![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 57 to 81 of 107. Go back in thread:
Posted by fca on August 28, 2006, at 17:02:10
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » bassman, posted by Squiggles on August 28, 2006, at 13:44:41
"But clonazepam on only 0.50, after more than
10 years, and a withdrawal schedule lasting
a year and a half, on "metric" gradual
reduction, resulted in a seizure/stroke which
left brain and physically disabled in bed
for a month and a half - high/low blood pressure,
stumbling walk, extreme headache, coming in
and out of consciousness, unrsponsive pupils. It was rough."
If so, I have a couple of questions if you don't mind--how old were you when this happened, how was it established that the seizure/stroke was due to the K--after a year and a half of tapering you must have been at a fraction of the dose. Is it possible there were other contributing causes. On the surface this appears such an extreme reaction after that much tapering--thanks fca
Posted by Squiggles on August 28, 2006, at 17:10:33
In reply to Squiggles--are you saying this happened to you, posted by fca on August 28, 2006, at 17:02:10
> If so, I have a couple of questions if you don't mind--how old were you when this happened,48
how was it established that the seizure/stroke was due to the K--after a year and a half of tapering you must have been at a fraction of the dose.It was very difficult all along, but it was the
last cut of the pill (no liquid, and therefore
cuts were too big) that turned things around
suddenly - an axe like feeling in the back of the
head - electric; before that lots of sweats,
insomnia, anxiety, "electric eels" - sensations
of electricity in the head, tinnitus, etc. the
usual withdrawal effects;
Is it possible there were other contributing causes.Yes - it was one of the hottest summers in
my memory - i may have had heat stroke; but
my dr. said it was withdrawal;On the surface this appears such an extreme reaction after that much tapering--thanks
Actually, seizures are noted in the American
Psychiatry Association and many other reputable
organizations for benzo withdrawal;I managed to recover by raising the dose and
staying there, but even that took a long time;
my dr. said not to try withdrawing for another
6 months - i almost laughed in his face -
i suspect it was stroke because i had such
terrible depression after, not at all common
for my drugs;Squiggles
fca
Posted by janeB on August 28, 2006, at 17:35:10
In reply to Re: Squiggles--are you saying this happened to you » fca, posted by Squiggles on August 28, 2006, at 17:10:33
Posted by Squiggles on August 28, 2006, at 17:39:31
In reply to Squiggles--do you take any K now? (nm), posted by janeB on August 28, 2006, at 17:35:10
Yes, at a higher (33%) dose than the
one I took prior to my withdrawal attempt.
It was necessary to stop the "fire" in
the head and unmanageable withdrawals.I'm stable now.
Squiggles
Posted by Phillipa on August 28, 2006, at 19:55:43
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » laima, posted by Squiggles on August 28, 2006, at 11:49:56
Sqiggles why do you think K is unique? Personally it depresses me made me feel suicidal once when I wasn't. I've found over the many years that now they make me tired instead of relaxed And I don't know why. Dose is the same but over 30years of benzos. Love Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on August 28, 2006, at 19:58:22
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » laima, posted by Squiggles on August 28, 2006, at 12:36:06
I'd explain it by the fact that lmg of klonopin is equal to 20mg of valium. I was shocked to learn this. Wonder why the pdocs use it so much? Love Phillipa
Posted by fca on August 28, 2006, at 20:34:39
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » Squiggles, posted by Phillipa on August 28, 2006, at 19:58:22
Phillipa, I don't think the 20:1 comparison of valium to clonazepam is useful except for tapering or switching benzos--while they are in the same class they have different potency, effects and average dosages per day. It is somewhat like saying that 151 proof rum is 20-30 times stronger than beer or 10-12 times stronger than wine-- it is really a matter that 1 oz of alcohol equals 1 oz of alcohol. Does that make any sense
Posted by Squiggles on August 29, 2006, at 7:53:21
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » Squiggles, posted by Phillipa on August 28, 2006, at 19:58:22
> I'd explain it by the fact that lmg of klonopin is equal to 20mg of valium. I was shocked to learn this. Wonder why the pdocs use it so much? Love Phillipa
Right, i forgot about that. When I was at
benzo.org i wrote to Roche suggesting that
they make the 0.50 pill smaller; and they do
in Europe but not in the West -- that is
because it is was originally intended for
epilepsy, requiring a huge dose; then whe
marketing it for anxiety, they should have
cut the 0.50 mg pill to at least 6 or 4
smaller portions. It was very difficult
to cut for withdrawal.Wonder what the detox centres do -- possibly
they follow Dr. Ashton suggestion of
using another benzo to cover the gaps
in withdrawal. But i don't think that
drs. have the time to invest in this
fall-out. I don't blame them; i blame
the drug companies.Squiggles
Posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 10:21:23
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » Phillipa, posted by Squiggles on August 29, 2006, at 7:53:21
I have to say that Dr. Ashton's site is one of the most biased psychoactive drug sites I've ever come across. She says many things that are questionable, to put it charitably. There is no room for benzos as exceptionally safe and effective, as they are for the vast majority of people. If she said something like, "benzos are safe and effective for most people, but like many drugs, there are distinct risks, especially for individuals taking doses significantly higher than the traditional therapeutic range".. I'm sure she sees some cases of people that have gotten themselves into the unfortunate position of taking such a high dose that they are manifesting side effects at the same time that they are highly dependent on the drug- a truly bad situation, which happens with lots of drugs, including alcohol, pain killers, antidepressants, etc. One unfortunate result is that some physicians are convinced that somehow AD’s with their much higher rate of seizure and often intense dependence (take a look at Dr. Bob’s board on withdrawal for Effexor) are somehow a better choice for anxious/depressed patients. I think she’s done a lot more harm than good, taken on balance.
Posted by Squiggles on August 29, 2006, at 10:30:05
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs, posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 10:21:23
What about Charles Medawar "Power and Dependence"?
Have you read that Bassman? He outlines the
history of benzodiazepines and how drug companies have marketed them, without due caution to the effects on people. Dr. Ashton and other doctors
in that camp, are more concerned with addiction and
withdrawal and how to cope with that, rather than whether or not it is proper to take benzos in certain situations.Squiggles
Posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 11:10:07
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » bassman, posted by Squiggles on August 29, 2006, at 10:30:05
I'm just saying Ashton's is not a balanced message. I share your distrust of the pharmaceutical companies (I worked in the field for 25 years). I find it somewhat odd that all the benzos used to be the drugs of choice-before they came off patent. Now you can get any benzo you want dirt cheap. Now they are all horrible drugs (my translation: they aren't big money-makers anymore). But if you want Effexor Cymbalta, the new AP's, etc. they are very expensive. And the TCA's were criticized when the SSRI's came along because the TCA’s were "dirty", that is, they hit more than just the serotonin sites-so of course, you want the newer, cleaner SSRI's. Until they went off patent. Now you're told you want Effexor, Cymbalta which are "dirty" like the TCA's were accused of being. I could rant on about Vioxx, etc.-Big Business surely isn’t watching out for our physical and mental health the way it is looking out for its own financial health-and so I think the day of making your own judgment about medications is upon us. Maybe it always was; I really don’t know.
Posted by Squiggles on August 29, 2006, at 11:22:11
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs, posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 11:10:07
If it is difficult for the professional
pharmacist to ferret out the truth in
this field, you can imagine how difficult
it is for the layman. The only truly
reliable thing the layman has is his or
her own experience with the drug; but
even that becomes a mystery in the fog
of authority and ignorance as any side
effects can be attributed to other causes.We need more philosophers and logicians
in the field. Think Roche and Glaxo would
be interested in hiring? :-)Squiggles
Posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 11:22:41
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » bassman, posted by Squiggles on August 29, 2006, at 10:30:05
Dare I suggest the possibility that the chemists developing drugs and the marketers might not be of same motives?
Posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 12:31:43
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » bassman, posted by Squiggles on August 29, 2006, at 11:22:11
That's it! Let's start a new field, "Philosophical Pharmaceutical Science". :>} We'd have to have courses like, "PP 101: Why Your Company Shouldn't Make Dangerous Drugs", "PP201: Making Money or Killing People-How to Decide", "PP 301: Why All Moral Ethicists from 12,000 BCE to the Present Were Wrong", "PP 401: Heck, they are Going to Die of Something Anyway", "PP 501: Increasing Market Share by Selling Addictive Drugs", etc.
A person with a degree in PP would, of course demand an unreasonably high salary…
Posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 12:57:18
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs, posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 11:22:41
Nah; when it comes to the chemists and the other folks that make and screen the drugs. They don't care one way or the other whether a given drug works other than they'd like to be part of a project that yields a drug that is truly helpful to people. That is a wonderful, wonderful feeling. The real problem comes in when the Project Leader for the drug, years after the chemists, et. al. have seen it, spends his time constantly selling what a wonderful drug it is to management. Then, as often happens, the drug turns out to be more toxic or less effective than it was expected to be, but the company has spent $100 million on the drug because Junior said it was super. Now the PL has one of two choices: go into the CEO and say, "the drug we just spent $100 million on, and that I told you was a blockbuster, is a stinker. Let's cut our losses and get rid of it now" OR, "don't believe that last set of data, Boss, you know how [insert favorite excuse here]" Equally, The Boss doesn't want to go in front of the stockholders and say, "you know that drug we said was going to make $4 billion in 2008 and push the stock price through the roof? We gave it to people and they are seeing little purple pigs run around outside the clinic. We take that as a bad sign..."
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on August 29, 2006, at 13:15:29
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs, posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 12:31:43
Posted by Squiggles on August 29, 2006, at 13:28:35
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs, posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 12:31:43
> That's it! Let's start a new field, "Philosophical Pharmaceutical Science". :>} We'd have to have courses like, "PP 101: Why Your Company Shouldn't Make Dangerous Drugs", "PP201: Making Money or Killing People-How to Decide", "PP 301: Why All Moral Ethicists from 12,000 BCE to the Present Were Wrong", "PP 401: Heck, they are Going to Die of Something Anyway", "PP 501: Increasing Market Share by Selling Addictive Drugs", etc.
>
> A person with a degree in PP would, of course demand an unreasonably high salary…
>Hee hee, "The Ministry of Mental Hygiene",
with standards set by BigPharm and applied
by the FDA and other international regulatory health care bodies. Ethicists (logicians,
statisticians, linguists, public health consultants) may contribute to journals edited by The Ministry and supported by grants from The Ministry.
I think we're already there.:=)Squiggles
Posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 17:35:19
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs, posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 12:57:18
...it was just an idea! I can't completely believe that they all are thinking on the exact same page, but still-(?) I'm sure there are at least one or two drug developers who have known someone with a mood disorder and have a genuine interest to help out. Just was trying to help contribute to a small postive spin on the matter....lots of "good intentions" go awry, after all. I'm not a fan of "Big Pharmaceutical" either. Something seems "off'.
> Nah; when it comes to the chemists and the other folks that make and screen the drugs. They don't care one way or the other whether a given drug works other than they'd like to be part of a project that yields a drug that is truly helpful to people. That is a wonderful, wonderful feeling. The real problem comes in when the Project Leader for the drug, years after the chemists, et. al. have seen it, spends his time constantly selling what a wonderful drug it is to management. Then, as often happens, the drug turns out to be more toxic or less effective than it was expected to be, but the company has spent $100 million on the drug because Junior said it was super. Now the PL has one of two choices: go into the CEO and say, "the drug we just spent $100 million on, and that I told you was a blockbuster, is a stinker. Let's cut our losses and get rid of it now" OR, "don't believe that last set of data, Boss, you know how [insert favorite excuse here]" Equally, The Boss doesn't want to go in front of the stockholders and say, "you know that drug we said was going to make $4 billion in 2008 and push the stock price through the roof? We gave it to people and they are seeing little purple pigs run around outside the clinic. We take that as a bad sign..."
Posted by Squiggles on August 29, 2006, at 17:52:21
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » bassman, posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 17:35:19
Drug companies are too big, too rich,
too corporate-minded, too removed from
the welfare of the patient, to patronizing
of doctors and health care workers.I'm afraid of them, but I am also afraid
of not having them as I need the drugs
that they have rightly or wrongly provided.It's part of the evolution of our present
culture I think -- it reminds me so much
of the movie "Brazil" (apologies to Dr.
Bob for forgetting the double quotes previously).Squiggles
Posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 17:57:12
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » laima, posted by Squiggles on August 29, 2006, at 17:52:21
It's a shame they are not "nonprofit" organizations.
We'd likely all be much be better off if they were.> Drug companies are too big, too rich,
> too corporate-minded, too removed from
> the welfare of the patient, to patronizing
> of doctors and health care workers.
>
> I'm afraid of them, but I am also afraid
> of not having them as I need the drugs
> that they have rightly or wrongly provided.
>
> It's part of the evolution of our present
> culture I think -- it reminds me so much
> of the movie "Brazil" (apologies to Dr.
> Bob for forgetting the double quotes previously).
>
> Squiggles
Posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 18:51:00
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » bassman, posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 17:35:19
Sorry, maybe that wasn't worded right-I meant the scientists aren't going to distort the data; they genuinely WOULD like to help...just about all of them, in my experience. The Big Pharma nonesense just occurs long after the developing chemist is out of the picture-remember, the chemist doesn't know he's synthesizing a psychoactive drug-he finds that out after it has been screened. These days, 100,000 potential drugs might be synthesized a day!
Posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 18:54:33
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » Squiggles, posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 17:57:12
That's the realm of the true scientist-the guy that wants to develop a drug for one reason: he wants it to work really well, period. But the corporate structure beats the creativity and energy out of the excellent scientist...
Posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 19:16:12
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs, posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 18:54:33
> That's the realm of the true scientist-the guy that wants to develop a drug for one reason: he wants it to work really well, period. But the corporate structure beats the creativity and energy out of the excellent scientist...
...and that's tragic. But I don't doubt it to be true. That's why I wish pharmaceutical development was exclusively the non-profit territory of only universities and med schools, paid for by govt grants and taxes, perhaps even private donations from philanthropists, for example.
I read a very sad article fairly recently which asserted drugs get developed mostly per problems of "rich" people in "developed countries"-while meanwhile poor and desitute people in places such as parts of Africa and elsewhere die from diseases that no one has any interest in looking for drugs to help cure- thanks to "no profits"-even though they are conditions such as having parasites that seem like they could easily be curable via drug therapy. (Sorry- I can't recall where I read this. NYTimes maybe?.)
And why find a true "cure" anyway, if that would only end your supply of steady customers? Ie, why not keep people "on therapy" indefinately?
It's hard not to feel jaded or cynical, but I'll try.
The pharmacutical industry strikes me as having a very dark side, though I myself and many others depend on it.
Posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 20:39:32
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs, posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 18:51:00
Oh- I might not have been clear- I didn't mean to imply scientists would distort data- though I do think marketers and sales reps often rosey-up, "dumb-down", or oversimplify the facts for the public.Ie, "depression is a simple chemical imbalance". That is only a "theory" per most doctors I've talked to-maybe true- maybe more likely it's actually a tad more complicated.
> Sorry, maybe that wasn't worded right-I meant the scientists aren't going to distort the data; they genuinely WOULD like to help...just about all of them, in my experience. The Big Pharma nonesense just occurs long after the developing chemist is out of the picture-remember, the chemist doesn't know he's synthesizing a psychoactive drug-he finds that out after it has been screened. These days, 100,000 potential drugs might be synthesized a day!
Posted by Phillipa on August 29, 2006, at 21:11:56
In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs, posted by fca on August 28, 2006, at 20:34:39
Yes it does but my thing is that my pdoc had me on valium and I switched on my own. So it made a big difference. Now I have to wean down to the proper dose of valium. No she didn't prescribe K for me an old script I had I was taking. Oh today she said I was a nervous wreck and added xanax. She 's into addictions and has no problem with benzos. She's very old and agrees they have a good track record for no permanent damage to any organs. Just take as prescirbed.. Bad me. Love Phillipa
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.