addiction
and these drugs are so "harmless." only having specific, targeted
effects on just certain things? It only took a coupla's weeks to "take
effect" and the "effect" is supposedly beneficial, right? Why such a
protracted, risky "withdrawal" if they're not "addictive" or dangerous?

> > 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.
>
> Yes, I never quite understood the reason for producing a drug like Paxil. I
> agree that finances may play too large a role in this; so we don't have that
> problem in DK. We don't even allow ads for ADs.

Why not?

> > Are you aware of any studies that have checked for that?
>
> About neurotransmitter levels returning to normal again? Yes, they exist for
> sure, but no link, I'm afraid.

I'm not too surprised. Yes, studies do exist, but they do not support
the pro-drug advocacies nearly as much as pro-drug advocates would
like, or pretend. So they're always missing in these discussions. For
some reason.

> > 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.
>
> But what are you proposing? Cognitive therapy? Sugar pills ;)?

I'm not advocating prefrontal lobotomies and I'm not advocating brain
drugs.

> > 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."
>
> I was not aware that you still used surgery in the States. In DK,
> electroschock is only used in extreme cases where nothing else works, and
> the patient poses a threat to himself or others.

Psychiatric drugs, including "anti-depressants" have been involved in
quite a number of incidents of people harming themselves and others,
including suicide and homocide.

[blackout]

> Until Denmark maybe shares this secret medical proof of epilipsi, then
> everyone else must continue with all the other, wholly mistaken
> "theories" that everyone is being misled with.

I am pretty sure it's no secret. I attended a seminar with my dad featuring
one of the leading psychiatrists in Denmark, that's where I learned about
it. Why it hasn't been spread can have several reasons; USA is a big country
.. maybe someone there is working on it? Or maybe sceptiscim is the key; but
I have to say that his data was *impressive*.

> > Well, I know it ain't scientific evidence, but anecdotal evidence
clearly
> > shows us that SSRIs work......
>
> Scientific evidence have gotten as far as demonstrating "work" to mean
> placebo effect. Enough so, that now experts in the field are exploring
> the "placebo boosting" aspect of the drugs and their "side effects"
> which function as the "boosting" trick.

Hm...I'm not sure i understand nor agree with you ;) There is no placebo
research going on right now, because we have a sufficiently effective drug
that we know works, Celexa (again, I get my facts mainly from my dad, and
personal research.)

>
> > > 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."
> >
> > Yes. But you have to differentiate between the different SSRIs, since
they
> > are different and have different side effects. .....
>
> On what basis are the different ones being given to people? Any actual
> medical tests involved?

Well, most psychiatrists prefer to prescribe Celexa, both in the States and
in DK, simply because it is the most selective and effective (though I think
Seroxat comes close....) There are very few side effects because of this,
and the patient usually don't feel different at all (except some impotence,
according to the dose). And now Celebrex (still not sure that's the right
name) is coming on the market, and it is even better (see my other posts).

Or is it all really just a matter of "trying"
> to see if people like it, regardless of manifest biophysiology?

There will always be genetic heterogeneity that makes some people prefer
older SSRIs, for example Zoloft.

[blackout]

> .I would be interested in knowing both of you 'credentials'.
I know> Virt is not going to give us his, because I don't' think he has
any,
> but how about you? I see your dad is a MD psychiatry...are you?

No, I am not a psychiatrist like my dad....I attend university with my
specialty in philology.
>
> To comment on an observation for comparison, I see that AA as mostly
> 'placebo' effect. Yet I think Virt is a thumper, at least a pseudo
> thumper in the 'science' of the AA Big Book. So, as a general rule,
> his arguments opposing the field of medicine with sweeping
> generalizations (obscuring even that by suggesting that
> 'pharmaceuticals' someone control the minds of all of the medical
> profession as if they just sat around and dished out medications as
> ignoramuses) .

I've noticed a strong antagonism against pathology and medication in general
in his posts.

Virt is special and a very special intellect you see,
> but sometimes he just gets a little extreme and binary.
>
> It works if you work it, though. AA principle and most favorite
> slogan. Proof is in the pudding and not in the preparation. And I
> suppose the same 'principle' could apply to medicine, right? Who
> really gives a shit if people find relief from suffering in AA or with
> anti depressants (and yes, you are correct, they are not all alike in
> their effects, as I experienced them. I took them for years until but
> not for over a year now. Perhaps I can't know for sure what they did
> for my depression, except that I had it less, far less, and other
> people noticed a change in my mood, particularly family members.
> Maybe it was sheer coincidence.

I sincerely doubt that.

The side effect most prominent was
> not anything mind altering that I could tell, but sexual dysfunction.
> I think that is what drives most people up a wall. It's a hell of a
> trade off.

Yes, it is one of the many reasons people drop their medication, with bad
experiences as the result....It sounds like you got some of the newer SSRIs,
since you felt no different at all. Probably Celexa.

[Virtualoso]

In article <50H8b.71319$Kb2.3288515@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > Actually, in Denmark, researchers have come up with a scanner-like
> device
> > > that can actually measure serotonin levels (and other relevant
> > > neurotransmitters, if I remember correctly), and thus a patient with
> > > depression can be diagnosed.
> >
> > Please do reveal this. People have been looking forsomething like this
> > for decades. Where do I learn more?
>
> It is extremely exciting! Problem is, the device is located at some hospital
> here, and I can't remember where, but I think it is Aarhus Kommunehospital
> (if you got that one ;) If you somehow can search on google about it, do it,
> but I will ask around and try to search on some Danish search engines. My
> dad hadn't heard about it, strangely enough, but his area is
> geronto-psychiatry (is that a word in English?). My mom is a nurse, but she
> doesn't work there, so that's no help. If nothing else comes along, I will
> call the hospital and get the facts straight and pass 'em on.

Huh? There's only one of these devices and it's hard to even find out
about it? There's a multi-billion dollar industry here that's been
doing backflips for decades trying to come up with something like that.
I suppose it could go the way of the 100 mile per gallon carburator
that that guy in Texarcana once came up with, though.

[Virtualoso]

In article <ivc6mv8i4s8j31ncam75pub14ldtr8a93a@4ax.com>, GaryE
<garyexxx@swbell.net> wrote:

> .I would be interested in knowing both of you 'credentials'.

And yours?

> ... Yet I think Virt is a thumper, at least a pseudo
> thumper in the 'science' of the AA Big Book. So, as a general rule,
> his arguments ....

Virt isn't a member of AA. Discussion of supposed medical basis for
"depression" is quite aside from any such thing anyway, and Virt
includes quite a few direct quotes from credentialled, qualified and
even prominent experts in the field being discussed.

But I understand why you'd rather simplisticly attempt, even if feebly,
to discredit or dismiss the messenger, when you don't like the message
or the raw facts of the matter.

> ... Who
> really gives a shit if people find relief from suffering ... with
> anti depressants (and yes, you are correct, they are not all alike in
> their effects, as I experienced them. I took them for years until but
> not for over a year now. Perhaps I can't know for sure what they did
> for my depression, except that I had it less, far less, and other
> people noticed a change in my mood, particularly family members.
> Maybe it was sheer coincidence. The side effect most prominent was
> not anything mind altering that I could tell, but sexual dysfunction.
> I think that is what drives most people up a wall. It's a hell of a
> trade off.
>
> ...... The problem as always, has been people vulnerable and open to
> 'advice' from people who have no credentials, period. ....

So you basically just don't know and figure it doesn't matter if the
general population is being drugged for no real medical reason, even
though it's being assured that there is such a thing. Meanwhile, there
are non-brain drug ways that have been scientifically demonstrated,
along with just as credible theoretical basis to support them, showing
the same beneficial reliefs. Without being officially identified as
being "mentally ill." Without having to buy expensive drugs with known
hazards.

You're fine with just taking drugs to feel a way that you'd prefer,
regardless of basis or deleterious effects involved. Well, okay.
Regarding yourself, that is.


--------------

Unhappiness or "depression" alleged to be the result of biological
abnormality is called "biological" or "endogenous" or "clinical"
depression.* In her book The Broken Brain: The Biological Revolution
in Psychiatry, University of Iowa psychiatry professor Nancy Andreasen,
M.D., Ph.D., says "The older term endogenous implies that the
depression `grows from within' or is biologically caused, with the
implication that unfortunate and painful events such as losing a job
or lover cannot be considered contributing causes" (Harper & Row, p.
203). * Similarly, in the Chicago Tribune newspaper columnist Joan Beck
alleged: "depressive disorders are basically biochemical - and not
caused by events or environmental circumstances or personal
relationships" (Sec. 1, p. 16).

* * * * * * The concept of biological or endogenous depression is
important to psychiatry for two reasons.* First, it is the most common
supposed mental illness.* As Victor I. Reus, M.D., wrote: "The history
of the diagnosis and treatment of melancholia could serve as a history
of psychiatry itself" (appearing in: H. H. Goldman, editor, Review of
General Psychiatry, 2nd Edition, Appleton & Lange, p. 332).* Second,
all of psychiatry's biological "treatments" for depression - whether
it is drugs, electroshock, or psychosurgery - are based on the idea
that the unhappiness we call depression can be caused by a biological
malfunction rather than life experience.* The erroneous belief in
biological causation justifies the otherwise unjustifiable use of
biological therapies.*

* * * * * * Many professional and lay people today think depression
can be caused by "chemical imbalance" in the brain even though none of
the "chemical imbalance" theories of depression have been verified.*
Some of them are discussed by Dr. Andreasen in her book The Broken
Brain.

* * * * * One of the theories she describes is the belief that
"depression" (what should be called simply unhappiness or severe
unhappiness) is the result of neuroendocrine abnormalities indicated
by excessive cortisol in the blood.* The test for this is called the
dexamethasone-suppression test or DST.* The theory behind this test
and the claims of its usefulness were found to be mistaken, however,
because, in Dr. Andreasen's words, "so many patients with well-defined
depressive illness have normal DSTs" (pp. 180-182).* An article in the
Harvard Medical School Health Letter reached a similar conclusion.*
The article, titled "Diagnosing Depression: How Good is the `DST'?",
reported that "For every three office patients with an abnormal DST,
only one is likely to have true depression.* ... [And] a large fraction
of people who are depressed by other criteria will still have normal
results on the DST" (p. 5).*

Similarly, in an article in the Archives of Internal Medicine three
physicians concluded that "Data from studies currently available do not
support the use of the dexamethasone ST [Suppression Test]" (Martin F.
Shapiro, M.D., et al., "Biases in the Laboratory Diagnosis of
Depression in Medical Practice", Vol. 143, p. 2085).* In her book If It
Runs In Your Family: Depression, Connie S. Chan, Ph.D., acknowledges
that "There is still no valid biological test for depression" (Bantam
Books, p. 106).* But despite its having been discredited, some
biologically oriented psychiatrists are (apparently) so eager for
biological explanations for people's unhappiness or "depression" that
they continue to use the DST anyway.*

* * * * * In The Broken Brain, Dr. Andreasen also describes what she
calls "the most widely accepted theory about the cause of
depression...the `catecholamine hypothesis.'"* She emphasizes that
"the catecholamine hypothesis is theory rather than fact" (p. 231).*
She says "This hypothesis suggests that patients suffering from
depression have a deficit of norepinephrine in the brain" (p. 183),
norepinephrine being one of the "major catecholamine systems" in the
brain (pp. 231-232).* One way the catecholamine hypothesis is evaluated
is by studying one of the breakdown products of norepinephrine, called
MHPG, in urine.* People with so-called depressive illness "tended to
have lower MHPG" (p. 234).* The problem with this theory, according
to Dr. Andreasen, is that "not all patients with depression have low
MHPG" (ibid).* She accordingly concludes that this catecholamine
hypothesis "has not yet explained the mechanism causing depression"
(p. 184).

* * * * * Another theory is that severe unhappiness ("depression") is
caused by lowered levels or abnormal use of another brain chemical,
serotonin.* A panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Congress Office
of Technology Assessment reported that "Prominent hypotheses concerning
depression have focused on altered function of the group of
neurotransmitters called monoamines (i.e., norepinephrine,
epinephrine, serotonin, dopamine), particularly norepinephrine (NE)
and serotonin.*... studies of the NE [norepinephrine] autoreceptor in
depression have found no specific evidence of an abnormality to date.*
Currently, no clear evidence links abnormal serotonin receptor
activity in the brain to depression.*... the data currently available
do not provide consistent evidence either for altered neurotransmitter
levels or for disruption of normal receptor activity" (The Biology of
Mental Disorders, U.S. Gov't Printing Office, pp. 82 & 84).

* * * * * Even if it was shown there is some biological change or
abnormality "associated" with depression, the question would remain
whether this is a cause or an effect of the "depression".* At least
one brain-scan study (using positron emission tomography or PET scans)
found that simply asking normal people to imagine or recall a
situation that would make them feel very sad resulted in significant
changes in blood flow in the brain (Jose V. Pardo, M.D., Ph.D., et
al., "Neural Correlates of Self-Induced Dysphoria", American Journal
of Psychiatry, p. 713).* Other research will probably confirm it is
emotions that cause biological changes in the brain rather than
biological changes in the brain causing emotions.

* * * * * One of the more popular theories of biologically caused
depression has been hypoglycemia, which is low blood sugar.* In his
book Fighting Depression, published in 1976, Harvey M. Ross, M.D.,
said "In my experience as an orthomolecular psychiatrist, I find that
many patients who complain of depression have hypoglycemia (low blood
sugar).* ... Because depression is so common in those with
hypoglycemia, any person who is depressed without a clear cut obvious
cause for that depression should be suspected of having low blood
sugar" (Larchmont Books, p. 76 & 93).* But in their book Do You Have A
Depressive Illness?, psychiatrists Donald Klein, M.D., and Paul Wender,
M.D., list hypoglycemia in a section titled "Illnesses That Don't
Cause Depression" (Plume, p. 61).* The idea of hypoglycemia as a cause
of depression was also rejected in the front page article of a Harvard
Medical School Health Letter, titled "Hypoglycemia - Fact or Fiction?"

* * * * * Another theory of a physical disease causing psychological
unhappiness or "depression" is hypothyroidism.* In her book Can
Psychotherapists Hurt You? psychologist Judi Striano, Ph.D., includes a
chapter titled "Is It Depression - Or An Underactive Thyroid?"
(Professional Press).* Similarly, three psychiatry professors asserted
"Frank hypothyroidism has long been known to cause depression" (Alan I.
Green, M.D., et al., The New Harvard Guide to Psychiatry, Harvard
Univ. Press, p. 135).* The theory here is that the thyroid gland,
which is located in the neck, normally secretes hormones which reach
the brain through the bloodstream necessary for a feeling of
psychological well being and that if the thyroid produces too little
of these hormones, the affected person can start feeling unhappy even
if no problems result from the endocrine (gland) problem other than
the unhappiness.*

The American Medical Association Encyclopedia of Medicine lists many
symptoms of hypothyroidism: "muscle weakness, cramps, a slow heart
rate, dry and flaky skin, hair loss* ...*" (Random House, p. 563).*
The Encyclopedia does not list unhappiness or "depression" as one of
the consequences of hypothyroidism.* But suppose you began to
experience "muscle weakness, cramps...dry and flaky skin, hair loss
.... "?* How would this make you feel emotionally? - depressed,
probably.* Just as hypothyroidism (hypo = low) is a thyroid gland that
produces too little, hyperthyroidism is a thyroid glad that produces
too much.* Therefore, if hypothyroidism causes depression, then it
seems logical to assume hyperthyroidism has the opposite effect, that
is, that it makes a person happy.* But this is not what happens.

As psychiatrist Mark S. Gold, M.D., points out in his book The Good
News About Depression: "Depression occurs in hyperthyroidism, too" (p.
150).* What are the consequences of hyperthyroidism?: Dr. Gold lists
abundant sweating, fatigue, soft moist skin, heart palpitations,
frequent bowel movements, muscular weakness, and protruding eyeballs.*
So both hypo- and hyper- thyroidism cause physical problems in the
body.* And both cause "depression".* This is only logical.* It is hard
to feel anything but bad emotionally when your body doesn't feel well
or work properly.* It has never been proved hypothyroidism affects
mood other than through its effect on the victim's experience of
feeling physically unhealthy.

* * * * * Some people believe women experience undesirable mood
changes for biological reasons because of menopause.* However, a study
by psychologists at University of Pittsburgh reported that "Menopause
usually doesn't trigger stress or depression in healthy women, and it
even improves mental health for some".* According to Rena Wing, one of
the psychologists who did the study, "Everyone expects menopause to be
a stressful event, but we didn't find any support for this myth"
("Menopausal stress may be a myth", USA Today, p. 1D).

* * * * * It is also widely believed that women go through a period of
depression for biological reasons after giving birth to a child.* It's
called postpartum depression.* In his book The Making of a
Psychiatrist, Dr. David Viscott quotes Dr. George Maslow, a physician
doing an obstetrical residency, making the following remark: "Come on,
Viscott, do you really believe in postpartum depression?* I've seen
maybe two in the last three years.* I think it's a lot of shit you
guys [you psychiatrists] imagined to drum up business" (Pocket Books,
p. 88).

* * * * * A careful reading of the books and articles by psychiatrists
and psychologists alleging biological causes of the severe unhappiness
we call depression usually reveals purely psychological causes that
explain it adequately, even when the author believes he has given a
good example of biologically caused depression.* For example, in
Holiday of Darkness: A Psychologist's Personal Journey Out of His
Depression (John Wiley & Sons), an autobiographical book by York
University psychology professor Norman S. Endler, Ph.D., he alleges
his unhappiness or so-called depression "was biochemically induced"
(p. xiv).* He says "my affective disorder was primarily biochemical
and physiological" (p. 162).* But from his own words it's obvious his
depression was due primarily to unreturned love when a woman he got
emotionally involved with, Ann, decided to "wind down" her
relationship with him (pp. 2-5) and when he suffered a career setback
(loss of a research grant) at about the same time (p. 23).* Despite
his claims of biochemical causation, nowhere does he cite any medical
or biological tests showing he had any kind of biological,
biochemical, or neurological abnormalities.* He can't, because no valid
biological test exists that tests for the presence of any so-called
mental illness, including allegedly biologically caused unhappiness
(or "depression").*

There is no convincing evidence unhappiness or "depression" is ever
biologically caused.* The brain is part of our biology, but there is
no evidence severe unhappiness or "depression" is sometimes
biologically caused any more than bad TV programs are sometimes
electronically caused.* "[T]he question is not how to get cured, but
how to live" (Joseph Conrad, quoted by psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz,
Syracuse Univ. Press).* "When mental health professionals point to
spurious genetic and biochemical causes," of depression and recommend
drugs rather than learning better ways of living, "they encourage
psychological helplessness and discourage personal and social growth"
of the sort needed to really avoid unhappiness or "depression" and
live a meaningful and happy life (Peter Breggin, M.D., "Talking Back
to Prozac" Psychology Today magazine, p. 72).

[blackout]

> > >
> > > Apparently, they're looking at both the absence of "studies" that do
> > > conclusively establish either any such thing as the supposed "chemical
> > > imbalance"
> >
> > The "chemical imbalance" is just a simplified way of explaining what
> > actually happens. The current theory is that once serotonin is ....
[snip]
>
> I'm aware of various "theories." The core fact is that, among the
> several in vogue, none of them have been medically substantiated. And
> there are anomalies to all of them.

You're right, but the problem is that the next step requires a big
technological step (like the device I mentioned). I can only say that 20
years of experience rules out that it is simply a placebo effect.

>
> For instance, even if we suppose that serotonin levels in a person's
> livinng brain can be measured, and lowered levels are found in some
> ratio of "depressed persons," it's still completely a conjecture that
> that is a "cause" and not an "effect" of "depression." It's all still
> basically at the "what if" and "let's suppose" phase, with no
> particular reason to expect anything further.

You're talking chicken and the egg, right? You're right; I can't hit you
over the head with a big scientific study, but I listen to the professional
medicators, and SSRIs work, one way or the other.

> > That the diseases are not cured is correct, but that is because
psychiatric
> > diseases are in fact epileptic damage, which cannot be repaired. ....
>
> That would be yet another one among a number of pure theories, right?

Actually no, the researcher had done extensive studies on mice....which is
where all this kind of science begins. He was extremely pro-pathological,
and had lots of statistical data from people with mental disorders. He had
done his homework.
>

> All the prior "antidepressants" eventually became "acknowledged" as
> having had known dangers, too. And all the current ones, when they are
> current ones, get hawked as though that's not the case.

I'm not sure I understand you. Benzos are not ADs. It was looked upon as a
miracle drug when it first came out in the 50-60s, but in the 70s, people
slowly began to reliase the dangers.

You could mention tricyclic ADs, or the even older ADs, MAOIs - these ADs
were known to be directly dangerous from the beginning. And there really
haven't been others (except tetracyclics, but they were more or less like
tricyclics, just less dangerous).

SSRIs are simply better versions of the older ADs; their method of action is
more or less the same, except for the key word selective.

>
> > > So you say. Show me the studies.
> >
> > I don't think any serious studies will be made about SSRIs ... [snip]

I hope you read that part, because I think you have a little misunderstandig
going on.

>
> Show me any studies that have conclusively shown that "depression" is a
> biochemical "imbalance" in the brain,

I can't, because that is not the case.

or that SSRI's do, indeed,
> "correct" that.

They don't - it is much more complicated than that.If you affect one chain
of neurons, you automatically affect others and create a chain reaction.
This is how SSRIs work, and as close to explaining it right now as we can
get.


Not theory, but medical fact. I just haven't been able
> to locate any yet.

Not surprising, since there isn't any (EXCEPT that device in Aarhus - I will
try to find out if it's the missing link.)

[Virtualoso]

In article <0lH8b.71320$Kb2.3289100@news010.worldonline.dk>, blackout
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Until Denmark maybe shares this secret medical proof of epilipsi, then
> > everyone else must continue with all the other, wholly mistaken
> > "theories" that everyone is being misled with.
>
> I am pretty sure it's no secret. I attended a seminar with my dad featuring
> one of the leading psychiatrists in Denmark, that's where I learned about
> it. Why it hasn't been spread can have several reasons; USA is a big country
> . maybe someone there is working on it? Or maybe sceptiscim is the key; but
> I have to say that his data was *impressive*.