Posted by linkadge on December 14, 2005, at 22:05:08
In reply to Re: Dr. Tracy on SSRIs.. » linkadge, posted by Larry Hoover on December 11, 2005, at 10:44:52
>We're arguing a semantic distinction, about our >interpretation of another person's words
>Localized serotinergic activation can be, on a >relative scale, high or low. I am arguing >against a global "elevated serotonin" state, as >postulated by the under-educated Tracy.I see you did not read the link that I put up. The state that SSRI's induce would be very similar to that of an individual who posesses the double short varient of the serotonin transporter gene. Dr. Tracy argues that SSRI's cause depression and suicide. This link that I put up is research showing how lifetime depressive episodes correlate with the serotonin transporter gene. This research supports her theory that taking an SSRI (and thus lowering SERT activity) could cause depression, alcoholism etc.
>We can mess with the brain, with drugs, and >produce unnatural states. Tracy was implying an >innate condition, "excess serotonin", or however >she phrased it, was the underlying etiological >factor in mental diseases of all sorts.That may be. If we discovered the antidepressant effects of Tianeptine beofore that of SSRI's we might have the same hypothesis.
>Whether that's your theory or hers, I disagree. >I don't think anyone knows the mechanism, but it >most certainly won't be as simple as that.Many doctors think that the rem sleep depriving mechanisms are key force in their behavioral effects. Quite a few agents (for instance Surmontil) which have no effect on monoamine uptake, but do reduce REM sleep, are effective antidepressants.
>It's a meaningless phrase. That's my point. It >contributes nothing, except perhaps, hooking the >naive mind.If any drug were capable of mimicing some the catastrophic alterations in cognition an sentience that are evident in old age, I'd like to know about it. For instance, smoking will age you prematurely. Knowing that is not meaningless.
>Which differs so substantially across the >population it is more reasonably a genetic trait >(susceptibility) than a drug effect.I was not the first one to suggest the connection between the subjective effects of antidpressants and LSD. Many experienced LSD users have likened the effects of LSD to antidepressants. Studies show that fluoxetine potentiates the discrimintive stimulus effects of LSD.
See the abstract at:
http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/prozac-lsd.htm
These reports are more than just coincidences. There are biochemical reasons that the drugs can produce similar states of mind. And that is important information, when faced with the task of sorting out some of the behavioral states that have been linked to SSRI use.
>I am an outlier. Me. I've had very bizarre drug >effects, when compared to normalized data. My >bizarre response to a drug demonstrates nothing,
>other than I should avoid the drug.But we are talking about experiences that have happened to more than just one person. We are also talking about experiences that may be partially explained by studies like the one above which show how these two agents can produce similar behavioral states.
>She wants to blame the drug for all aberrant >behaviour. And I'm still waiting for the >explanation part.And I am still waiting for the explaination for how antidepressants actually help depression. Since there is not much of a solid theory for that, I can't pick too many holes in arguing the
negation.>Her generalizations amount to hyperbole without >any reasonable support.
Hyperbole without any reasonable support? We've got two drugs. One inhibits the reuptake of serotonin, and the other increases the uptake of serotonin. Both are "effective antidepressants".
Vitamin C either prevents scurvey, cures scurvey, or neither.
>That is false, bizarre, fear-mongering, >meaningless.Fear mongering, maybe. I see it as a necessary counterballence, in a world of "pop this". After 8 months off of 100mg of zoloft, I am still relearning how to walk properly.
>Oh, but you snipped the part about "the gummy >gooey glossy substance". I thought that was so >relevant.
Like I said. I don't agree with everything she says. But I do agree with her main argument that SSRI's can sometimes induce abnormal and frankly dangerous states of mind.
>This woman makes what amount to emotional >appeals. Her theories contain vague expressions >which can be taken in many ways. There is a >plausibilty to what she says. But nowhere, does >she offer the data, the observations, the >physical evidence, to support even her core >allegations. What baby?Thats not true. For example, she talks about how the worker for Lilly ended up resigning due to her decision to make a firm stance against the safety of SSRI's.
She also referres to studies in which patients given SSRI's reported increased hostility and suicidal behavior.
If forget her name, but she referred to one of the key scientists who was involved in the idenficiation of the serotonin reuptake mechanism, who referred to the SSRI's as monster drugs. These are real people, with real credability who agree with her on different levels.
>As I said earlier, let the data speak for >themselves.Let it.
>No, not that I've seen.
Ok, maybe not the exact same things. But ther "are" very intellegent people who do not agree that these drugs cary the safety that is assumed by most doctors. There are intellegent people who believe that the drugs can induce suicidal thinking and behavior. Do you want to know who some of these people are? There are scientist out there right now who are developing animal models of antidepressant induced mania and rapid cylcing. Some of this research is on www.neuransmitter.net. While Dr. Tracy is extreme. I don't thing she is out of the ballpark.
>Would you kindly present her evidence? I've seen >none. I am totally serious.Well, for starters, she said that SSRI's can induce psychotic states. I mentioned above some information on researchers who are studing the propensity of SSRI's to induce mania. Researchers create links between some of the genes affected by stimulants, and antidepressants, to try and sort out some of the findings. These are obviously *very expensive* studies to undertake, and would not be done if there was indeed "no evidence"
>Perhaps we should agree to disagree?
I am happy with anyone who agrees that the safety of SSRI's is not a closed case.
Linkadge
poster:linkadge
thread:587690
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20051211/msgs/589184.html