Posted by Alan on November 25, 2002, at 20:35:39
In reply to Re: 5 Days on Lexepro = Efficacy side effects » Alan, posted by Squiggles on November 25, 2002, at 19:55:14
> I'm not sure if you have actually gone there,
> so here is the link of some "credible" reports;
> for government reports the Canadian and British
> sites have more House of Commons debates.
> I think that anyone is free to take any
> drug they like as long as it is legal.
> However, these drugs can give you a very
> surprising cluster of effects after taking
> them for a long time. Perhaps that is worth
> reporting to the public. And once something
> is read, the person can take the information
> or leave it -- just as they can take the information
> you present on ABOUT or leave it, or any other
> place for that matter on the net. Education
> along with your doctor's advice and your own
> experience, may assist in making a rational
> decision about what is and is not the case.
I've been there, conversed with Ray, Rand and others associated with the site. I still see no credible scientific evidence to the broad sweeping claims that seem terribly tabloid.
"Can", "possibly", "perhaps", "tend to", etc appear more often than not and simply can not be considered as evidence that there is somthing inherently evil about bzds - equating them more often than not carelessly with narcotics and other illicit drugs...the implication being clear:
If you're taking these drugs full time, you are already similar if not equated with being a "drug addict".
Misleading and poppycock.
Anecdotal evidence or personal experience is neither scientific or helpfully informative unless it is placed in context and perspective. Unfortunately, the average joe that visits a site such as this is unaware of this other half of the truth. There may be cases of those truly hurt by the drug somewhere in the site if one digs deep enough, but cluttered with so much hyperbole, how is the average person going to ferret those supposedly helful and informative cases out?
The Canadian political debate is just that. Political.
With sites such as these, I don't see any meaningful benefit from fanning flames of perhaps's and maybes' in assessing cost/benefit ratios to the already med phobic anxiety sufferer.
I personally very happy that mine and most other HCP's don't consult sites such as this for *COMPREHENSIVE* information.
More rational and contextual dialogue seems to be contained in comprehensive oversight reports by prestigious assemblages in the least commercially and politically motivated groups such as the World Health Organisation and similar bodies.
What else can be said?