![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 9 to 33 of 53. Go back in thread:
Posted by topcatclr on April 6, 2010, at 0:19:23
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms, posted by morganator on April 5, 2010, at 20:21:03
Less stress=Less cancer. It's not rocket science!
Posted by linkadge on April 6, 2010, at 18:28:18
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms, posted by topcatclr on April 6, 2010, at 0:19:23
>Less stress=Less cancer. It's not rocket science!
You could say the same thing about smoking right??? Smoking calms me down therefore smoking reduces my overall cancer risk.....nonsense. Actually, I think its more complicated than rocket science, hence, I would not make this conclusion.The same notion was suggested with regards to heart attacks. "If we reduce the depression, the patients will have fewer heart attacks". Some of the larger studies however, suggest that SSRIs actually increase heart attack risks.
Linkadge
Posted by morganator on April 6, 2010, at 22:51:08
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms, posted by linkadge on April 6, 2010, at 18:28:18
Linkage, you have made some good points, but comparing SSRIs to smoking? Come on.
Also, I would like to see the studies you speak of. It just would be nice to actually see solid sources giving strong evidence for the claims you've made.
I realize you have had a bad experience with SSRIs and feel that they have put you in worse shape than you were before using them. You have to realize though that thousands of people are doing just fine on SSRIs and continue to do so for years on end. SSRIs are far from perfect and hopefully soon we will have better alternatives, but they have helped thousands and continue to do so without any real adverse effects.
Morgan
Posted by topcatclr on April 7, 2010, at 0:05:10
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms, posted by linkadge on April 6, 2010, at 18:28:18
I think your are over-thinking it linkadge! This is not less stress from something harmful to the body, in my opinion. More like a chemical meditation. Jesus, can you just accept that meds are not the Devil.
Posted by topcatclr on April 7, 2010, at 0:08:15
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms » linkadge, posted by morganator on April 6, 2010, at 22:51:08
he same notion was suggested with regards to heart attacks. "If we reduce the depression, the patients will have fewer heart attacks". Some of the larger studies however, suggest that SSRIs actually increase heart attack risks.
Complete BS. You can spin things any way you want. For many people these meds save lives. Just because you are not helped has NOTHING to do with it. Maybe you need a new girlfriend or something! Sheesh......
Posted by linkadge on April 7, 2010, at 16:57:34
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms » linkadge, posted by morganator on April 6, 2010, at 22:51:08
I'm not comparing smoking to SSRI's. My point was this: Just because an agent makes you calm does not mean it lowers the risk of cancer.
A number of antidepressants for instance are genotoxic. Take clomipramine or imipramine. Sure, they may calm you down but they are also damaging genetic material in the process. Genotoxic substances are generaly known to increase the risk of cancer.
The way any drug works in the body is complex.
Antidepressants induce so many biochemical and neurohormonal effects. Who among us can really say that the net effect is a reduced risk of cancer?
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on April 7, 2010, at 17:35:36
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms, posted by topcatclr on April 7, 2010, at 0:05:10
>I think your are over-thinking it linkadge! This >is not less stress from something harmful to the >body, in my opinion. More like a chemical >meditation. Jesus, can you just accept that meds >are not the Devil
I disagree entirely. I think you are **underthinking** it. Stress is only *one* risk factor for cancer. I can't say (off the top of my head) how stress compares to any other risk factor for cancer.
Plenty of stress free people get cancer. Think of it this way. Some of the things that help combat stress actually are tumor promoters. Take sex hormones, for instance. Higher levels of certain sex hormones are actaully protective against depressive disorders. Yet, they are actually tumor promoters. Estrogen and DHEA are examples. SSRI's are neuroendocrine disruptors. Serotonin has convergent effects (in many ways) with estrogen which is a tumor promoter. For instance, both SSRI's and estrogen increase BCL-2 which enhances cellular resilliance. Antidepressants cellualr actions are not confined to the brain. Antidepressants can also boosts the levels of certain sex hormones like estrogen and DHEA. Some of the very targets of the antidepressants are to increase neuronal proliferation and reduce cellular death. SSRI's enhance intracellular signalling cascades like protein kinase C which can promote tumor growth. Take the anti-cancer drug tamoxafin. It lowers protein kinase c in cancer cells (and in the brain) which helps trigger cancer cell death. But, it can also induce depression (or an anti manic effect) in the process.
SSRI's also increase levels of several other cellular growth factors like VEGF, FGF-2 and IGF. VEGF increases blood vessle formation. Cancer cells are made more reisistant by the application of VEGF in vivo. They become more resistant because they derive more blood vessle supplies from about them.
In many ways, anti cancer therapies have sought to do the exact oposite biochemically. That is, lower VEGF, reduce PKC and reduce BCL-2 levels.
Norepinephrine is also a tumor promoter. The noradrenergic drugs may increase the biochemical activity of norepinephrine. Remember, the drugs' activities are not confined to the brain. What it makes you feel like is independant of the effects it is having throughout your body.
There are other things I mentioned too. Like, what effect reducing melatonin excretion will have. What about reducing HGH, or testosterone. SSRI's alter immune function in wierd and wonderful ways too. What affect does inducing apathy on the risk of cancer? What about the effects of a drug that removes joy from ones life? (I.e. do the drugs even work?). People who have regular sex have lower risks of cancer. Powerful hormones are released during orgasm. If SSRI's abolish a decent sex life, what effect does this have on your risk of cancer?
Dispite their purported ability to reduce stress, some SSRI' have not been shown to consistently reduce cortisol. In this study, SSRI's increased both thyroid and cortisol.
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?doi=10.1159/000054954
Whats the net effect?? Who knows.
Next, dopamine acts to inhibit tumor growth. Do a google search on "dopamine + cancer". It seems that dopamine agonists appear to supress, while dopamine antagonists (or functional dopamine antagonists?) appear to increase cancer risk. See:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080313185743.htm
Mice with high dopamine have reduced incidence of cancer.
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/02-0145fjev1
So, if SSRI's reduce, or deplete dopamine neurotransmission, what effect might this have on the development or progression of cancer?
This sertaline study is taken out of context. Just because the drug delivered in vitro kills some cancer cells, does not mean its over all effect is a reduced risk of cancer. When the drug is added to the entire body, all sorts of changes take place.
So to summarize...................who the f*ck knows? Just because the drug calms you down.....
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on April 7, 2010, at 20:25:37
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms » topcatclr, posted by linkadge on April 7, 2010, at 17:35:36
>Jesus, can you just accept that meds >are not >the Devil
Oh and another thing. I think people like you pick on people like me for the following reason:
- Identify somebody that you label as some wacko "anti-med","meds are the devil" individual (which I am not), and in doing so, you make it seem (to yourself?) like actually thinking about the substances that you ingest is a bad thing.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on April 7, 2010, at 20:27:05
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms, posted by linkadge on April 7, 2010, at 20:25:37
In other words, its easier for you to label me as crazy and go ahead trotting down your "ignorance is bliss" pathway of life.
Linkadge
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2010, at 23:09:13
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms, posted by linkadge on April 7, 2010, at 20:27:05
Posted by morganator on April 8, 2010, at 13:35:11
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms, posted by linkadge on April 7, 2010, at 20:27:05
> In other words, its easier for you to label me as crazy and go ahead trotting down your "ignorance is bliss" pathway of life.
>
> LinkadgeI have to admit, sometimes ignorance is bliss when it comes to people having great long term success when using drugs like SSRIs.
Linkage, like I said before, you make some very good points. Still, I believe, with what we know so far, Zoloft may just stand alone as one of the cleaner, less toxic, less invasive SSRIs. There is a reason why doctors can prescribe up to 200 mg or more of it.
I know we need to come up with better alternatives to SSRIs. Still, I believe there are many people out there that will take SSRIs with very little or no problems and get off of them with very little or no problems(I and a few other friends of mine are examples of this).
For what it's worth, I don't think you were really being uncivil. You were simply passionately expressing your thoughts. Nothing wrong with that as long as you are not crossing the line-which I don't think you really did.
Posted by linkadge on April 8, 2010, at 15:05:21
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms, posted by morganator on April 8, 2010, at 13:35:11
>Linkage, like I said before, you make some very >good points. Still, I believe, with what we know >so far, Zoloft may just stand alone as one of >the cleaner, less toxic, less invasive SSRIs. >There is a reason why doctors can prescribe up >to 200 mg or more of it.
I don't know what that is supposed to mean. I would consider celexa, cipralex, luvox and perhaps prozac to be relatively clean too. Celexa / cipralex is the only SSRI which hasn't been linked to increased risk of metabolic issues.
Paxil and zoloft are higher offenders with this issue.All the SSRI's are prescribed in doses up to (and exceeding) 4 times the starting dose. 80mg of prozac or celexa is not that uncommon.
Zoloft just plain didn't work for me. Not to say it doesn't work for some. I just don't see putting it on a pedastil.
Linkadge
Posted by bulldog2 on April 8, 2010, at 16:20:48
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms, posted by linkadge on April 7, 2010, at 20:27:05
> In other words, its easier for you to label me as crazy and go ahead trotting down your "ignorance is bliss" pathway of life.
>
> LinkadgeI think more people than you realize think long and hard about the drugs we are taking. We have to evaluate the pros and cons and make a decision. So people have to evaluate the degree of suffering they are experiencing against the possible harm the medication may do.Now if I am going to take a drug along with its risks I might as well allow myself to experience any benefits the drug may offer in terms of mood improvement. From what I have read and experienced myself, if I am going to obsess over the possible sides I may experience that will certainly sabotage my drug experience. So either don't take the meds or take the meds and stay open to anything positive it may offer to alleviate my mood illness. The third option is the one that makes the least sense for me. I don't embark on a med trial and obsess about the bad things that could happen. That option will certainly bring your med trial to an unsucessful conclusion.
> In other words, its easier for you to label me as crazy and go ahead trotting down your "ignorance is bliss" pathway of life
I think the statement has incorrectly branded many of us who do know the potential sides and make a decision to proceed with the med trial. If I obsess about the sides the drug trial is doomed before i start.
I think that once you reach a certain level of fear of psychotropic drugs it makes more sense to not take them anymore. Get off of them and gradually your brain will drift back via homeostatis to its former self.
Posted by morganator on April 8, 2010, at 16:30:17
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms, posted by linkadge on April 8, 2010, at 15:05:21
>Paxil and zoloft are higher offenders with this issue.
Can you show me any sources giving evidence that Zoloft is one of the major offenders in this case?
Are you positive that celexa or lexapro have not been shown to possibly cause weight gain?
Posted by bulldog2 on April 8, 2010, at 16:39:06
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms, posted by linkadge on April 8, 2010, at 15:05:21
> >Linkage, like I said before, you make some very >good points. Still, I believe, with what we know >so far, Zoloft may just stand alone as one of >the cleaner, less toxic, less invasive SSRIs. >There is a reason why doctors can prescribe up >to 200 mg or more of it.
>
> I don't know what that is supposed to mean. I would consider celexa, cipralex, luvox and perhaps prozac to be relatively clean too. Celexa / cipralex is the only SSRI which hasn't been linked to increased risk of metabolic issues.
> Paxil and zoloft are higher offenders with this issue.
>
> All the SSRI's are prescribed in doses up to (and exceeding) 4 times the starting dose. 80mg of prozac or celexa is not that uncommon.
>
>
> Zoloft just plain didn't work for me. Not to say it doesn't work for some. I just don't see putting it on a pedastil.
>
>
> LinkadgeZoloft has virtually no effect on weight, some action on dopamine, one of the lowest ssri offenders on prolactin, pristine and clean of action, catapult zoloft into the group of the best of the modern ssri, snri ads. Certainly one of the first ads that should be considered for mild to moderate depression. Just an opinion held down at the mental health clinic of the University of Pennsylvania.
Posted by morganator on April 8, 2010, at 17:05:58
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms, posted by linkadge on April 8, 2010, at 15:05:21
>Zoloft just plain didn't work for me.
How long did you take Zoloft for and at what dosage? Did it give you any side effects?
Posted by bleauberry on April 8, 2010, at 17:46:50
In reply to Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms, posted by morganator on April 4, 2010, at 1:56:30
As far as I can tell, the best anti-cancer strategies are found in the fingertips...which foods are picked up at the grocery store and which are not.
The next step is a few well chosen herbs with clinical evidence supporting them.
If someone happens to be on an antidepressant that happens to have some suspected anticancer benefit as well, cool, an added bonus. But by itself, not a good reason to have that med as your only weapon for good health. The grocery store is where it's at. Food choice is so much more important than most people realize. In terms of anticancer, I would bet regular consumption of raw broccoli, garlic, daily oatmeal, and a full menu of veggies and fruits, ingredient labels that you can actually read and you know what they are, organic meats, these things will blow zoloft in the weeds.
Posted by morganator on April 8, 2010, at 17:53:24
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms, posted by bleauberry on April 8, 2010, at 17:46:50
I totally agree with you here. Like I said before, the only reason why I made the original post was for people taking Zoloft or thinking of taking Zoloft to know that there may be a benefit to taking it outside of just fighting depression and anxiety. I think it is important for people that need to take antidepressants to have reasons to feel good about having to take them.
Posted by topcatclr on April 8, 2010, at 23:08:27
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms » bleauberry, posted by morganator on April 8, 2010, at 17:53:24
Linkadge,
You have been on this sight for years, literally talking yourself and many others, into some sort of bizarre permanent depression. Yes i know all the risks and i have done more than my share of analyzing. You, however, take it to an extreme, unhealthy level, virtually guaranteeing your failure. I don't need to know every freaken chemical structure of these meds. Christ there are chemicals EVERYWHERE! I have come to the simple conclusion that my life is better with them than without them. Why do you want to bring everyone down the hole with you!
Posted by Sigismund on April 9, 2010, at 1:12:37
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms » bleauberry, posted by morganator on April 8, 2010, at 17:53:24
Coca leaf, though full of antioxidants, is a plant of the devil and a med choice I am fortunately not permitted.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2010, at 1:53:19
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms/ Linkadge, posted by topcatclr on April 8, 2010, at 23:08:27
> You have been ... talking yourself and many others, into some sort of bizarre permanent depression.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
I do hope that you choose to remain a member of this community and that this community helps you, if needed, to avoid future blocks.
Link, I'm also sorry if you felt hurt.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by morganator on April 9, 2010, at 3:30:27
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms, posted by Sigismund on April 9, 2010, at 1:12:37
> Coca leaf, though full of antioxidants, is a plant of the devil and a med choice I am fortunately not permitted.
Huh? Can you please elucidate?
Are you talking about cocoa?
I put raw cacao in my protein smoothie everyday. It's very good for you, unless you have an allergy to it of course.
Posted by Sigismund on April 9, 2010, at 18:16:51
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms » Sigismund, posted by morganator on April 9, 2010, at 3:30:27
I lapse into irony when annoyed by defenders of the industry.
No, I was talking about coca leaf.
Posted by linkadge on April 9, 2010, at 18:21:24
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms » linkadge, posted by bulldog2 on April 8, 2010, at 16:39:06
>Zoloft has virtually no effect on weight, some >action on dopamine, one of the lowest ssri >offenders on prolactin, pristine and clean of >action, catapult zoloft into the group of the >best of the modern ssri, snri ads. Certainly one >of the first ads that should be considered for >mild to moderate depression. Just an opinion >held down at the mental health clinic of the >University of Pennsylvania.
I'm not even going to respond to that. It sounds like the title slogan on Pfizer's mid 90's magazine campaign. Sure you're not getting funding from Pfizer?
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on April 9, 2010, at 18:34:32
In reply to Re: Zoloft-Anti-Cancer Mechanisms » linkadge, posted by morganator on April 8, 2010, at 17:05:58
I took 175mg for about 8 months (and other doses for varying lengths).
I had side effects. Zoloft made me suicidal and, apathetic. It gave me mood swings, and strange dark moods (which I never got on citalopram). It increased carbohydrate cravings. It made it hard to sit still (akathesia), insomnia (on over 100mg). Sertaline also made me paranoid (which other SSRI's did not - dopamine reuptake inhibition??). Sertaline also messed up my ballance more than other SSRI's.
Here is a study of SSRI's and risks for cholesterol and obdomnial obesity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17194277
I think sertaline has few side effects, but (like most SSRI's) its not much better than placebo for lifting moods.
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.