![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 22 of 22. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by ricker on January 17, 2009, at 14:17:58
So I've been thinking about all the negative reports I've come across over the years at various sites.
I can't but imagine how many people have been helped, one way or another, with these meds.
When I stop and think about all the negative reports / reactions, I ask myself... millions upon millions of these meds are prescribed yearly and I believe, for the most part, with success?
Sure there are negative reviews pointed towards all psych. meds, but, the people reporting are truly "treatment resistant cases.
Take this site for example, 99.99 % of all posts are written due to treatment failure, wicked side effects etc. Lets say the Board has 200 members at any given time with an average of 25 repeat posters (treatment resistant). More often than not, the post will speak of failure.... or the ongoing struggle to obtain some sort of remission.
I would say that speaks quite well for the millions of patient that have no need to seek help through Internet support. Good on our meds! I believe they are truly successful for the majority.
I know for me, when I read a post with negative results, my mind instantly begins to seek out those negative reactions..... surely I'm going to fail as well!
Treatment resistant cases are the minority, by far, and yet I have this underlying impulse to search for failed results and then, without a doubt, begin to set myself up for failure.
Sure we read the occasional "happy me, I'm on the road to remission, thanks everyone for your help, see you later posts, but very rarely.
Does anyone else feel the same way? Are we a very small percentage of a medical condition that, by in large, has a fairly good treatment percentage, as compared to other illness's?
I know for a fact I've given up on potential med trials prematurely due to someone else's negative response....part of my illnes I suppose, but none the less, a typical treatment resistant act on my part.
I say thank god for all the options made available to us, things could be a lot worse.
I will overcome my current state of despair, I am blessed with a wealth of positive treatment options that have helped millions upon millions of people, just like me.
Take care and keep positive, Rick
Posted by Cady on January 17, 2009, at 16:44:30
In reply to Are Psych meds given a bad rap?, posted by ricker on January 17, 2009, at 14:17:58
I think user ratings/reviews on drug sites may be biased toward the extremes, because you have to care enough to take the time to post. I also think with the negative reviews you are getting both people who are venting their frustration to the world and people who are sharing out of a desire to help others, while with the positive reviews, perhaps you are only getting the latter, so maybe that's why there are fewer positive reviews.
Posted by bulldog2 on January 17, 2009, at 17:12:07
In reply to Are Psych meds given a bad rap?, posted by ricker on January 17, 2009, at 14:17:58
> So I've been thinking about all the negative reports I've come across over the years at various sites.
>
> I can't but imagine how many people have been helped, one way or another, with these meds.
>
> When I stop and think about all the negative reports / reactions, I ask myself... millions upon millions of these meds are prescribed yearly and I believe, for the most part, with success?
>
> Sure there are negative reviews pointed towards all psych. meds, but, the people reporting are truly "treatment resistant cases.
>
> Take this site for example, 99.99 % of all posts are written due to treatment failure, wicked side effects etc. Lets say the Board has 200 members at any given time with an average of 25 repeat posters (treatment resistant). More often than not, the post will speak of failure.... or the ongoing struggle to obtain some sort of remission.
>
> I would say that speaks quite well for the millions of patient that have no need to seek help through Internet support. Good on our meds! I believe they are truly successful for the majority.
>
> I know for me, when I read a post with negative results, my mind instantly begins to seek out those negative reactions..... surely I'm going to fail as well!
>
> Treatment resistant cases are the minority, by far, and yet I have this underlying impulse to search for failed results and then, without a doubt, begin to set myself up for failure.
>
> Sure we read the occasional "happy me, I'm on the road to remission, thanks everyone for your help, see you later posts, but very rarely.
>
> Does anyone else feel the same way? Are we a very small percentage of a medical condition that, by in large, has a fairly good treatment percentage, as compared to other illness's?
>
> I know for a fact I've given up on potential med trials prematurely due to someone else's negative response....part of my illnes I suppose, but none the less, a typical treatment resistant act on my part.
>
> I say thank god for all the options made available to us, things could be a lot worse.
>
> I will overcome my current state of despair, I am blessed with a wealth of positive treatment options that have helped millions upon millions of people, just like me.
>
> Take care and keep positive, RickYou've come to a site of treament resistant people. They have had many med failures for the most part. So your getting an extremely skewed viewpoint of the meds. For the most part people do not go here to report success. I to have stopped many trials due to the negativetity.I will probably just begin to lurk for the successes or leave all together. Meds always have the possibilti of sides. But here again you will get a skewed viewpoint of the meds because treatment failures are reporting their failures and side effects. Some people seem to have an agenda to bash meds and try to discourage people's med trials.
There are some exceptional people here that report their trials and successes. If you stay here they are the ones you should follow.Avoid med bashing threads. Some have been on a drug a couple days and report failur because of sides. This is not a fair assessment of a meds.
Find a good p-doc pharmacologist that you trust and follow his path if you need meds. The multiple opinions here will only confuse you as I have been confused. To many opinions just leave one bewildered.If you trust your p-doc follow his advice and your choices will be simpler.
Posted by Cady on January 17, 2009, at 17:17:57
In reply to Re: Are Psych meds given a bad rap?, posted by Cady on January 17, 2009, at 16:44:30
> I think user ratings/reviews on drug sites may be biased toward the extremes, because you have to care enough to take the time to post. I also think with the negative reviews you are getting both people who are venting their frustration to the world and people who are sharing out of a desire to help others, while with the positive reviews, perhaps you are only getting the latter, so maybe that's why there are fewer positive reviews.
Clarification -- I didn't mean to imply either/or on the venting vs. sharing out of a desire to help others. On a discussion site such as this one, folks can vent while sharing. I was talking about the simple ratings/reviews sites, where you will get some reviews that say "hate this drug, don't take it" without giving any reason, and that is simply venting, no information shared.
Posted by bulldog2 on January 17, 2009, at 17:49:46
In reply to Re: Are Psych meds given a bad rap?, posted by Cady on January 17, 2009, at 17:17:57
> > I think user ratings/reviews on drug sites may be biased toward the extremes, because you have to care enough to take the time to post. I also think with the negative reviews you are getting both people who are venting their frustration to the world and people who are sharing out of a desire to help others, while with the positive reviews, perhaps you are only getting the latter, so maybe that's why there are fewer positive reviews.
>
> Clarification -- I didn't mean to imply either/or on the venting vs. sharing out of a desire to help others. On a discussion site such as this one, folks can vent while sharing. I was talking about the simple ratings/reviews sites, where you will get some reviews that say "hate this drug, don't take it" without giving any reason, and that is simply venting, no information shared.The reality some will fail with or without the drugs. That is the order of somethings. The strong survive. Some that vent about drugs just won't make it. It's the fault of their genetics not the drugs. Some are born faulty in nature and are not meant to live. The weak in nature either die or get picked off by predators. In most cases the drugs have nothing to do with the outcome for these people. Some people just can't be fixed. Blame your genetics and it's not the drugs. They may give you sides. Some vent how they have become worse with drugs. mmm maybe they would have become worse without drugs. Survival of the fittest. The weak will not survive. Be realistic and stop looking for something to blame.. I have tried many meds and stopped. Sides go away and I'm back to baseline. The illness may progress. It's me not the meds. Please smell the coffee and admidt the truth.
I'm more at peace when I see the truth. Just accept reality.Drugs will work for
some. Other things will work for others.
BUT some will never get fixed.
Posted by ricker on January 17, 2009, at 19:26:00
In reply to Re: Are Psych meds given a bad rap?, posted by bulldog2 on January 17, 2009, at 17:12:07
> You've come to a site of treatment resistant people. They have had many med failures for the most part.
I have yet to find a site where "positive" responses and long-term success is the norm? In fact, I can say I doubt such a site exists?
> There are some exceptional people here that report their trials and successes. If you stay here they are the ones you should follow.Yes, there are some exceptional people here, some very well schooled in psychiatric medicine. They could probably tell me what formula is required to land a rocket on the moon, and yet, have a very hard time keeping themselves grounded on earth!
> Find a good p-doc pharmacologist that you trust and follow his path if you need meds. The multiple opinions here will only confuse you as I have been confused.
Again, typical of all boards..... treatment resistant = desperation = mix and match.
Posted by Garnet71 on January 17, 2009, at 19:32:14
In reply to Are Psych meds given a bad rap?, posted by ricker on January 17, 2009, at 14:17:58
Whatever the case may be, I think its good for society. Because,
We are experiencing the Bay of Pills, meaning: groupthink-the medical equivalent of the Bay of Pigs invasion. Groupthink manifests throughout our society. Once you recognize it, you start to see it everywhere.
Like the Bay of Pigs invasion, the world renowed experts did something very, very stupid as if they were clueless. They ignored their own knowledge-it was right in front of them and they completely ignored it!
The medical Bay of Pigs, the Bay of Pills, in my opinion, is a bunch of doctors prescribing SSRIs to a large population...everyone just goes along with it.
Posted by Garnet71 on January 17, 2009, at 19:38:15
In reply to Re: Are Psych meds given a bad rap?, posted by bulldog2 on January 17, 2009, at 17:49:46
"The strong survive. Some that vent about drugs just won't make it. It's the fault of their genetics not the drugs. Some are born faulty in nature and are not meant to live. The weak in nature either die or get picked off by predators. In most cases the drugs have nothing to do with the outcome for these people. Some people just can't be fixed."
----------------------------------------
That's a pretty powerful assumption there. I've known some incredibly intelligent, but mentally ill people. Also very athletic people...so they are meant to die off?On the contrary, sociopaths can be very successful and often get to the top of the corporate ladder...wonder why they don't die off?
I think part of the problem is defining the mentally ill. Maybe society is the problem, not the people who think differently than the mainstrem?
Posted by Justherself54 on January 17, 2009, at 20:10:34
In reply to Re: Are Psych meds given a bad rap? » bulldog2, posted by ricker on January 17, 2009, at 19:26:00
<I have yet to find a site where "positive" responses and long-term success is the norm? In fact, I can say I doubt such a site exists?>
Probably not, as I think when a person reaches remission, they go on with the business of living their lives and kudos to them. The few who have reached remission and stay to give support are few and far between, and kudos to them.
Thank goodness there we have a place where treatment resistant people can come together and not go through this alone. Blaming my genetics gives small comfort.
Perhaps instead of seeing all what's wrong with forums such as this, we should focus on what's right.
Posted by Phillipa on January 17, 2009, at 20:16:46
In reply to Re: Are Psych meds given a bad rap? » bulldog2, posted by Garnet71 on January 17, 2009, at 19:38:15
Interesting thread as I know many people that meds work extremely well and others do better without. About websites first time came here was to research cymbalta and it was new and was on 60mg a day for about three months a poster was not responding, followed the thread it failed so felt it would also fail for me and got off it. But I do know posters that meds work extremly well for they post to encourage others, share, and If this is a treatment resistant board why doesn't it say so at the top of the board? Meds just react differently in different people. Some do better with meds, some with meds and theraphy, some just with theraphy. I think there are truly some very caring posters on this board. But I've also aborted trials admit this opening due to what I've read no one's fault but my own. I take responsibility for my own actions. Love Phillipa and may everyone succeed in life!!!!
Posted by Sigismund on January 17, 2009, at 20:43:22
In reply to Re: Are Psych meds given a bad rap? » bulldog2, posted by Garnet71 on January 17, 2009, at 19:38:15
>The strong survive. Some that vent about drugs just won't make it. It's the fault of their genetics not the drugs. Some are born faulty in nature and are not meant to live. The weak in nature either die or get picked off by predators. In most cases the drugs have nothing to do with the outcome for these people. Some people just can't be fixed
If this is true it is appalling that it is so.
Posted by SLS on January 17, 2009, at 21:18:04
In reply to Re: Are Psych meds given a bad rap?, posted by Sigismund on January 17, 2009, at 20:43:22
> >The strong survive. Some that vent about drugs just won't make it. It's the fault of their genetics not the drugs. Some are born faulty in nature and are not meant to live. The weak in nature either die or get picked off by predators. In most cases the drugs have nothing to do with the outcome for these people. Some people just can't be fixed
>
> If this is true it is appalling that it is so.Regardless of the weaknesses in our evolutionary physiologies in health and disease, humankind today does not require that the sick die. In fact, humankind as long ago as 40,000 years took care of its injured and elderly. The fossil record demonstrates this. It is not God's way to have Man kick the sickly out of the nest like some birds do. (If it were God's way for things to be otherwise, they would be otherwise). Caring for family and friends is hard-wired into our brains - as is altruism, I believe. So... whereas 40,000 years ago, Man used animal bones for splints, 40 seconds ago, Man used a synthetic balloon to save someones life while performing an angioplastic procedure.
The people who can't be fixed today help lay the groundwork so that people can be fixed tomorrow. It is the passion of Men to make this so.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on January 17, 2009, at 21:25:58
In reply to Re: Are Psych meds given a bad rap?, posted by SLS on January 17, 2009, at 21:18:04
> > >The strong survive. Some that vent about drugs just won't make it. It's the fault of their genetics not the drugs. Some are born faulty in nature and are not meant to live. The weak in nature either die or get picked off by predators. In most cases the drugs have nothing to do with the outcome for these people. Some people just can't be fixed
> >
> > If this is true it is appalling that it is so.
>
> Regardless of the weaknesses in our evolutionary physiologies in health and disease, humankind today does not require that the sick die. In fact, humankind as long ago as 40,000 years took care of its injured and elderly. The fossil record demonstrates this. It is not God's way to have Man kick the sickly out of the nest like some birds do. (If it were God's way for things to be otherwise, they would be otherwise). Caring for family and friends is hard-wired into our brains - as is altruism, I believe. So... whereas 40,000 years ago, Man used animal bones for splints, 40 seconds ago, Man used a synthetic balloon to save someones life while performing an angioplastic procedure.
>
> The people who can't be fixed today help lay the groundwork so that people can be fixed tomorrow. It is the passion of Men to make this so.(Women, too).
:-)
- Scott
Posted by Garnet71 on January 17, 2009, at 21:29:42
In reply to Re: Are Psych meds given a bad rap?, posted by SLS on January 17, 2009, at 21:25:58
(Women, too).
:-)
- Scott
------------------------
You're damn right women too!
lol
Posted by Phillipa on January 17, 2009, at 23:06:31
In reply to Re: Are Psych meds given a bad rap?, posted by SLS on January 17, 2009, at 21:25:58
Scott you bet women!!! If not for us no more babies hence then no more man. Do women still outlive men? Love Phillipa
Posted by bulldog2 on January 18, 2009, at 8:22:08
In reply to Re: Are Psych meds given a bad rap?, posted by SLS on January 17, 2009, at 21:18:04
> > >The strong survive. Some that vent about drugs just won't make it. It's the fault of their genetics not the drugs. Some are born faulty in nature and are not meant to live. The weak in nature either die or get picked off by predators. In most cases the drugs have nothing to do with the outcome for these people. Some people just can't be fixed
> >
> > If this is true it is appalling that it is so.
>
> Regardless of the weaknesses in our evolutionary physiologies in health and disease, humankind today does not require that the sick die. In fact, humankind as long ago as 40,000 years took care of its injured and elderly. The fossil record demonstrates this. It is not God's way to have Man kick the sickly out of the nest like some birds do. (If it were God's way for things to be otherwise, they would be otherwise). Caring for family and friends is hard-wired into our brains - as is altruism, I believe. So... whereas 40,000 years ago, Man used animal bones for splints, 40 seconds ago, Man used a synthetic balloon to save someones life while performing an angioplastic procedure.
>
> The people who can't be fixed today help lay the groundwork so that people can be fixed tomorrow. It is the passion of Men to make this so.
>
>
> - ScottPart of what I am saying is that too many blame meds for the progression of their disease when in fact it may just be genetics taking it's course. Had they never taken meds they probably would still be in the same state of deterioration.
Are we laying the seeds of our own destruction Scott? People with genetic defects are being kept alive and are now reproducing. Had nature taken it's course these genes would be taken out of the gene pool. Now the gene pool has the some very destructive genes. Our altruism may eventually come back to haunt us. We may begin to see more genetically based mental and physical illness manifest itself in the population.
I know this is a topic that is loaded with many emotional feelings.I didn't say the weak and sick should be allowed to die. But do we eventually have to look at laws to limit the ability of those with proven genetic diseases to reproduce? Is it fair to their children who than have to deal with these horrible illnesses?
Posted by Trans-Human on January 18, 2009, at 13:13:53
In reply to Re: Are Psych meds given a bad rap?, posted by bulldog2 on January 18, 2009, at 8:22:08
This is all sounding too much like T9 & Eugenics. It is not a large step to return to such things; given the attitudes many now have in society & the way things are going.
Posted by Trans-Human on January 18, 2009, at 13:18:40
In reply to Re: Are Psych meds given a bad rap?, posted by Trans-Human on January 18, 2009, at 13:13:53
Posted by SLS on January 18, 2009, at 14:21:59
In reply to Re: Are Psych meds given a bad rap?, posted by bulldog2 on January 18, 2009, at 8:22:08
> Part of what I am saying is that too many blame meds for the progression of their disease when in fact it may just be genetics taking it's course.
Yes.
> Had they never taken meds they probably would still be in the same state of deterioration.
I feel pretty sure that I would have been, too.
> Are we laying the seeds of our own destruction Scott?
I'm not sure. This is something I have thought much about.
> People with genetic defects are being kept alive and are now reproducing.
Yes.
> Had nature taken it's course these genes would be taken out of the gene pool.
It depends upon whether or not the age of onset of illness is late enough to allow for breeding success. For instance, I imagine the prime ages of breeding through evolutionary history was 16-22 years (I don't know). If some proportion of depression or bipolar disorders develops later than this, then these genetic mutations would remain in the gene pool. They obviously made it in and remained in it from our earliest times until today. This is a situation analogous to Huntington's Chorea, a single gene trait disorder that persists generation after generation because it doesn't emerge until one reaches their mid 40s and has already had children.
> Now the gene pool has the some very destructive genes. Our altruism may eventually come back to haunt us.
Excellent thinking. It reflects my own. :-) It always seemed like a possible scenario to me as I was going through school and began to study medicine. I have always thought evolutionarily. HOWEVER, we are drawing close to the day in which we will be able to more easily manipulate gene activity and even manipulate the genes themselves so that they can be corrected. I believe this is already being done using viral vectors or the older process of transfection. Gene therapy is the way of the future. However, this does not speak to prevention. Genetic counselling, unfortunately, is not a widespread. Is this even a viable alternative in the Third World?
> We may begin to see more genetically based mental and physical illness manifest itself in the population.
> I know this is a topic that is loaded with many emotional feelings.I didn't say the weak and sick should be allowed to die. But do we eventually have to look at laws to limit the ability of those with proven genetic diseases to reproduce? Is it fair to their children who than have to deal with these horrible illnesses?
Those are questions well worth asking, and represent an ethical and moral dilemma. I don't find them negativistic or cynical at all.
- Scott
Posted by Sigismund on January 18, 2009, at 14:38:57
In reply to Re: Are Psych meds given a bad rap?, posted by Trans-Human on January 18, 2009, at 13:13:53
It's sounding awfully like 1930's eugenics to me.
Posted by Neal on January 19, 2009, at 21:13:09
In reply to Re: Are Psych meds given a bad rap?, posted by Sigismund on January 18, 2009, at 14:38:57
"Only the strong survive" and that kind of talk was a very popular interpretation of Darwin in the early 1900s. It gave us two World Wars and millions of innocent dead. Don't ever fall for it.
Darwin actually said those best suited to the local environment of the times are more likely to survive. He was talking about animals evolving, not human societies.
The Dinosaurs were very strong in their day, but that didn't stop an asteroid from changing the equation in one day. Little mammals the size of mice became the new dominant species.
Humans look good right now, but with all the weapons stored up, who knows?
Posted by fayeroe on January 21, 2009, at 19:59:22
In reply to Re: Are Psych meds given a bad rap?, posted by bulldog2 on January 17, 2009, at 17:12:07
Bulldog said something that I think is really important about Pmeds. I do not quit taking a med until I think it is either going to kill me or it just isn't helping.
I'll stay on something long enough to give it a fair test. If the side effects, after 30 days, are still affecting me...I tell my doc and we go with something else. If it isn't working, same drill.
I know many people who have quit a med after three or four days because "my ears ring". In 30 days, the ears might not be ringing..could be hearing the birds and smiling. :-) lame, i know.
This is the end of the 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.