Posted by SLS on April 14, 2004, at 16:04:45
In reply to really ?, posted by linkadge on April 14, 2004, at 9:50:44
> I would think that pulsing AD's would lead to better results.
I don't know what to think.
"Depression" encompasses a wide array of presentations and, perhaps, physiological etiologies as well. Many people posting on PB have described experiencing an improvement within a few days or even hours of their first dose of medication. But it seems to me like the majority do not benefit from taking a traditional antidepressant until they have taken it continuously for at least two weeks. As far as "pulsing" is concerned, I think doctors speak in terms of being on and off drugs for weeks or months at a time, not days. As people justifiably point out, everyone is different. I have certainly read plenty of accounts of people remaining well on an antidepressant for a period of time who decided to discontinue treatment. After relapsing, usually within four months, the same drug proves useless. They have become treatment resistant to the drug due to their prior exposure it. This is not really pulsing, though, but it is worth noting. It is my impression that the vast majority of people suffering from a classic unequivocal moderate to severe endogenous clinical depression persisting for a month or more will not respond to the kind of episodic administration of antidepressants described here.
There is much to be said for homeostasis.
- Scott
poster:SLS
thread:336019
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040412/msgs/336379.html