Side Effects

I saw this Steven Soderbergh (of Traffic fame) movie today. It is a psychological thriller starring Rooney Mara (from the Hollywood version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), Jude Law, and Catherine Zeta-Jones. The movie deals with difficult subjects like clinical depression and the various drugs that are used to treat it. It addresses the nexus between pharma companies and psychiatrists, and the severe side effects associated with antidepressants. Mara plays the wife of a white collar criminal who is suffering from severe depression and attempts to kill herself. Law is her psychiatrist who prescribes a newly-approved antidepressant to her on the patient's suggestion. As the movie progresses, a lot of things are different from what they initially seem to be. At the end, I found it to be a taut and well-made movie, one that made me more skeptical about antidepressants than I originally was before I watched the movie.

panini press wrote:I saw this Steven Soderbergh (of Traffic fame) movie today. It is a psychological thriller starring Rooney Mara (from the Hollywood version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), Jude Law, and Catherine Zeta-Jones. The movie deals with difficult subjects like clinical depression and the various drugs that are used to treat it. It addresses the nexus between pharma companies and psychiatrists, and the severe side effects associated with antidepressants. Mara plays the wife of a white collar criminal who is suffering from severe depression and attempts to kill herself. Law is her psychiatrist who prescribes a newly-approved antidepressant to her on the patient's suggestion. As the movie progresses, a lot of things are different from what they initially seem to be. At the end, I found it to be a taut and well-made movie, one that made me more skeptical about antidepressants than I originally was before I watched the movie.

Thanks for the views that i have been harping on for years here. The peesichiatrists - ever since they were recognized as regular docs and Insurance companies treated them on par with the regular docs, they have gone bonkers and greedy.

Show me ONE patient who walks out of a Psychiatrist's office without a prescription. These days they slap the patients with MULTIPLE drugs - with latest costly drugs as much as possible.

These people are competing with used car dealers in image and soon with drug peddlers on the street.

And any and all psych drugs are ADDICTIVE. Don't get into them unless you have run your course with a PsyCHOLOgist first. Let HIM say that you need medicine, and only then you may want to go to a Peesichiatrist.

[quote="Marathadi-Saamiyaar"]

panini press wrote:I saw this Steven Soderbergh (of Traffic fame) movie today. It is a psychological thriller starring Rooney Mara (from the Hollywood version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), Jude Law, and Catherine Zeta-Jones. The movie deals with difficult subjects like clinical depression and the various drugs that are used to treat it. It addresses the nexus between pharma companies and psychiatrists, and the severe side effects associated with antidepressants.


Thanks for the views that i have been harping on for years here. The peesichiatrists - ever since they were recognized as regular docs and Insurance companies treated them on par with the regular docs, they have gone bonkers and greedy.

Show me ONE patient who walks out of a Psychiatrist's office without a prescription. These days they slap the patients with MULTIPLE drugs - with latest costly drugs as much as possible.

These people are competing with used car dealers in image and soon with drug peddlers on the street.

And any and all psych drugs are ADDICTIVE. Don't get into them unless you have run your course with a PsyCHOLOgist first. Let HIM say that you need medicine, and only then you may want to go to a Peesichiatrist.

I'm amazed at how decisive your opinions are. The only other option you suggest in lieu of psych drugs is to see a psychologist. Not sure how feasible it is for majority of people.

I have a friend and a close family member on anti- depressants. If it were 20-30 years ago, they both would have been gone by now. One attempted suicide, survived, got on a med, and is thriving now. My friend, got on meds, and is fairly functional. She made several attempts to get off, more because of the taboo associated with it than anything else, had relapses, and had to go back on them.

I also know of an elderly relative in India started on an anti-depressant, who committed suicide within a month.

So I really don't know what to make of those.

[quote="ashaNirasha"]

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

panini press wrote:I saw this Steven Soderbergh (of Traffic fame) movie today. It is a psychological thriller starring Rooney Mara (from the Hollywood version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), Jude Law, and Catherine Zeta-Jones. The movie deals with difficult subjects like clinical depression and the various drugs that are used to treat it. It addresses the nexus between pharma companies and psychiatrists, and the severe side effects associated with antidepressants.


Thanks for the views that i have been harping on for years here. The peesichiatrists - ever since they were recognized as regular docs and Insurance companies treated them on par with the regular docs, they have gone bonkers and greedy.

Show me ONE patient who walks out of a Psychiatrist's office without a prescription. These days they slap the patients with MULTIPLE drugs - with latest costly drugs as much as possible.

These people are competing with used car dealers in image and soon with drug peddlers on the street.

And any and all psych drugs are ADDICTIVE. Don't get into them unless you have run your course with a PsyCHOLOgist first. Let HIM say that you need medicine, and only then you may want to go to a Peesichiatrist.

I'm amazed at how decisive your opinions are. The only other option you suggest in lieu of psych drugs is to see a psychologist. Not sure how feasible it is for majority of people.

I have a friend and a close family member on anti- depressants. If it were 20-30 years ago, they both would have been gone by now. One attempted suicide, survived, got on a med, and is thriving now. My friend, got on meds, and is fairly functional. She made several attempts to get off, more because of the taboo associated with it than anything else, had relapses, and had to go back on them.

I also know of an elderly relative in India started on an anti-depressant, who committed suicide within a month.

So I really don't know what to make of those.

read carefully....what I wrote. People have a tendency to tell their PCP that they want something for their "depression" (they have already self-diagnosed). PCP gives them to make them happy....soon, this pill does not work/give me different, etc leads the patient to the peesichiatrist and voila....the pt is slammed with a bunch of oozy pills.

All I am saying first talk to a Psychologist who does exactly the same thing but a lot better in analyzing the patient. If he can't he himself will suggest to the PCP to send the patient to a Peesichiatrist. In my view, 1/2 patients are not depressed - as they have a valid reason to be "feel" depressed - and unnecessarily hooked on to the pills.

My views and opinions are decisive bcz of my 103 yrs of experience...

ashaNirasha wrote:I'm amazed at how decisive your opinions are. The only other option you suggest in lieu of psych drugs is to see a psychologist. Not sure how feasible it is for majority of people.

I have a friend and a close family member on anti- depressants. If it were 20-30 years ago, they both would have been gone by now. One attempted suicide, survived, got on a med, and is thriving now. My friend, got on meds, and is fairly functional. She made several attempts to get off, more because of the taboo associated with it than anything else, had relapses, and had to go back on them.

I also know of an elderly relative in India started on an anti-depressant, who committed suicide within a month.

So I really don't know what to make of those.

great post asha. you echo my sentiments. i was hesitant to post because i myself take an AD (which i plan to stop in the near future). the guy who committed suicide after a month of starting an AD -- starting an AD should be done under careful supervision for it is a precarious period. for people who genuinely need ADs, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. i know several people, including a few in my extended family, who have benefited from them. in my case, i was misdiagnosed (yes that too is a scourge in this industry).

p.s. you should post more often.

[quote="Huzefa Kapasi"]

ashaNirasha wrote:

p.s. you should post more often.

I'd like to but forums don't work at my speed.

And this forum is not easy to catch up to unlike Sulekha CH. It is much harder to wade through. Some body bring the reverse chronological order already.

ashaNirasha wrote:And this forum is not easy to catch up to unlike Sulekha CH. It is much harder to wade through. Some body bring the reverse chronological order already.

Unfortunately, that can't be done on Forumotion at the post level -- only threads will be listed. I had that figured out on a different forum (ch.chaikaapi.com), but people are happy with what we have here.

[quote="Marathadi-Saamiyaar"]

ashaNirasha wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

panini press wrote:I saw this Steven Soderbergh (of Traffic fame) movie today. It is a psychological thriller starring Rooney Mara (from the Hollywood version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), Jude Law, and Catherine Zeta-Jones. The movie deals with difficult subjects like clinical depression and the various drugs that are used to treat it. It addresses the nexus between pharma companies and psychiatrists, and the severe side effects associated with antidepressants.


Thanks for the views that i have been harping on for years here. The peesichiatrists - ever since they were recognized as regular docs and Insurance companies treated them on par with the regular docs, they have gone bonkers and greedy.

Show me ONE patient who walks out of a Psychiatrist's office without a prescription. These days they slap the patients with MULTIPLE drugs - with latest costly drugs as much as possible.

These people are competing with used car dealers in image and soon with drug peddlers on the street.

And any and all psych drugs are ADDICTIVE. Don't get into them unless you have run your course with a PsyCHOLOgist first. Let HIM say that you need medicine, and only then you may want to go to a Peesichiatrist.

I'm amazed at how decisive your opinions are. The only other option you suggest in lieu of psych drugs is to see a psychologist. Not sure how feasible it is for majority of people.

I have a friend and a close family member on anti- depressants. If it were 20-30 years ago, they both would have been gone by now. One attempted suicide, survived, got on a med, and is thriving now. My friend, got on meds, and is fairly functional. She made several attempts to get off, more because of the taboo associated with it than anything else, had relapses, and had to go back on them.

I also know of an elderly relative in India started on an anti-depressant, who committed suicide within a month.

So I really don't know what to make of those.

read carefully....what I wrote. People have a tendency to tell their PCP that they want something for their "depression" (they have already self-diagnosed). PCP gives them to make them happy....soon, this pill does not work/give me different, etc leads the patient to the peesichiatrist and voila....the pt is slammed with a bunch of oozy pills.

All I am saying first talk to a Psychologist who does exactly the same thing but a lot better in analyzing the patient. If he can't he himself will suggest to the PCP to send the patient to a Peesichiatrist. In my view, 1/2 patients are not depressed - as they have a valid reason to be "feel" depressed - and unnecessarily hooked on to the pills.

My views and opinions are decisive bcz of my 103 yrs of experience...

So no drugs....only vibuthi puff treatment????

I know. But that won't keep me from whining forever.

Sorry, this is not the last time you are going to hear about it.

[quote="Huzefa Kapasi"]

ashaNirasha wrote:I'm amazed at how decisive your opinions are. The only other option you suggest in lieu of psych drugs is to see a psychologist. Not sure how feasible it is for majority of people.

I have a friend and a close family member on anti- depressants. If it were 20-30 years ago, they both would have been gone by now. One attempted suicide, survived, got on a med, and is thriving now. My friend, got on meds, and is fairly functional. She made several attempts to get off, more because of the taboo associated with it than anything else, had relapses, and had to go back on them.

I also know of an elderly relative in India started on an anti-depressant, who committed suicide within a month.

So I really don't know what to make of those.

great post asha. you echo my sentiments. i was hesitant to post because i myself take an AD (which i plan to stop in the near future). the guy who committed suicide after a month of starting an AD -- starting an AD should be done under careful supervision for it is a precarious period. for people who genuinely need ADs, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. i know several people, including a few in my extended family, who have benefited from them. in my case, i was misdiagnosed (yes that too is a scourge in this industry).

** hey, i think it's remarkable to step out and state that you take ADs. Because of the social stigma attached to a visit to the psychiatrist few people talk about these things openly. about the posters - one formed his opinion on the subject after watching a hollywood cinema and the other should be captured and quarantined for his own safety; i'd ignore them. no one can deny that one's emotional condition determines much of our physical health and cognitive well-being. psychiatry training should be rigorous with an emphasis on neurobiology and pharamacology. i hope that we have brighter people going into psychiatry and that we can develop more potent drugs and technology over the next few years. i also think that psychiatrists should be better-paid and respected because what they do is not easy. i could never do it myself, it's not emotionally rewarding, the mind is still a mystery. even neurologists know very very little. they sound smart because they are always talking about the spinal tracts or cortical layers, and the imaging - that's just anatomy and some pathology, but they actually do very little for their stroke patients or multiple sclerosis patients. psychiatrists don't even try to look smart or act smart or even be smart! this is what dinner-time discussions with my uncle are all about. i'm going off-topic but again, i just wanted to say, you're awesome.

[quote="pravalika nanda"]

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

ashaNirasha wrote:I'm amazed at how decisive your opinions are. The only other option you suggest in lieu of psych drugs is to see a psychologist. Not sure how feasible it is for majority of people.

I have a friend and a close family member on anti- depressants. If it were 20-30 years ago, they both would have been gone by now. One attempted suicide, survived, got on a med, and is thriving now. My friend, got on meds, and is fairly functional. She made several attempts to get off, more because of the taboo associated with it than anything else, had relapses, and had to go back on them.

I also know of an elderly relative in India started on an anti-depressant, who committed suicide within a month.

So I really don't know what to make of those.

great post asha. you echo my sentiments. i was hesitant to post because i myself take an AD (which i plan to stop in the near future). the guy who committed suicide after a month of starting an AD -- starting an AD should be done under careful supervision for it is a precarious period. for people who genuinely need ADs, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. i know several people, including a few in my extended family, who have benefited from them. in my case, i was misdiagnosed (yes that too is a scourge in this industry).

** hey, i think it's remarkable to step out and state that you take ADs. Because of the social stigma attached to a visit to the psychiatrist few people talk about these things openly. about the posters - one formed his opinion on the subject after watching a hollywood cinema and the other should be captured and quarantined for his own safety; i'd ignore them. no one can deny that one's emotional condition determines much of our physical health and cognitive well-being. psychiatry training should be rigorous with an emphasis on neurobiology and pharamacology. i hope that we have brighter people going into psychiatry and that we can develop more potent drugs and technology over the next few years. i also think that psychiatrists should be better-paid and respected because what they do is not easy. i could never do it myself, it's not emotionally rewarding, the mind is still a mystery. even neurologists know very very little. they sound smart because they are always talking about the spinal tracts or cortical layers, and the imaging - that's just anatomy and some pathology, but they actually do very little for their stroke patients or multiple sclerosis patients. psychiatrists don't even try to look smart or act smart or even be smart! this is what dinner-time discussions with my uncle are all about. i'm going off-topic but again, i just wanted to say, you're awesome.

Janice, is your uncle a shrink?

pravalika nanda wrote:hey, i think it's remarkable to step out and state that you take ADs.

I agree -- that takes a lot of courage and dignity.

pravalika nanda wrote:about the posters - one formed his opinion on the subject after watching a hollywood cinema

If it sounds like I formed a definitive opinion on antidepressants based on the movie, that is because I did not want to give away any of the "suspense" in this thriller. I think they are useful, and I know people who benefited from them. But I also worry about the marketing of ADs to the general public through advertisements, and the tactics that pharma companies use to push their drugs.

pravalika nanda wrote:the mind is still a mystery.

Exactly, and that's precisely the reason to maintain a high degree of vigilance about the side effects of these drugs. When we don't understand very much of how something works, we ought to be more careful than usual about tinkering with it in any way.

pravalika nanda wrote:
** hey, i think it's remarkable to step out and state that you take ADs. Because of the social stigma attached to a visit to the psychiatrist few people talk about these things openly. about the posters - one formed his opinion on the subject after watching a hollywood cinema and the other should be captured and quarantined for his own safety; i'd ignore them. no one can deny that one's emotional condition determines much of our physical health and cognitive well-being. psychiatry training should be rigorous with an emphasis on neurobiology and pharamacology. i hope that we have brighter people going into psychiatry and that we can develop more potent drugs and technology over the next few years. i also think that psychiatrists should be better-paid and respected because what they do is not easy. i could never do it myself, it's not emotionally rewarding, the mind is still a mystery. even neurologists know very very little. they sound smart because they are always talking about the spinal tracts or cortical layers, and the imaging - that's just anatomy and some pathology, but they actually do very little for their stroke patients or multiple sclerosis patients. psychiatrists don't even try to look smart or act smart or even be smart! this is what dinner-time discussions with my uncle are all about. i'm going off-topic but again, i just wanted to say, you're awesome.

you too are awesome pravu for making this post. have a great day (whenever you read this).

pravalika nanda wrote:

So when are you finishing - 2014 ?

[quote="pravalika nanda"]

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

ashaNirasha wrote:I'm amazed at how decisive your opinions are. The only other option you suggest in lieu of psych drugs is to see a psychologist. Not sure how feasible it is for majority of people.

I have a friend and a close family member on anti- depressants. If it were 20-30 years ago, they both would have been gone by now. One attempted suicide, survived, got on a med, and is thriving now. My friend, got on meds, and is fairly functional. She made several attempts to get off, more because of the taboo associated with it than anything else, had relapses, and had to go back on them.

I also know of an elderly relative in India started on an anti-depressant, who committed suicide within a month.

So I really don't know what to make of those.

great post asha. you echo my sentiments. i was hesitant to post because i myself take an AD (which i plan to stop in the near future). the guy who committed suicide after a month of starting an AD -- starting an AD should be done under careful supervision for it is a precarious period. for people who genuinely need ADs, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. i know several people, including a few in my extended family, who have benefited from them. in my case, i was misdiagnosed (yes that too is a scourge in this industry).

** hey, i think it's remarkable to step out and state that you take ADs. Because of the social stigma attached to a visit to the psychiatrist few people talk about these things openly. about the posters - one formed his opinion on the subject after watching a hollywood cinema and the other should be captured and quarantined for his own safety; i'd ignore them. no one can deny that one's emotional condition determines much of our physical health and cognitive well-being. psychiatry training should be rigorous with an emphasis on neurobiology and pharamacology. i hope that we have brighter people going into psychiatry and that we can develop more potent drugs and technology over the next few years. i also think that psychiatrists should be better-paid and respected because what they do is not easy. i could never do it myself, it's not emotionally rewarding, the mind is still a mystery. even neurologists know very very little. they sound smart because they are always talking about the spinal tracts or cortical layers, and the imaging - that's just anatomy and some pathology, but they actually do very little for their stroke patients or multiple sclerosis patients. psychiatrists don't even try to look smart or act smart or even be smart! this is what dinner-time discussions with my uncle are all about. i'm going off-topic but again, i just wanted to say, you're awesome.

Having been in the healthcare industy for a long time and having had some of my own family members on antidepressants in the past, it is my opinion that these drugs have a place in treating sleep disorders (snoring, narcolepsy etc), eating disorders (obesity, anorexia, binging etc), chronic depression, ADD and so on. Clinical studies have shown their efficacy against placebos, so they are medically proven.

The social stigma attached to those who use these drugs is quite unfortunate. And equally unfortunate is how patients who go to see a psychiatrist or psychologist are labeled mental. It is for this reason such patients make their visits a secret similar to those who visit an oncologist. People who make light of both the medical practitioners and the patients aren't conversant in the subject.

Unfortunately any antidepressant loses its efficacy after continued use and requires augmentation or switching to a different one. And the risk of addiction is also there. Most of all, the side effects ranging from hypertension to heart attacks or strokes. That's why a neurologist is often consulted along with a psychiatrist in major treatments.

However, I do concede to the argument that the two biggest lobbies, pharma and health insurance, have aggressively promoted the proliferation and use of antidepressants such that their prescription to even minor cases has become common place.

goodcitizn wrote:However, I do concede to the argument that the two biggest lobbies, pharma and health insurance, have aggressively promoted the proliferation and use of antidepressants such that their prescription to even minor cases has become common place.

i agree with you. valium was promoted as "mother's little helper." the implication being that it was a safe anxiolytic (calming drug) for stressed out mothers. a whole generation got addicted to it. later it turned out to be one of the nastiest drugs around and this information was there with the inventors of the drug but they had suppressed it. it resulted in a class action suit in UK and a parliamentary debate but the pharma companies were never taken to task -- just that docs in UK are now hesitant to prescribe benzodiazepines as easily (not so in the US and elsewhere).

with respec to ADs, ADs do effect organs in ways we still do not understand but for those who need ADs, there really isn't an alternative and at the end of of the day, it is a trade off -- it's true for all drugs for all drugs have side effects.

HK: One of my neighbors got addicted to Valium. Finally he got off his addiction, his wife claimed and laughed. "These days he smokes a joint off and on since he got the prescription for medical marijuana!" Go figure.

yeah prescription marijuana is an irony. same for alcohol, which is a legal drug. that said, i am not in favour of banning them for there are people who drink and smoke in moderation and why should they feel deprived? cigarettes and tobacco should be banned. maybe marijuana too if it is smoked. it's a grey area for me actually.

p.s drinking marijuana as the gults and hindians do (bhang) or eating it like the bongs do (bhang sondesh) should be OK.

How's the drinking/quitting, hk?

i stopped drinking in november last year. i don't drink now but i do drink once in a while as i used to before (before i made it a daily habit a few years ago). as for quitting meds. -- i am not in a rush to be honest. much of my depression was alcohol related and not meds. related. and while i was drinking, my doc. even made me up my AD dose to treat my depression once -- what a blunder in retrospect for i should have just stopped drinking. last november when i got depressed, i did not go to my doc for i knew he would increase or change my med. -- i just stopped drinking. anyway its best to get off meds now -- i will soon. i keep postponing it for tapering meds. will again make me depressed, albeit temporarily. the doctor wants me to continue them for life, ha ha.

i forgot to add in my above post: Yeah. I never claimed my life was normal.

Have not seen the movie, can't comment.

I have posted a lot about this. MEDS can/do have an important role in Management Plans (can be life-saving too). There are always side effects- but to connect bad experiences based on the experiences of some is not prudent. (and people tend to blame meds for everything too).

* Fight the stigmas about mental conditions/illnesses..support families who are suffering..join us who are doing the best we can to speak up/minimize/remove them.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:i forgot to add in my above post: Yeah. I never claimed my life was normal.

lol

Recently, someone wanted my opinion on the wisdom of going on AD's. This is what I told them:

1. Fact: Pharma-Dr. nexus, junkets and quotas on writing prescriptions are all too real.
2. Fact: High likelihood of dependency developing for really long term.
3. Fact: Too many lazy dr.'s who see nothing wrong with a heavy dose of plausible deniability that write out prescriptions at a hair-trigger.
4. Fact: DSM reads like 99% of global population are subject to not one but multiple disorders.
5. Fact: Impossible really, to wean off AD's or other meds with a nice clean break - it is messy like a bad ex-.

Having said all that, IF you do find yourself beyond the deep end - hear voices, see things and feel terribly anxious/afraid, fight your thanatos and imagine a rock concert and flinging yourself from the stage onto the audience who will carry you mosh-pit style around for the rest of your life and submit to the daily meds regimen.

please don't advise anyone in future. you will do people more harm than good. as a person taking ADs, let me disabuse you of some of your incorrect, and dangerous, opinions. needless to say, having no knowledge of how these meds work or having tried them (not that it is necessary), you are quick to form opinions about a subject which is already burdened with unwarranted social stigmas.

atcg wrote:1. Fact: Pharma-Dr. nexus, junkets and quotas on writing prescriptions are all too real.

correct. this is true of ALL branches of medicine. would you suggest people stop taking meds to control hypertension, diabetes or heart problems or taking antibiotics because of this nexus? just because a mental illness if not tangible (you cannot even empathize with sufferers to be honest), it does not mean that is NOT an illness like any other physiological illness. it does not mean that you can treat it with yoga. it does not mean you can (or have license to suggest to) treat it with uplifting music, snake charmers, black magic or a gluten free diet.

2. Fact: High likelihood of dependency developing for really long term.

C R A P. where are you getting your information from? i'm really curious -- do respond. modern ADs have no dependency or addiction. they have withdrawal symptoms that last a few weeks. some old medicines like benzodiazepines apart but even with them, it appears that withdrawals are protracted because all studies were from "self-selected" populations; a majority have little difficulty withdrawing from them or at least it is not documented. i have seen several people stop ADs (i mean SSRIs in particular) -- a walk in the park. some stopped it to get back on them after a relapse; some stopped them to complete their term of pregnancy.

3. Fact: Too many lazy dr.'s who see nothing wrong with a heavy dose of plausible deniability that write out prescriptions at a hair-trigger.

i can't understand this florid prose. if you are saying doctors over prescribe, you are right. to all patients: don't be a lazy bum. search on the internet before popping a pill. it's a new, connected world today. get proactive with your doctor. your doctor will listen to you. if he doesn't, change your doctor. after all you know your history better than the doc. i have learnt this the very hard way.

4. Fact: DSM reads like 99% of global population are subject to not one but multiple disorders.

so what? nobody is forcing you to take a pill.

5. Fact: Impossible really, to wean off AD's or other meds with a nice clean break - it is messy like a bad ex-.

C R A P. please don't say this to anyone suffering ever again. or hang that, if they know you even a tiny bit, they won't listen to your crap.

Having said all that, IF you do find yourself beyond the deep end - hear voices, see things and feel terribly anxious/afraid, fight your thanatos and imagine a rock concert and flinging yourself from the stage onto the audience who will carry you mosh-pit style around for the rest of your life and submit to the daily meds regimen.

can't understand florid prose. if you are saying people who take these meds are zombies, while i have been insulted today. meh, who cares.

atcg wrote:Recently, someone wanted my opinion on the wisdom of going on AD's. This is what I told them:

1. Fact: Pharma-Dr. nexus, junkets and quotas on writing prescriptions are all too real.
2. Fact: High likelihood of dependency developing for really long term.
3. Fact: Too many lazy dr.'s who see nothing wrong with a heavy dose of plausible deniability that write out prescriptions at a hair-trigger.
4. Fact: DSM reads like 99% of global population are subject to not one but multiple disorders.
5. Fact: Impossible really, to wean off AD's or other meds with a nice clean break - it is messy like a bad ex-.

Having said all that, IF you do find yourself beyond the deep end - hear voices, see things and feel terribly anxious/afraid, fight your thanatos and imagine a rock concert and flinging yourself from the stage onto the audience who will carry you mosh-pit style around for the rest of your life and submit to the daily meds regimen.

Or they could all talk to Dr. Frasier Crane.

Hello Seattle, he is listening.

let me count the number of know-it-alls on this thread: 1, 2,...will come back later when assorted canines have posted

Propagandhi711 wrote:let me count the number of know-it-alls on this thread: 1, 2,...will come back later when assorted canines have posted

You need a pill.

There is no 1,2,3, know-it-alls. There is only 1, 1, 1, ....

Huzefa Kapasi wrote: i have seen several people stop ADs (i mean SSRIs in particular) -- a walk in the park. some stopped it to get back on them after a relapse; some stopped them to complete their term of pregnancy.

in both my examples above, folks went back to their SSRI. this will send out a wrong message to you (atcg). here are 2 examples of people i have interacted with and whose recoveries i have witnessed. these examples are from the e-world:

(i) guy took an SSRI to combat depression that resulted from stopping opiates (he was addicted to opiates). the SSRI lifted his depression. after 8 months, while vacationing, he ran out of pills and decided to stop the SSRI. he suffered withdrawal symptoms that made him join an e-forum. the withdraws abated in a few weeks. he posted of and on for a year -- med free. then he left

(ii) guy took an SSRI to fight alcohol PAWS (post acute withdrawal symptoms) that included black depression. after 2 years he felt he did not need it. he joined an e-forum, sought support and weaned off of it. he hung around for 6 months in the forum, med free, and then left.

and i have read countless stories on such forums from people stopping SSRIs without much trouble or lingering difficulties. it is only people with lingering symptoms of withdrawal who come back (or join) to post. there aren't any such people. i was mighty scared to start my SSRI because of fears of withdrawls and i postponed it for 2 weeks. but the black black depression i was in ('cos of abrupt benzo. cessation -- that i did not know then) convinced me that no withdrawal could be worse then this. so for people like us, withdrawal symptoms of SSRIs are a JOKE. maybe not for you guys.

depression cannot be gauged by stages or severity like physiological illnesses can be. i cannot even describe you what it feels like to be severely depressed. if you have ever had a bad acid trip (and very few have -- bad example) -- that is what the worst of depression is like -- IRRATIONAL fear, terror. i know even flimsy things like "i do not feel happy" are treated as depression by doctors.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:let me count the number of know-it-alls on this thread: 1, 2,...will come back later when assorted canines have posted

You need a pill.

There is no 1,2,3, know-it-alls. There is only 1, 1, 1, ....

not so....

All I know is, it can ruin families.

all things said, i am a bit grateful i got depressed, for whatever reasons (acid, benzos), time and again in my life. if i could live my life again, i'd eschew the substances that caused me depression. but depression also made me a humbler person. depression is always welcome in my life (not much left of it anyway) as long as it promises to be transient.

Vidya Bagchi wrote:All I know is, it can ruin families.

yes this is true (by statistics for there is still no identifiable gene).

HK, I do not mean to belittle your beliefs. The field is a bit too complex for reducing it to specific case advice. The broad evidence suggests physical dependence and the longer the regimen, the stronger the dependence. Thanks for the examples - there may be nuances here that I have missed in cursory reading. Good luck with your health.

atcg wrote:HK, I do not mean to belittle your beliefs. The field is a bit too complex for reducing it to specific case advice. The broad evidence suggests physical dependence and the longer the regimen, the stronger the dependence. Thanks for the examples - there may be nuances here that I have missed in cursory reading. Good luck with your health.

you can verily belittle my beliefs for that is what such is for. thanks for the good luck for my health -- i need it. i am not seeking compassion or empathy and that should not cloud your posts for i am belittling your "beliefs" and i want you to belittle mine.

The field is a bit too complex for reducing it to specific case advice.

yes. then please tell us in what context did you give the above mentioned advice to your friends (and us).

The broad evidence suggests physical dependence and the longer the regimen, the stronger the dependence.

stop going broad. you are assuming, a) your friend will get addicted (not true), b) he will need to take it to for life (if he really needs the AD, he might have to take it for life* -- so how does going broad help him? the broad fact is that after a 6 month or year or remission, he can quit the AD safely and get back on it with the same results if he relapses. your point?

* the only useful advice you could have given him is this (as GC nicely mentioned upthread) -- an AD might stop working after a few years and then require a higher dosage or a change of AD. doesn't happen to all. but if it does to you, then it'd be better you started going to church.

HK...use google scholar and look up physical dependence vs addiction - the debates in the dsm drafting committee, evidence from a British consulting psychiatrist. I am not very interested in having a 'debate' about this. You are welcome to your beliefs.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

atcg wrote:HK, I do not mean to belittle your beliefs. The field is a bit too complex for reducing it to specific case advice. The broad evidence suggests physical dependence and the longer the regimen, the stronger the dependence. Thanks for the examples - there may be nuances here that I have missed in cursory reading. Good luck with your health.

you can verily belittle my beliefs for that is what such is for. thanks for the good luck for my health -- i need it. i am not seeking compassion or empathy and that should not cloud your posts for i am belittling your "beliefs" and i want you to belittle mine.

The field is a bit too complex for reducing it to specific case advice.

yes. then please tell us in what context did you give the above mentioned advice to your friends (and us).

The broad evidence suggests physical dependence and the longer the regimen, the stronger the dependence.

stop going broad. you are assuming, a) your friend will get addicted (not true), b) he will need to take it to for life (if he really needs the AD, he might have to take it for life* -- so how does going broad help him? the broad fact is that after a 6 month or year or remission, he can quit the AD safely and get back on it with the same results if he relapses. your point?

* the only useful advice you could have given him is this (as GC nicely mentioned upthread) -- an AD might stop working after a few years and then require a higher dosage or a change of AD.

HK, have you looked into testosterone therapy or is that a different tack from your issues? I know several guys have been prescribed that injection for mild depression like symptoms in their 40s

atcg wrote:HK...use google scholar and look up physical dependence vs addiction - the debates in the dsm drafting committee, evidence from a British consulting psychiatrist. I am not very interested in having a 'debate' about this. You are welcome to your beliefs.

tell me the gist. i will take your word.

Propagandhi711 wrote:HK, have you looked into testosterone therapy or is that a different tack from your issues? I know several guys have been prescribed that injection for mild depression like symptoms in their 40s

thanksss. i will look this up as soon as i have finished my light therapy sessions to cure depression.

atcg wrote:HK...use google scholar and look up physical dependence vs addiction - the debates in the dsm drafting committee, evidence from a British consulting psychiatrist. I am not very interested in having a 'debate' about this. You are welcome to your beliefs.

xlation: I tried to come across as a virile expert in a sensitive area where I have no real expertise and got called out. I'll try to save face now by dismissing your experience & research as "beliefs" while my internet research and prejudices continue to be projected as solid.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

atcg wrote:HK...use google scholar and look up physical dependence vs addiction - the debates in the dsm drafting committee, evidence from a British consulting psychiatrist. I am not very interested in having a 'debate' about this. You are welcome to your beliefs.

tell me the gist. i will take your word.

i'll wait for you. but from what i understand (a layman's perspective): addiction and physical dependence are indistinguishable in symptomology. the difference is in the craving. if i stop smoking, i am de-addicted. but the craving might never die (which might trigger the addiction again). with ADs, once you are over the withdrawals, the is NEVER a craving for there never was a craving in the first place (provided your anxiety/depression is in remission). there has to be distinction between craving (psychological) and addiction (physiological).

Propagandhi711 wrote:
xlation: I tried to come across as a virile expert in a sensitive area where I have no real expertise and got called out. I'll try to save face now by dismissing your experience & research as "beliefs" while my internet research and prejudices continue to be projected as solid.

xlation back: I, Propa, have no skin in this game either way but like to be an agent provocateur simply coz I can be.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
i'll wait for you. but from what i understand (a layman's perspective): addiction and physical dependence are indistinguishable in symptomology. the difference is in the craving. if i stop smoking, i am de-addicted. but the craving might never die (which might trigger the addiction again). with ADs, once you are over the withdrawals, the is NEVER a craving for there never was a craving in the first place (provided your anxiety/depression is in remission). there has to be distinction between craving (psychological) and addiction (physiological).

HK, firstly caveats: I am just an informed citizen just like you. Just to be clear, we are not researchers in this area and there are all sorts of competing claims with nice little $ signs attached. This is the context.

Now, here is my understanding: There are neurochemicals and an imbalance caused by whatever reason - genetic, compulsive behavior or other factors result in mental illness - the illness can be of different grades and different effects. You could have a mild case of the 'blues', be a bit more emotional at times of stress etc. There can also be cases where the mind has crossed the rubicon, so to speak, and get into a state of perpetual state of disrepair - a fairly stead state of under/over production of certain fluids in the cranium. This is the point, I define, as the line where professional psychiatric help is a necessity.

The action of SSRI's, or the various generations of psychoactive drugs are not firmly established - there are very nice researchers with finely granular statistical and other tools that are able to make 'educated guesses' about the drug action - these go through up's and down's for various theories.

All drugs whether heroin, alcohol, nicotine or any of the psychoactive drugs cause to a lesser or more degree, some form of physical dependence. This is the effect of the drug in the system to co-exist with the naturally occurring chemicals in the body to achieve a certain state of equilibrium. There are studies that have established, specifically for psychoactive drugs treating depression, that physical dependence on the drug exists in a significant percentage of the patient population - hence the general public's so-called *misconception* that they are 'addictive' (which is a bad word denoting the craving you talk about). Physical dependence is the body's inability to regain that state of equilibrium which was established when the drug was coexisting with the neurochemicals.

Finally another caveat - I hope I have explained my 'beliefs' to you in as much detail I possibly can. It is your prerogative to 'belittle' it or do what you want with it. This is my last post on the subject. Adios.

To all my fellow Internet Doctors - I have only one thing to say in one sentence:

First consult a PsyCHOLOgist, and if he refers to a Psychiatrist then it will be a double confirmation on the diagnosis.

Thathasthu

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:ADs do effect organs in ways we still do not understand...

"affect," not "effect."

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:ADs do effect organs in ways we still do not understand...

"affect," not "effect."

Good diagnosis!

Propagandhi711 wrote:
HK, have you looked into testosterone therapy or is that a different tack from your issues? I know several guys have been prescribed that injection for mild depression like symptoms in their 40s

After "the injection" KH will get a woody and walk around Kokatta with smiles from women. That will make him happy and pscyhologically strong - curing him of his depression and anxiety.

That is how Testosterone works on Depression.

P.S. that is the new fashion drug due to TV ads. FDA makes only "recommendations" but providers can use any drug for any illness as an "off-label" use. Testosterone is one of that and if someone sues the there is nothing to back the provider.

atcg wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
i'll wait for you. but from what i understand (a layman's perspective): addiction and physical dependence are indistinguishable in symptomology. the difference is in the craving. if i stop smoking, i am de-addicted. but the craving might never die (which might trigger the addiction again). with ADs, once you are over the withdrawals, the is NEVER a craving for there never was a craving in the first place (provided your anxiety/depression is in remission). there has to be distinction between craving (psychological) and addiction (physiological).

HK, firstly caveats: I am just an informed citizen just like you. Just to be clear, we are not researchers in this area and there are all sorts of competing claims with nice little $ signs attached. This is the context.

Now, here is my understanding: There are neurochemicals and an imbalance caused by whatever reason - genetic, compulsive behavior or other factors result in mental illness - the illness can be of different grades and different effects. You could have a mild case of the 'blues', be a bit more emotional at times of stress etc. There can also be cases where the mind has crossed the rubicon, so to speak, and get into a state of perpetual state of disrepair - a fairly stead state of under/over production of certain fluids in the cranium. This is the point, I define, as the line where professional psychiatric help is a necessity.

The action of SSRI's, or the various generations of psychoactive drugs are not firmly established - there are very nice researchers with finely granular statistical and other tools that are able to make 'educated guesses' about the drug action - these go through up's and down's for various theories.

All drugs whether heroin, alcohol, nicotine or any of the psychoactive drugs cause to a lesser or more degree, some form of physical dependence. This is the effect of the drug in the system to co-exist with the naturally occurring chemicals in the body to achieve a certain state of equilibrium. There are studies that have established, specifically for psychoactive drugs treating depression, that physical dependence on the drug exists in a significant percentage of the patient population - hence the general public's so-called *misconception* that they are 'addictive' (which is a bad word denoting the craving you talk about). Physical dependence is the body's inability to regain that state of equilibrium which was established when the drug was coexisting with the neurochemicals.

Finally another caveat - I hope I have explained my 'beliefs' to you in as much detail I possibly can. It is your prerogative to 'belittle' it or do what you want with it. This is my last post on the subject. Adios.

ok hear me out in my last post:

(i) if you need the meds you are already at a bit of a disadvantage for not enough research has gone into developing newer ADs as has gone into meds. used to treat cancer (for various reasons). so you are being dished the same meds. from 1950s (the decade of the BIGGEST breakthrough in psychiatry) in newer forms but with lesser side effects (they don't eat your liver, heart as much). but, again, this is true for all drugs but i suspect more for psychotropic drugs.

(ii) you mentioned "chemical imbalance" to support the use of these newer ADs. your intention was otherwise. the fact is that we do not know how they work -- definitely NOT chemical imbalance (read up on the net please). they use heuristics in psychiatry with the accent being on lesser side effects -- that is the strait jacket the pharma industry is caught in for the patent gets beaten by the generics and they have to reinvent the old drug to win back the patent. the mechanism of action of the SSRIs and the (older) TCAs is the same -- enhance serotonin re-uptake. however, the modern ADs are "selective." they don't disturb other neurotransmitters (and organs) as much and, guess what, they demonstrate better efficacy. that is what led the pharma companies to touting them as agents that could restore the "chemical imbalance." a few suits or perhaps the media made them backtrack from advertising them as "drugs that fix chemical imbalance". they work but we don't know HOW. but they work and have lesser side effects than the TCAs.

(iii)

Physical dependence is the body's inability to regain that state of equilibrium which was established when the drug was coexisting with the neurochemicals.

nonsense. SSRIs do not conform to this classification. prove me otherwise. if this is true, how can there be people who have stopped SSRIs and are normal after more than a year? or patients who relapse after 3 years?

doi: 10.1177/0269881104046527
J Psychopharmacol June 2004 vol. 18 no. 2 285-287

enjoy!

[quote="ashaNirasha"]

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

ashaNirasha wrote:

p.s. you should post more often.

I'd like to but forums don't work at my speed.

And this forum is not easy to catch up to unlike Sulekha CH. It is much harder to wade through. Some body bring the reverse chronological order already.

This... I stopped coming to this forum because I find it hard to wade through million and one RaShMan's posts about Akbar and others.