![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 38. Go back in thread:
Posted by Chairman_MAO on September 22, 2005, at 21:14:19
In reply to Re: WARNING GEODON 50% TARDIVE DYSKINESIA RISK, posted by xjs7 on September 22, 2005, at 18:38:11
As I jsut said in another post, no one should have to take these things unless it is a LAST DITCH effort.
People should take barbiturates for anxiety before antipsychotics. The only reason they are used so often is beacuse of the drug policy--and because they're a cash cow for pharma companies. Back before they existed, barbs were routinely used with great success for even things like manic psychosis. Opioids are antipsychotic as well, and way safer.
Posted by yxibow on September 23, 2005, at 0:26:06
In reply to My opinion on antipsychotics » xjs7, posted by Chairman_MAO on September 22, 2005, at 21:14:19
> As I jsut said in another post, no one should have to take these things unless it is a LAST DITCH effort.
People with moderate to severe schizophrenia really have no choice but to take antipsychotics, whether they be atypical or old line. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal, and also on Google News in the past few days describing a large NIH study between perphenazine and zyprexa and other atypicals. The opinion was that except for EPS the treatment was similar for schizophrenia. I happen to somewhat disagree, I think there still is a greater risk with the old line antipsychotics for TD but that is up to debate.
If you live in Southern California, and you go walk on the beach in Santa Monica, you will see the people who are not taking antipsychotics. They were let out of the mental hospitals in the 1960s and 1970s when money ran out and the whole system of treating patients changed. Now the beaches of (and I will admit I am a liberal myself but...) the very liberal city of Santa Monica are flooded daily with the homeless, a great deal of whom have schizophreniform disorders. A lot more could be done for them if they got treatment. It is a sad comment on life.>
> People should take barbiturates for anxiety before antipsychotics.Barbiturates were replaced by benzodiazepines for a very good reason. One (and please NOBODY do this at ALL) could swallow part of a jar of Valium and still be on earth tomorrow with some incredible discomfort and hospitalization. Seconal, and you would have an epitaph in the newspaper. They have only limited usage today for specialized conditions.
>>The only reason they are used so often is beacuse of the drug policy--and because they're a cash cow for pharma companies.
The novel atypicals I will agree are expensive on the schizophreniform disorder industry. Schizophreniform disorders cost more than $2 billion US a year, just in this country.But for some people, despite the cost, the atypicals are less harsh on the system and have considerable less EPS. It all depends on the individual.
Some may not have much EPS at all and can take old line drugs like Orap or Mellaril or the whole list of them (although Haldol is the worst example).
But some with schizoaffective disorder, the new line drugs are the only reasonable choice -- a number of people with affective disorders have a greater risk for TD and greater amounts of EPS
>Opioids are antipsychotic as well, and way safer.
Opiods are very experimental and are used by doctors who risk their medical license and malpractice insurance for prescribing medications that are, whether you feel to agree or not, way outside the scope of psychopharmacology. It would be like my psychopharmacologist prescribing Accutane. It just isn't in the general realm of practice.
Posted by tizza on September 23, 2005, at 4:46:23
In reply to My opinion on antipsychotics » xjs7, posted by Chairman_MAO on September 22, 2005, at 21:14:19
I despise anti psychotics. They turn most people into walking vegetables. Everyone is different, but they do work for some.
Posted by med_empowered on September 23, 2005, at 5:18:42
In reply to Re: My opinion on antipsychotics » Chairman_MAO, posted by yxibow on September 23, 2005, at 0:26:06
hey! To the original poster..I am truly sorry that you developed TD; I don't know why you were given Geodon or how severe your symptoms are, but I empathize with your situation and I urge you to try to find someone to help you treat it.
Now about the neuroleptics/antipsychotics...one thing I read that I thought was interesting is that the term "antipsychotic" wasn't coined by psychiatrists or patients; it was coined by the pharmaceutical industry. In the late 1940s, Thorazine was synthesized. It was being used as a pre-operative sedative in the early 50s in Paris when some docs thought that the calming, tranquilizing effect it had on patients could be of use to the institutionalized psychiatric patients of that era. So...patients were given Thorazine. In the actual study, Thorazine was never called an antipsychotic. The docs never claimed that it treated psychosis or restored people to stability. In fact, Deniker, one of the docs in the trial, referred to Thorazine as a "chemical lobotomy;" thorazine was also referred to as a "pharmacological substitute for lobotomy". Patients weren't treated and then released; they were treated and kept in the wards, where the docs and staff were happy that they were quiet and not causing so much trouble. The term "neuroleptic" was coined to describe Thorazine; it means "nerve-seizing," because Thorazine was (rightly) seen as seizing the mind of the patient, making him or her less spontaneous, less emotional, less human. It was also noted at the time Thorazine caused what is now known as EPS; unlike today, though, the docs also noticed that it caused symptoms similar to encephalitis lethargica, a brain-damaging illness that popped up somewhat regularly in the past. Interestingly enough, while someone has encephalitis lethargica, they are act similarly to those treated with Thorazine; after the disease, the brain is often damaged in such a way that the person has involuntary movements for the rest of their lives. So it is with Thorazine and the other antipyshoctics. Anyway, when the decision was made to market Thorazine, it was suddenly transformed from a "chemical lobtomy" into a "revolutionary treatment for insanity," and the drug promptly began a revolution in psychiatry (and society at large). Its worth noting that, until about 1964, Thorazine was believed to work primarily by an unusual form of sedation--"sedation without necrosis"--not through some sort of magical, anti-psychotic action specific to those with schizophrenia. The dopamine theory of schizophrenia was developed after studying how *existing* drugs for schizophrenia worked, not how the minds of those diagnosed with the disorder functioned or mal-fucntioned. The idea that antipsychotics "correct" some sort of "chemical imbalance" is not only weak, its not even an "idea" or "theory" in the truest sense of the word; its based on the observation that the damaging, much-despised drugs given to those with schizophrenia (often against their will) dampen dopamine. So..basically, we don't *know* that dopamine malfunction causes schizophrenia, but we do know that if you dampen dopamine enough you can make a patient shut up and quit making trouble. Now, the atypicals supposedly represent some sort of revolution in the world of psychiatry, but there seem to be two groups of people who benefit most from this supposed "revolution": drug companies and psychiatrists. Drug companies, of course, can now charge outrageous prices for drugs that are only marginally better than the old meds and still claim that they are "on the cutting edge of schizophrenia treatment." Please. They may well be on the "cutting edge" of false advertising and price gouging, but their reformulated Haldols don't represent all that much of an advance in improving the lives of those with schizophrenia. Since the atypicals have been in use, suicide rates in schizophrenia have *not* fallen, employment rates have *not* risen, and the numbers of people recovering has *not* increased--in fact, "recovery" from schizophrenia is viewed, in industrialized nations at least, as impossible; once schizophrenic, always schizophrenic, forever and amen. (In developing countries such as India, this view is rejected--and it appears that many, perhaps most, schizophrenics do in fact recover, with or without high-priced drugs). Then there are the psychiatrists, who are now RXing these expensive, side-effect ridden pills for everything from florid psychosis to mild insomnia. They benefit by being able to claim that they are, in fact, helping people, empowering people with their skills and expertise. Overall, its not true. Schizophrenia tends to be diagnosed unusually often among minorities (especially immigrants) and the poor. These are the people in society who are already at the fringe, who have already been victimized. What, exactly, does giving such a person Seroquel do? Fine, the "symptoms" are under "control". Do they have housing? Are their lives fulfilling, productive, enjoyable--in other words, worth living? It amazes me that psychiatrists demand the right to forcibly hospitalize and treat "schizophrenics," but they give a blank stare when asked if perhaps the money would be better spent offering these people food and shelter while leaving their brains alone. I read a study recently in which they found that when you factor in things that aren't usually counted in company studies--like social isolation, personal fulfillment, basically happiness--life hasn't improved all that much for those with schizophrenia. And, what does it say to the rest of us when psychiatrists prescribe these harsh drugs for things like depression and anxiety? To me, it betrays an utter and complete lack of respect for those of us trying to improve our lives. Depressed? Take this mind-numbing drug that costs lots of $$$, may cause TD and/or diabetes/weight gain, may cause akathisia, and will in general do little more than calm you down and make you more placid. Treatment? That isn't treatment. For too long, psychiatric "treatment" has meant subtracting from the personality, from the soul of the very person ostensibly being "saved" or "treated". This is definitely the case with neuroleptics, especially when given to the non-psychotic. And yes, I know...neuroleptics supposedly emptied out the mental hospitals (that's a myth, actually; government policy, not medication, did that) and they were/are "amazing," etc. etc. Its not true. The very fact that we ever *had* people suffering in the back wards of dirty, understaffed hospitals shows just how little psychiatry (and much of society) values the "insane". Talking to yourself? Seeing things? How about we throw you in an asylum, isolated from the rest of humanity, for the next 10-15 years, all the while preventing you from escaping or even trying to live a life outside? Is that *treatment*? Is that *respect* ? Of course not. The problem with neuroleptics is part of a bigger problem--psychiatry's constant degradation, abuse, labelling, and mistreatment of those it aims to "treat". Think about it: when was the last time a cardiologist had someone tossed into a hospital against their will for years because of "treatment resistant illness?" The potential is there--and it is realized sometimes--for psychiatrists and psychiatry in general to work *for* those in need of help, to truly *empower* people to lead productive lives. But the lure of money (from drug companies) and power (over the lives of "patients") has made psychiatry less a helping profession than a system of control and sometimes even imprisonment behind a medical facade. If you've read this far, sorry this was so long and ramblng--I just kind of pumped this out while sitting here at my computer, thinking over the experiences I've had or seen or heard about. No, I'm not "anti-psychiatry" or a "flat-earther". I am, however, strongly, staunchly "pro-humanity" and "pro-freedom"; these values define myself and my life, and they are increasingly at odds with psychiatry, at least as it is currently practiced.
Posted by xbunny on September 23, 2005, at 5:57:09
In reply to NEUROLEPTICS, posted by med_empowered on September 23, 2005, at 5:18:42
I would like to say that antipsychotic drugs markedly improved my life for the better.
I find the argument that antipsychotics drugs shouldnt be called that but rather mind seizers or a chemical labotomy rather flimsy. As a consumer I couldnt care less if they were called whatever derogatory term you care to apply to them, the value to me is too great to dismiss these drugs as tools of social control or some great business plan to exploit the vulnerable.
I find the implication that people who take antipsychotics are stripping themselves of thier humanity, emotions and are less spantaneous outrightly offensive. Without antipsychotics I am barely able to talk, unable to maintain any kind of stable emotion, unable to have meaningful contact with the world outside my head. My experience is not isolated there are many like me. Antipsychotics do have horrible side effects and even some of the intended effects are horrible but the alternative is far worse for me and I reckon for plenty of others too.
Maybe taking an antipsychotic will not get you a home or a job and I wholly agree that a comprehensive social care program is needed for the vulnerable but to make the connection that antipsychotics are responsible for this shortcoming is illogical. Antipsychotics and social care can happily coexist.
In short I would like to say that antipsychotics are valueable tools in the treatment of psychotic disorders. They do not solve all the problems but to brand them useless and the sock puppets of an unfeeling business machine is plain wrong.Bunny
Posted by Declan on September 23, 2005, at 14:45:41
In reply to My opinion on antipsychotics » xjs7, posted by Chairman_MAO on September 22, 2005, at 21:14:19
There's probably more people than we think who have treated their (semi)psychotic states with opiates for a decade or so. I know a couple. Opiates are antipsychotic IMO.
Declan
Posted by ed_uk on September 23, 2005, at 16:11:30
In reply to NEUROLEPTICS, posted by med_empowered on September 23, 2005, at 5:18:42
Say I was having a panic attack... I'd rather take a Seconal than an antipsychotic ;-)
~ed
Posted by linkadge on September 23, 2005, at 16:15:55
In reply to Re: My opinion on antipsychotics » Chairman_MAO, posted by Declan on September 23, 2005, at 14:45:41
I totally agree with what med empowered has said.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on September 23, 2005, at 16:25:13
In reply to Re: My opinion on antipsychotics, posted by linkadge on September 23, 2005, at 16:15:55
It's the same thing with depression. We say to ourselves, I'm so glad we have antidepressants, I wonder what they would have done in the olden days.
They got better is what they did. Three generations back in our family has suffered depressive episodes. But none has lasted more than 6-8 months, and then they got better. Better, as in, were no longer depressed.
I thought, well, we live in an age where I don't have to go through this, I can get better with pills.
So I take the AD's. Sure, I initally felt good, but soon enough that effect pooped out. I've been medicating for like 6 years now. That is more time than the cumulative depressions of my whole family. We think we can fool the brain, but we cannot.
And now, not only am I still depressed, but my brain is fried by the meds, I have permanent neurological defects.
So it comes down to how you want to take your pain, fast and get it over with, or slow and lingering.
Linkadge
Posted by crazy teresa on September 23, 2005, at 21:10:23
In reply to NEUROLEPTICS, posted by med_empowered on September 23, 2005, at 5:18:42
You wrote: Depressed? Take this mind-numbing drug that costs lots of $$$, may cause TD and/or diabetes/weight gain, may cause akathisia, and will in general do little more than calm you down and make you more placid. Treatment? That isn't treatment. For too long, psychiatric "treatment" has meant subtracting from the personality, from the soul of the very person ostensibly being "saved" or "treated".
What would you suggest as treatment for depression?crazy t
Posted by crazy teresa on September 23, 2005, at 21:13:29
In reply to Re: My opinion on antipsychotics, posted by linkadge on September 23, 2005, at 16:25:13
Wait it out instead of meds?
crazy teresa
Posted by Guy on September 23, 2005, at 21:44:30
In reply to WARNING GEODON 50% TARDIVE DYSKINESIA RISK, posted by Jeroen on September 22, 2005, at 11:35:41
Zyprexa has recently helped me claw my way out of a suicidal cesspit. All summer long I struggled with crippling anxiety and suicidal thoughts (but no psychosis). Nevertheless, I was proud of myself for "getting by" without resorting to anti-psychotics. Finally, this fall, I was so suicidal, I started again (after a four month hiatus) on 5 mg Zyprexa combined with 1.5 mg clonazepam. The change for the better has been nothing short of miraculous. I know I can slide back down into the hole again at any moment, but for now I am just happy to have the knife removed from my throat. Deep down I suspect my brain has been severely damaged by all the meds I have tried over the past nine years...if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't touch a pharmaceutical with a barge pole. But that's all water under the bridge and now I have to make the best of a bad situation--both for myself and for the people I live with. You really have to have walked a mile in my shoes to know what I'm talking about.
Posted by crazy teresa on September 23, 2005, at 22:35:00
In reply to Re: WARNING GEODON 50% TARDIVE DYSKINESIA RISK, posted by Guy on September 23, 2005, at 21:44:30
Posted by linkadge on September 24, 2005, at 10:01:57
In reply to linkadge what would you suggest for depression? » linkadge, posted by crazy teresa on September 23, 2005, at 21:13:29
I don't know what I'd recommend.
Therapy, vaccation, exercise, religion, stress management techniques, nutritional approaches, major lifestyle changes, smoking ...
I know that many have tried all of the above without sucess. But even if one can lessen the symptoms and wait it out, I think the course of illness would be much better.
I know that some people do get better on pills (or so I've been told) but know dozens of people on meds, and I know that once they start the picture just gets more and more complex.
I found out my older brother had some depressive episodes (suicidal), but he refused to medicate for them, and instead got counselling through the church. It lasted a typical 6 months. It may have been harder for him to go through, but we both know that the toll the depression took was not as bad as the toll the meds took on me.
Linkadge
Posted by Declan on September 24, 2005, at 15:25:54
In reply to NEUROLEPTICS, posted by med_empowered on September 23, 2005, at 5:18:42
Med_empowered, that was a great post. Thankyou.
I thought, or read, but maybe dreamt it, that phenothiazine was a disinfectant or something, which was used to clean the excrement off the walls of mental hospitals. The patients calmed down and......maybe I read it in Laing or Cooper.
Declan
Posted by med_empowered on September 24, 2005, at 17:05:51
In reply to Re: NEUROLEPTICS, posted by Declan on September 24, 2005, at 15:25:54
hey! Yeah, from what I understand, phenothiazines were used first in industrial type applications (for some reason, I seem to recall reading about phenothiazine-type pesticides/insecticides that preceeded Thorazine) and then were later used in medicine, ending up primarily as psychiatric drugs.
Posted by Declan on September 24, 2005, at 17:39:10
In reply to to DECLAN..., posted by med_empowered on September 24, 2005, at 17:05:51
Posted by crazy teresa on September 24, 2005, at 17:53:01
In reply to Re: linkadge what would you suggest for depression?, posted by linkadge on September 24, 2005, at 10:01:57
> Therapy, vaccation, exercise, religion, stress management techniques, nutritional approaches, major lifestyle changes, smoking ...Hmmm. What kind of major lifestyle changes? Killing my husband and kids? LOL!!! Are you implying Tom Cruise is on the right track? :~} I would LOVE to be in the country where there is peace and quiet. I'm sooo much less agitated there.
> I know that many have tried all of the above without sucess. But even if one can lessen the symptoms and wait it out, I think the course of illness would be much better.
>
> I know that some people do get better on pills (or so I've been told) but know dozens of people on meds, and I know that once they start the picture just gets more and more complex.
>
I've been thinking that way. It started out for just a few months until the depression subsided. Now it's been years. Once they've gotten us hooked, it's a bitch to get off.> I found out my older brother had some depressive episodes (suicidal), but he refused to medicate for them, and instead got counselling through the church. It lasted a typical 6 months. It may have been harder for him to go through, but we both know that the toll the depression took was not as bad as the toll the meds took on me.
Good for your brother! He must have an amazing church.
Posted by linkadge on September 24, 2005, at 19:54:20
In reply to Re: linkadge what would you suggest for depression? » linkadge, posted by crazy teresa on September 24, 2005, at 17:53:01
Tom Cruise came across as sounding like he thought depression was not a real illness, that it was made up.
I fully believe that depression can be a serious illness. I don't undermine it's potential to ruin life. But in some ways I do agree with Tom in that the science behind the treatments is simply not too sound.
I know the drugs have an ability to destroy life.
I have seen quite a few lives destroyed by psychiatric drugs. Primarily my mother's life has been destroyed by tricyclic antidepressants, and antipscyhotics.
You need to find your own path, but I would be lying If I sat here and told you that I thought they were safe and effective.
When you're happy on the drugs, it is hard to imagine what kinds of things they could be doing to the underlying brain.
I heard a recording of myself playing a mozart piano sonata, when I was 16 yrs old. I was studying for a piano exam.
I have not stopped playing the piano since then, but I suspected that I was getting worse. When I heard the recording I wept bitterly for days, because I knew that there was no way on earth that I could make my hands move like they did back then. I knew in the back of my mind that I could not play like I did, but when I heard the recording it hit home hard.
My brain is dammaged. I know that doctors don't give a crap when I tell them this, but at this stage of the game I am not looking for somebody to tell me that they didn't dammage my brain. I know dammage has been done, I just wish somebody would believe me. I know Jaroen would believe me.
I am not trying to minimalize the depressive illness, but I cannot sit here and defend the drugs used to treat it.
Linkadge
Posted by yxibow on September 24, 2005, at 21:02:26
In reply to NEUROLEPTICS, posted by med_empowered on September 23, 2005, at 5:18:42
>The idea that antipsychotics "correct" some sort of "chemical imbalance" is not only weak, its not even an "idea" or "theory" in the truest sense of the word; its based on the observation that the damaging, much-despised drugs given to those with schizophrenia (often against their will) dampen dopamine.
Actually direct dopamine blockade function is only one of the components of antipsychotics, especially current neuroleptics. 5HT blockade shows additional aspects of neuroleptic treatment.
>So..basically, we don't *know* that dopamine malfunction causes schizophrenia, but we do know that if you dampen dopamine enough you can make a patient shut up and quit making trouble.And possibly prevent suicide, which is one of the leading causes of death among people who are afflicted with severe schizophrenia.
>Drug companies, of course, can now charge outrageous prices for drugs that are only marginally better than the old meds and still claim that they are "on the cutting edge of schizophrenia treatment." Please. They may well be on the "cutting edge" of false advertising and price gouging, but their reformulated Haldols don't represent all that much of an advance in improving the lives of those with schizophrenia.
They represent a significant advance in improving the lives of those affected by schizophrenia who otherwise would discontinue old line medications because of severe EPS. Not every drug is tailored to the entire schizophreniform disorder population. Agreed, the industry is a very expensive one -- at least 1% of the population of this country suffers from some spectrum of the neurobiological disorder. But tell the person suffering on thioridiazine or fluphenazine with severe EPS that the relief they get from Zyprexa from these debilitating side effects that they're not on the "cutting edge" and I think one would get a different story. Its all a matter of the patient, and I agree the patient's needs and wants should be closely listened to.
>Then there are the psychiatrists, who are now RXing these expensive, side-effect ridden pills for everything from florid psychosis to mild insomnia.
Very low dosage Seroquel may in fact help some people with severe insomnia where other treatments havent, but I agree that neuroleptics should be considered a last line of medication in those who are otherwise not suffering a psychotic form of illness. On the other hand, psychotic depression is just that, psychotic depression. It may not be something that can necessarily always be dealt with purely through behaviour and psychodynamic counseling.
>Talking to yourself? Seeing things? How about we throw you in an asylum, isolated from the rest of humanity, for the next 10-15 years, all the while preventing you from escaping or even trying to live a life outside? Is that *treatment*? Is that *respect* ? Of course not.Agreed -- current, at least current western medication, here in the United States, does not follow the 1950s idea of "throwing people into asylums". Rather, when schizophrenia is discovered early (and this is the best time, it is debatable how degenerative it is over a lifetime without treatment, but thats another argument), a patient may be in a psychiatric ward for 4 to 6 weeks to stabilize and monitor the patient, prevent suicide, provide counseling, in addition to possible medication use, for that individual. To leave the patient wandering the streets of a major American city is simply just as callous as treating the patient as a number. Again, here is the point that while the CATIE study may have proved that old and new line neuroleptics have similar functions, they dont always have the same side effect profile for the individual patient.
Tidings
Posted by Declan on September 24, 2005, at 22:28:36
In reply to Re: linkadge what would you suggest for depression?, posted by linkadge on September 24, 2005, at 19:54:20
Linkadge, tons of people here would believe you (I think).
What's so weird about the fact that these drugs can damage your brain?
It's common sense.
Declan
Posted by yxibow on September 25, 2005, at 1:08:35
In reply to Re: linkadge what would you suggest for depression?, posted by Declan on September 24, 2005, at 22:28:36
> Linkadge, tons of people here would believe you (I think).
> What's so weird about the fact that these drugs can damage your brain?
> It's common sense.
> DeclanI know this starts the drugs vs. psychotherapy debate, but one has to remember medications take around 7 to 10 years to market unless they're fast-tracked things like vaccines and HIV medication. Damage I do believe is a bit of a harsh statement, and I am not any way connected to any drug company, but yes, there is the bad and the good. That's why we have the FDA, and yes, there have been some black marks like the COX-2 inhibitors which previously were thought to be the panacea for arthritis and other pain disorders. Even older medications like Mellaril have been black boxed for their QT interval issues while Geodon has been re-evaluated extensively with nearly no danger in that realm.
It's what is called informed consent. You have to weigh over time the effects of depression (or any neurochemical disorder), which untreated can also alter your brain. Not to mention suicide.
If the will is strong and the depression is relatively on the milder end of the spectrum, psychotherapy is a perfectly good alternative to depression and other disorders. Its been shown clearly that medication and CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy) affect the outcome of OCD in the same way. And of course the combination of the two in some cases are even better.
Neurons are neurons and untreated neuropsychiatric disorders can also "destroy" the brain in the same way as medication can. Conversion disorders can occur. People can even have seizures with severe anxiety, conversion disorders, and OCD -- and that can lead to a loss of oxygen to the brain. Its a matter of choice -- as I've said before, its what we have in 2005. And that's alot better than 1955.
My aunt would still be alive today if modern medication controlled her bipolar illness and didn't result in suicide.
But that's the choice I choose, at least at the moment, because I have a fairly complicated and severe anxiety disorder which requires a combination of medication and psychodynamic therapy.
In the end, it is one's choice -- there is no perfect solution. It's not like the diptheria or smallpox vaccines which are carefully targeted at a precice point.
Some medications are shotguns and should only be used in dire cases -- some are tapered life savers and have fewer side effects. I guess I believe in better living through chemistry -- up to a point. Others are in their right to choose.
Posted by Declan on September 25, 2005, at 1:23:58
In reply to Re: linkadge what would you suggest for depression » Declan, posted by yxibow on September 25, 2005, at 1:08:35
Hey, I do want to make it very clear that I am not against meds. (We're all fairly pragmatic).
Its just that there's damage.
But damage is a part of life, everywhere.
And I like to complain too.
I hope this is not evasive.
Declan
Posted by linkadge on September 25, 2005, at 10:16:46
In reply to Re: NEUROLEPTICS » med_empowered, posted by yxibow on September 24, 2005, at 21:02:26
I think the only antipsychotic that has been shown to have any significant impact on suicide in schitsophrenia is clozapine.
Linakdge
Posted by linkadge on September 25, 2005, at 10:37:01
In reply to Re: linkadge what would you suggest for depression » Declan, posted by yxibow on September 25, 2005, at 1:08:35
>>Damage I do believe is a bit of a harsh statement.
I don't believe it is. Dammage is a binary thing. Either the drug has done dammage or it has not.
Yes the drug may have been around for 10 years, but are the tests of the drugs continuous?, or is it a series of 4 month studies that cannot show long term effects.>Even older medications like Mellaril have been >black boxed for their QT interval issues while >Geodon has been re-evaluated extensively with >nearly no danger in that realm.
I don't think we are checking enough. I don't think that the drug companies are required to check if a drug is corkscrewing serotonin receptors.
>Not to mention suicide.Yeah, how about a statistically significant increased risk of suicide. England banned all but prozac for treating kids.
>Neurons are neurons and untreated >neuropsychiatric disorders can also "destroy" >the brain in the same way as medication can.Actually in many paradigms the SSRI's do not protect against stress induced hippocampal morphology. Tianeptine and lithium do have a more protective effect.
Linkadge
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.