Posted by stargazer2 on October 18, 2008, at 20:24:06
In reply to Re: Nardil and the f-its..., posted by bulldog2 on October 17, 2008, at 18:16:50
I always thought that depression is considered the primary diagnosis and ADD is secondary to that. Not sure where I heard that but remembered it. What is your source to treat ADD as the primary diagnosis?
Does it make sense for me to stop Nardil and focus (Not easy with ADD) on getting the ADD treated first and then add in an AD if the depressive symptoms recur. I haven't been off an ADD since 1987 with the exception of a few times I decided myself to clear out my system. Usually the longest off an ADD was 4 months or so. But the time on many AD's was no better than off them.
My life has been one ongoing drug trial. I'm only better now since I have made my own recommendations to my doc and hadmoresuccess for a longer period time than allowing them to make all the suggestions for what meds to try next. Goes to show that the docs aren't always the ones to figure things out, especially in cases of longstanding depression or ADD, that was never diagnosed and treated primary to the depression?
Well it has only been 20 years of figuring this out, most recently treating what I have thought is an ADD component to the depression.
Is there a possibility that all I have is ADD???
That would have been too simple for the high paid psychiatrists to figure out, right?
SG
poster:stargazer2
thread:857502
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20081016/msgs/858182.html