![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 14 to 38 of 48. Go back in thread:
Posted by IsoM on September 28, 2002, at 11:49:36
In reply to Exercise not sure treatment, posted by Marathon Man on September 28, 2002, at 9:19:20
I agree with you, MM. Still, it's surprising how much exercise will 'help' many with depression even if it doesn't stop it.
The level of exercise & activity needed seems to vary though (if it does help such a person). In talking with my bio prof, she said a couple hours a week was enough to keep her up. But with me, I found I needed to stay with a couple hours a day of sustained high physical activity (aerobic & muscle work). If I couldn't keep at it for even a few days, the full force of the depression would return.
Moral: we're all different & while exercise is recommended for everyone, there's more involved than just that.
Posted by jackstraw232 on September 28, 2002, at 13:05:20
In reply to Re: Exercise not sure treatment » Marathon Man, posted by IsoM on September 28, 2002, at 11:49:36
Given, no solution will work for everyone, as a rule. Yet, in an overwhelming majority of cases the severely depressed who do not respond to excersise are a slim few; and might I mention again (as mentioned in the original post regarding this matter) that if there are extenuating circumstance that hinder the ability for one to endure cardio-vascuar activities, then by all means forgo this method. But when we generalize, we have to condsider the majority method. Thank you, however, for your energetic responses.
Posted by jay beck on July 4, 2003, at 17:32:34
In reply to Re: Exercise not sure treatment » IsoM, posted by jackstraw232 on September 28, 2002, at 13:05:20
exercise is ver benificial for any human in multiple different ways. i put it under the catagory of eating right, taking proper nutriants/suppliments. its a huge health benifit to exercise and mentaly it is proven to help a bit although anyone with major deppresion will tell you the desire or the will to even remotly give a shit about ones personal health is fairly low. i got way more health consiance after my meds started to work and now eat right and exercise. deppresion is not some minor issue that can be simply eliminated by exercising or even just one addition to someones life.
Posted by jay beck on July 4, 2003, at 17:57:37
In reply to seroquel for insomnia, posted by heiwa on June 17, 2002, at 17:53:48
o ya, using anti-psychotics only for insomnia is crazy and discusting. anti-psychotics can zombie you out, extreme sedation, make you lame and boring, cover the true personality you have and destroy your creative energy. they, as a whole, are horrible drugs and should only be used if they have to be. there a ton of other options for insomnia and almost any of them are better then getting a psychotropic drug with a shit load of side-effects, that can alter you as a person for the negative.
Posted by whiterabbit on July 4, 2003, at 18:51:08
In reply to Re: seroquel for insomnia, posted by jay beck on July 4, 2003, at 17:57:37
I've ALWAYS said VERY specifically that I DO NOT
take Seroquel for insomnia. ALWAYS. I take Seroquel as a treatment for my bipolar symptoms,
which INCLUDES insomnia induced by mania. Big difference.Say what you like about Seroquel. This drug saved my life, I mean that literally. I would be dead today without it.
-Gracie
Posted by Caleb462 on July 5, 2003, at 0:09:27
In reply to Re: seroquel for insomnia, posted by jay beck on July 4, 2003, at 17:57:37
> o ya, using anti-psychotics only for insomnia is crazy and discusting. anti-psychotics can zombie you out, extreme sedation, make you lame and boring, cover the true personality you have and destroy your creative energy. they, as a whole, are horrible drugs and should only be used if they have to be. there a ton of other options for insomnia and almost any of them are better then getting a psychotropic drug with a shit load of side-effects, that can alter you as a person for the negative.
Seroquel's half-life is only around 5 or 6 hours I believe... meaning if you are taking it at night for insomnia, it is probably night going to be effecting you during the day. I agree using APs for insomnia might be a bit overdoing it, but there are two sides to every story - these drugs are neither "bad" nor "good". It depends on individual response.
Posted by galkeepinon on July 5, 2003, at 1:17:38
In reply to Re: seroquel for insomnia, posted by jay beck on July 4, 2003, at 17:57:37
AMEN!!!!!!!!yours truly was on Seroquel for insomnia for 3 years:
-gained 60-70 Lbs.
-zombied me out
-made me very dull
-covered my true personality
which was not an angry one
-vanished my creativity
overall>>>>>>altered me as a person for the negative
Hey jay?
Can you say "I rest my case" *smile*
I agree here with you all the way down the home stretch!gal
> o ya, using anti-psychotics only for insomnia is crazy and discusting. anti-psychotics can zombie you out, extreme sedation, make you lame and boring, cover the true personality you have and destroy your creative energy. they, as a whole, are horrible drugs and should only be used if they have to be. there a ton of other options for insomnia and almost any of them are better then getting a psychotropic drug with a shit load of side-effects, that can alter you as a person for the negative.
Posted by galkeepinon on July 5, 2003, at 1:23:25
In reply to Sigh...., posted by whiterabbit on July 4, 2003, at 18:51:08
hi Gracie, I hear your frustration. Seroquel was a great med for my symptom of not being able to sleep(I'm bipolar too) I wouldn't have stayed on it as long as I did if it didn't help with that. But looking back now, I can see what happened and was happening to me, but during treatment it's hard-very hard to see it and it's hard for me to look back at that.
I am VERY glad that it has saved your life and I DO believe you! And I'm certainly glad you're not dead.
Hang in theregal
>
> I've ALWAYS said VERY specifically that I DO NOT
> take Seroquel for insomnia. ALWAYS. I take Seroquel as a treatment for my bipolar symptoms,
> which INCLUDES insomnia induced by mania. Big difference.
>
> Say what you like about Seroquel. This drug saved my life, I mean that literally. I would be dead today without it.
> -Gracie
Posted by johnj on July 5, 2003, at 10:56:26
In reply to I like excercise, posted by jackstraw232 on September 27, 2002, at 23:58:00
I like the thought on excercise and I miss it more than anything. But, if you suffer from anxiety or panic disorder excercise can make it worse. I am finding this out after going to a depression/anxiety clinic at the local university. My docs just kept saying "excercise is good for depression" but if it increases anixety or induces panic it will not help insomnia. Count yourself lucky if you can excercise and it doesn't affect your mood adversely.
johnj
Posted by jay beck on July 5, 2003, at 17:21:41
In reply to Re: seroquel for insomnia, posted by Caleb462 on July 5, 2003, at 0:09:27
caleb there is such thing as a "good" or "bad" drug, they take "very bad" drugs off the market.
what you consider "bad" or "good" may differ from me, or anyone elese. but lets say there was a drug for headache that caused a little significant irreversable organ damage every time it was used, but it took care of that headache any time very fast. even though it was effective i would call that drug "very bad".
now how about a drug for insomnia that was not addictive, no side effects and you woke up well rested. I would call this a " very good" drug
as for ssris as whole i would call them "pretty good" they are fairly effective with some anoying side-effects, sometimes. even if they don't work for whoever and so and so doesnt get any side-effects.
now to anti-psychotics: they have very bad side-effects, even if you don't intually notice them or don't notice them when being treated with them. as for there effectiveness at helping psychotic disorders, they are usualy not tolarable at the dose required to help a fully scitzophrenic person. if they were we wouldnt need ANYBODY in mental instatutions for scitzophrenia. (besides VERY rare exeptions, not the 20% or so now adays) i have slight paranoid dillusions sometimes and i live with them. why? because anti-psychotics at the dose required to treat me have horrable side effects. so as the thought process would take you. just because whoever has no problem with side-effect and so and so loves his zombie-pills dose not make these drugs any better or worse. they arnt effective enough to completely treat (and i mean even around 90% treat) most scitzophrenics and they have a slew of side-effects. (that WAY more people feel then most other drugs) i would call them "bad" drugs
jay
Posted by whiterabbit on July 5, 2003, at 22:07:51
In reply to Re: seroquel for insomnia » jay beck, posted by galkeepinon on July 5, 2003, at 1:17:38
I'll be the first to admit that the weight gain from Seroquel is demoralizing. Actually I don't know if I can blame it all on Seroquel because I've always been on other medication at the same time, including birth control methods (Depro/Norplant) that can influence weight. But I'm not discounting the Seroquel at all. It takes quite awhile to adjust to this medication and it slows you down considerably while your body builds up a tolerance for it. So - at the very least - Seroquel is responsible for weight gain caused by inactivity.
But I think it's a lot more involved than that. The weight gain seems too profound to be caused by inactivity alone. I've been doing a little research (actually, "research" is way too grand -
"poking around" would be more accurate) and as far as I can tell, nobody has figured out for sure precisely how psych meds cause weight gain
(if they knew for sure, they could probably fix it) - we just have to be patient while they work on that. Probably serotonin is involved, & possibly these medications change the way that your body metabolizes fat.Now right here a lot of people get fired up for a debate. They make different arguments towards the same general conclusion: the unpleasant side effects of these drugs just PROVE that it is
DANGEROUS, UNNATURAL & WRONG to alter or interfere with the natural chemical, biological & physiological processes of the human body.Oh, really? Does that mean if a malignant tumor begins to grow somewhere in your body, or prehaps the body of your child, you would not attempt to interfere with this "natural" growth? You would refuse medical care because the unpleasant side effects of cancer treatment PROVE that we have no right to alter a natural biological process? And what about vaccines that protect us from disfiguring & life-threatening illnesses like diptheria, polio & tuberculosis? The body's "natural" response to deadly viruses are that you may very well sicken & die in an unpleasant manner. And while the vaccine prompts your body to defend itself by way of your own immune system, the process of injecting the dead (harmless) virus to build up resistance could hardly be called "natural".
Now at this point I've been told that I'm comparing apples and oranges because medical treatment for cancer or protection against a virus is "different" than taking psychiatric medication, including the dreaded antipsychotics,
to alter brain chemistry.Alright then, WHY is it different? Because cancer & viruses are potentially lethal while a mood disorder is not? Excuse me but, the last time I checked, suicide was still lethal.
Clinical depression, mood disorders, the wish to harm or do away with oneself - these emotions are as much of an aberration as a malignant tumor.
They are NOT the product of a brain in perfect working order; a desire to self-destruct is exceedingly unnatural in all living things (except a few wierd bugs). It's the result of an illness, a disorder, a condition that we now have the ability to treat due to the continuing advancement of medical science.No, psychiatric drugs are far from ideal. Generally they're slow-acting & can have side effects that are hard to deal with. Used improperly, they can cause emotional havoc in the mind. It takes a considerable amount of time and continued endurance on the patient's part before all the puzzle pieces finally fit into place.
These pieces consist of a competent doctor, proper diagnosis, the best medication (usually a combination of medications) at the most effective dosage, patient compliance, and all the waiting required before small signs of improvement begin to appear. Recovery doesn't come quickly or dramatically but it does come, something like buds of crocus poking up through the snow crust after a hard winter. That's how I think of it anyway.
And for most, the waiting part is the worst. To borrow a phrase from Anne Sexton, it can be compared to "the terrible rowing towards God."
We want quick & painless results & we want them now, but it doesn't work like that. Still, eventual recovery sure beats the hell out of no recovery, ever.From here I'll circle back to the original subject. Weight gain is a scar that many of us pick up along the way. Women especially, we're conditioned to fight poundage at all costs, & sometimes we do terrible things to prevent it. I struggled with this issue myself for a long time,
but after enduring a lifetime of emotional pain that would roll at me in relentless tidal waves -
and after tearing a huge path of destruction through my life, hurting myself and the people I loved over and over again - I made a grueling decision. I had to stop worrying about my weight, had to stop beating myself up over every pound gained. I HAD to get well, HAD to make healing my
tortured mind a priority over weight gain & the other unpleasant side effects.Because I couldn't suffer anymore, I just couldn't keep taking it again and again with no respite, no quarter, and no hope in sight. I was self-medicating with drugs & alcohol right into the grave, hospitalized twice after overdosing & nearly made it once, came real close, but they got me to the ER in time, pumped my stomach & I woke up in ICU from a coma just in time, once again, to avoid a tracheotomy so they could hook up me up to a ventilator. They were talking about it, though, warned my husband it might be called for.
So medication was my last hope, and I was determined to give it a chance, not much to lose.
I took my pills, I took them like I was supposed to, and I kept taking them. I endured the weight gain, the sexual dysfunction, the lethargy, the fuzzy thinking. I handled it all the best way I could & often despaired, but I stuck with it, grimly determined to give the medication every opportunity to help me, to make me well.And it worked. My God, it really did work after all - finally. The side effects began to fade and I started to feel better. My energy came back, my thinking cleared up, and I'm no longer tormented by an unbalanced mind. And it is largely due to an antipsychotic, Seroquel. I don't consider myself to be "depersonalized", although I am, literally, reprogrammed. If I'm a different person now it's only because I no longer consider living a gruesome effort and a pointless, terrible charade. Far from being a zombie, it is now within my ability to grasp at a gold ring that was always out of reach before: appreciation for life, hope for the future, and even an occasional glimpse at joy.
It is your right to decide that you don't wish to use antipsychotics or any other drug. But it is not your right to discourage others from taking a prescribed medication that could improve their quality of life immeasurably. Turning your particular bias into misinformation aimed at all others is harmful, and assuming that a medication is "bad" for everyone because you didn't care for it yourself is an uneducated and mistaken assumption.
-Gracie
Posted by galkeepinon on July 5, 2003, at 23:04:35
In reply to Seroquel weight gain and other evils, posted by whiterabbit on July 5, 2003, at 22:07:51
Gracie, great post!!!! This took a lot of smarts and a lot of time on your part. Good for you. All I hear sometimes is that this med is bad or this med is good it gets exhausting a lot of the time-it really does. I had posted above to you this>>>>hi Gracie, I hear your frustration. Seroquel was a great med for my symptom of not being able to sleep(I'm bipolar too) I wouldn't have stayed on it as long as I did if it didn't help with that. But looking back now, I can see what happened and was happening to me, but during treatment it's hard-very hard to see it and it's hard for me to look back at that.
I am VERY glad that it has saved your life and I DO believe you! And I'm certainly glad you're not dead.
Hang in there Everybody is different and you are making your point-that is great!!! I hear you.
Keep it up-you sound really level headed!Gal
I'll be the first to admit that the weight gain from Seroquel is demoralizing. Actually I don't know if I can blame it all on Seroquel because I've always been on other medication at the same time, including birth control methods (Depro/Norplant) that can influence weight. But I'm not discounting the Seroquel at all. It takes quite awhile to adjust to this medication and it slows you down considerably while your body builds up a tolerance for it. So - at the very least - Seroquel is responsible for weight gain caused by inactivity.
>
> But I think it's a lot more involved than that. The weight gain seems too profound to be caused by inactivity alone. I've been doing a little research (actually, "research" is way too grand -
> "poking around" would be more accurate) and as far as I can tell, nobody has figured out for sure precisely how psych meds cause weight gain
> (if they knew for sure, they could probably fix it) - we just have to be patient while they work on that. Probably serotonin is involved, & possibly these medications change the way that your body metabolizes fat.
>
> Now right here a lot of people get fired up for a debate. They make different arguments towards the same general conclusion: the unpleasant side effects of these drugs just PROVE that it is
> DANGEROUS, UNNATURAL & WRONG to alter or interfere with the natural chemical, biological & physiological processes of the human body.
>
> Oh, really? Does that mean if a malignant tumor begins to grow somewhere in your body, or prehaps the body of your child, you would not attempt to interfere with this "natural" growth? You would refuse medical care because the unpleasant side effects of cancer treatment PROVE that we have no right to alter a natural biological process? And what about vaccines that protect us from disfiguring & life-threatening illnesses like diptheria, polio & tuberculosis? The body's "natural" response to deadly viruses are that you may very well sicken & die in an unpleasant manner. And while the vaccine prompts your body to defend itself by way of your own immune system, the process of injecting the dead (harmless) virus to build up resistance could hardly be called "natural".
>
> Now at this point I've been told that I'm comparing apples and oranges because medical treatment for cancer or protection against a virus is "different" than taking psychiatric medication, including the dreaded antipsychotics,
> to alter brain chemistry.
>
> Alright then, WHY is it different? Because cancer & viruses are potentially lethal while a mood disorder is not? Excuse me but, the last time I checked, suicide was still lethal.
>
> Clinical depression, mood disorders, the wish to harm or do away with oneself - these emotions are as much of an aberration as a malignant tumor.
> They are NOT the product of a brain in perfect working order; a desire to self-destruct is exceedingly unnatural in all living things (except a few wierd bugs). It's the result of an illness, a disorder, a condition that we now have the ability to treat due to the continuing advancement of medical science.
>
> No, psychiatric drugs are far from ideal. Generally they're slow-acting & can have side effects that are hard to deal with. Used improperly, they can cause emotional havoc in the mind. It takes a considerable amount of time and continued endurance on the patient's part before all the puzzle pieces finally fit into place.
>
> These pieces consist of a competent doctor, proper diagnosis, the best medication (usually a combination of medications) at the most effective dosage, patient compliance, and all the waiting required before small signs of improvement begin to appear. Recovery doesn't come quickly or dramatically but it does come, something like buds of crocus poking up through the snow crust after a hard winter. That's how I think of it anyway.
>
> And for most, the waiting part is the worst. To borrow a phrase from Anne Sexton, it can be compared to "the terrible rowing towards God."
> We want quick & painless results & we want them now, but it doesn't work like that. Still, eventual recovery sure beats the hell out of no recovery, ever.
>
> From here I'll circle back to the original subject. Weight gain is a scar that many of us pick up along the way. Women especially, we're conditioned to fight poundage at all costs, & sometimes we do terrible things to prevent it. I struggled with this issue myself for a long time,
> but after enduring a lifetime of emotional pain that would roll at me in relentless tidal waves -
> and after tearing a huge path of destruction through my life, hurting myself and the people I loved over and over again - I made a grueling decision. I had to stop worrying about my weight, had to stop beating myself up over every pound gained. I HAD to get well, HAD to make healing my
> tortured mind a priority over weight gain & the other unpleasant side effects.
>
> Because I couldn't suffer anymore, I just couldn't keep taking it again and again with no respite, no quarter, and no hope in sight. I was self-medicating with drugs & alcohol right into the grave, hospitalized twice after overdosing & nearly made it once, came real close, but they got me to the ER in time, pumped my stomach & I woke up in ICU from a coma just in time, once again, to avoid a tracheotomy so they could hook up me up to a ventilator. They were talking about it, though, warned my husband it might be called for.
>
> So medication was my last hope, and I was determined to give it a chance, not much to lose.
> I took my pills, I took them like I was supposed to, and I kept taking them. I endured the weight gain, the sexual dysfunction, the lethargy, the fuzzy thinking. I handled it all the best way I could & often despaired, but I stuck with it, grimly determined to give the medication every opportunity to help me, to make me well.
>
> And it worked. My God, it really did work after all - finally. The side effects began to fade and I started to feel better. My energy came back, my thinking cleared up, and I'm no longer tormented by an unbalanced mind. And it is largely due to an antipsychotic, Seroquel. I don't consider myself to be "depersonalized", although I am, literally, reprogrammed. If I'm a different person now it's only because I no longer consider living a gruesome effort and a pointless, terrible charade. Far from being a zombie, it is now within my ability to grasp at a gold ring that was always out of reach before: appreciation for life, hope for the future, and even an occasional glimpse at joy.
>
> It is your right to decide that you don't wish to use antipsychotics or any other drug. But it is not your right to discourage others from taking a prescribed medication that could improve their quality of life immeasurably. Turning your particular bias into misinformation aimed at all others is harmful, and assuming that a medication is "bad" for everyone because you didn't care for it yourself is an uneducated and mistaken assumption.
>
> -Gracie
>
>
Posted by Jay Beck on July 6, 2003, at 10:19:33
In reply to Seroquel weight gain and other evils, posted by whiterabbit on July 5, 2003, at 22:07:51
First: im on anti-deppresants and HIGHLY support the idea of using psychotropic drugs to help with any mental disorders.
Second: im very researched on psychotropic drugs, and am going to be a psychiatrist after i finish school.
your statement:
"psychiatric drugs are far from ideal"i agree with this completely, and never has it applied more to any class of drugs then anti-psychotics.
your other statement, which you so cleverly came up with:
"But it is not your right to discourage others from taking a prescribed medication that could improve their quality of life immeasurably. Turning your particular bias into misinformation aimed at all others is harmful, and assuming that a medication is "bad" for everyone because you didn't care for it yourself is an uneducated and mistaken assumption."
First: "But it is not your right to discourage others from taking a prescribed medication that could improve their quality of life immeasurably."
Ammendament I: Bill of Rights
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
it is my right, ya dig
- and by the way i never told people not to try anything. i told them my experiances and my take on a class of drugs.Second:
"Turning your particular bias into misinformation aimed at all others is harmful, and assuming that a medication is "bad" for everyone because you didn't care for it yourself is an uneducated and mistaken assumption."i never said any medication is bad for everyone or anything of that sort, i said it was bad for me and then i compared effectiveness vs. side-effects for many diffrent drugs. Anti-psychotics happened to take the cake for least effective for the amount of side-effects. its true, not misinformation. if you are so sure im misinformed then inform me. the only misinformation i acount for is the way you twisted my statements into some argument that didnt even apply to me.
if a medication works for you or whoever great, that doesnt make it a great medication. Its like i said, side-effects vs effectiveness for the majority makes it good or bad as a drug. Not as a good or bad option for someones personal treatment. you completely misinterprated almost everything i had to say.
as for my personal take on anti-psychotics for the record:
they are bad as drugs, they might work for whoever. they worked for me but the side-effects were untolerable. If you need anti-psychotics go for it, most people on them don't really need them. They could better use mood-stabilizers and anti-deppresants. Exception: if you have a borderline personality, scitzophrenia, dillusion disorder, PPD or any psychotic issue, or mood-stabalizers have proven ineffective. they are sometimes needed, but sould be avoided if they can.
Posted by Emme on July 6, 2003, at 11:33:28
In reply to Re: Seroquel weight gain and other evils, posted by Jay Beck on July 6, 2003, at 10:19:33
My experience (and my experience only):
I find tiny doses of two of the newer antipsychotics, seroquel and abilify, *much* easier to tolerate in terms of side effects than antidepressants and most mood stabilizers - lamictal excepted. Not perfect, but far easier to tolerate. This may be because I only need very small doses.... But they happen to be "good" or at least "decent" drugs for me, especially used to some degree on an as-needed basis.
ADs don't work well for me, and we were running out of mood stabilizing options. So....
seroquel calms agitation. abilify has helped with depression. dx: somewhere in the grey zone between unipolar and BPII.
YMMV of course. Just wanted to throw in my personal, and therefore anecdotal experience.
Posted by whiterabbit on July 6, 2003, at 12:35:41
In reply to Re: Seroquel weight gain and other evils » whiterabbit, posted by galkeepinon on July 5, 2003, at 23:04:35
Posted by whiterabbit on July 6, 2003, at 12:38:04
In reply to Re: Seroquel weight gain and other evils, posted by Jay Beck on July 6, 2003, at 10:19:33
I said what I had to say & I'm not getting into a pis*ing contest with you. Have a good life.
-Gracie
Posted by jay beck on July 6, 2003, at 14:06:11
In reply to Forget it » Jay Beck, posted by whiterabbit on July 6, 2003, at 12:38:04
>
> I said what I had to say & I'm not getting into a pis*ing contest with you. Have a good life.
> -Gracie
you got on my case for no reason, spreading nonsence slander about me. why? did i make you mad? paranoia? i understand, ...mabey you do need anti-psychotics.have a pleasant day
Posted by whiterabbit on July 6, 2003, at 15:42:27
In reply to Re: Forget it, posted by jay beck on July 6, 2003, at 14:06:11
Thanks for the heads-up.
Posted by Emme on July 6, 2003, at 17:06:20
In reply to Re: Seroquel weight gain and other evils, posted by Jay Beck on July 6, 2003, at 10:19:33
> i never said any medication is bad for everyone or anything of that sort, i said it was bad for me and then i compared effectiveness vs. side-effects for many diffrent drugs. Anti-psychotics happened to take the cake for least effective for the amount of side-effects.
We should take it that this statement applies only to you, then, based on your own personal experience, right?
> as for my personal take on anti-psychotics for the record:
> they are bad as drugs,Not for everyone.
> they might work for whoever. they worked for me but the side-effects were untolerable. If you need anti-psychotics go for it, most people on them don't really need them. They could better use mood-stabilizers and anti-deppresants.
Doesn't apply to everyone.
> Exception: if you have a borderline personality, scitzophrenia, dillusion disorder, PPD or any psychotic issue, or mood-stabalizers have proven ineffective. they are sometimes needed, but sould be avoided if they can.
Again, not for everyone. You seem to be making awfully broad sweeping generalizations here. But I am sure that if you go to medical school, then some of your rigidity will be tempered by treating a lot of patients and seeing a wide range of responses to different drugs. You'll get the hang of picking the *best* drugs for a given person and may loosen your bias. After all, as I noted above, as an *individual* I tolerate two APs pretty well and have been helped by them at critical times even though I've never been psychotic. From my own point of view, for example, Effexor is *way* tougher to deal with.
Posted by galkeepinon on July 6, 2003, at 17:20:37
In reply to Re: Seroquel weight gain and other evils » Jay Beck, posted by Emme on July 6, 2003, at 17:06:20
Hi Emme,
Just getting off the subject a little here.....
I noticed you said at the end that Effexor is way tougher to deal with. I'm wondering about this med right now. I have been on Topamax for 2 months and I've been doing quite well. Almost too well. I added Effexor 2 weeks ago and I'm having fitful sleep, my appetite is coming back (I lost 25 on Topa), and my moods are swinging again. May I ask what your take is on this? I saw you wrote that at the end of this post and I would so appreciate hearing your take on it however brief-I'm frustrated and wondering what I should do. I've never been on Topamax and like I said, I was doing great-but I started Effexor because I wanted to catch any depression I would feel-I was diagnosed with depresion and with bipolar later on. Anyway, when you feel like it, could you reply?
It would be so much appreciated.
Thanks so much,Gal
>
>
> > i never said any medication is bad for everyone or anything of that sort, i said it was bad for me and then i compared effectiveness vs. side-effects for many diffrent drugs. Anti-psychotics happened to take the cake for least effective for the amount of side-effects.
>
> We should take it that this statement applies only to you, then, based on your own personal experience, right?
>
> > as for my personal take on anti-psychotics for the record:
> > they are bad as drugs,
>
> Not for everyone.
>
> > they might work for whoever. they worked for me but the side-effects were untolerable. If you need anti-psychotics go for it, most people on them don't really need them. They could better use mood-stabilizers and anti-deppresants.
>
> Doesn't apply to everyone.
>
> > Exception: if you have a borderline personality, scitzophrenia, dillusion disorder, PPD or any psychotic issue, or mood-stabalizers have proven ineffective. they are sometimes needed, but sould be avoided if they can.
>
> Again, not for everyone. You seem to be making awfully broad sweeping generalizations here. But I am sure that if you go to medical school, then some of your rigidity will be tempered by treating a lot of patients and seeing a wide range of responses to different drugs. You'll get the hang of picking the *best* drugs for a given person and may loosen your bias. After all, as I noted above, as an *individual* I tolerate two APs pretty well and have been helped by them at critical times even though I've never been psychotic. From my own point of view, for example, Effexor is *way* tougher to deal with.
>
>
>
>
Posted by Emme on July 6, 2003, at 21:14:38
In reply to Emme-? about Effexor in this post » Emme, posted by galkeepinon on July 6, 2003, at 17:20:37
Hi. Let's see...it's been a while, but from what I remember I'd break out in sweats, yawn excessively, it catapulted my pulse into the stratosphere - which was counteracted with a beta blocker. In general I just didn't feel well on it - I had an overall sick, cruddy feeling, which didn't seem to be clearing up even after several weeks. I had to ditch it. 'Course getting off it was tough too. There seem to be a lot of Effeoxor threads on this board, so I'm sure you can get a representative idea of what side effects people experience. It's a good drug for a lot of people though.
Good luck,
Emme
Posted by jay beck on July 6, 2003, at 23:06:52
In reply to Re: Seroquel weight gain and other evils » Jay Beck, posted by Emme on July 6, 2003, at 17:06:20
> > i never said any medication is bad for everyone or anything of that sort, i said it was bad for me and then i compared effectiveness vs. side-effects for many diffrent drugs. Anti-psychotics happened to take the cake for least effective for the amount of side-effects.
> We should take it that this statement applies only to you, then, based on your own personal experience, right?wrong, it applies to a groop study preformed numerous times by the FDA. We also know that they already minamize the amount of side-effects so you can only imagine how many actually exist and happen. i just added my personal example anyway.
> > as for my personal take on anti-psychotics for the record:
> > they are bad as drugs,> Not for everyone.
as effective treatments, id say its a personal answer. As side-effects goes for the majority of reported studies i would classify them as bad drugs.
> > they might work for whoever. they worked for me but the side-effects were untolerable. If you need anti-psychotics go for it, most people on them don't really need them. They could better use mood-stabilizers and anti-deppresants.
>
> Doesn't apply to everyone.never said it did, didnt i say "if you NEED them go for it"?
> > Exception: if you have a borderline personality, scitzophrenia, dillusion disorder, PPD or any psychotic issue, or mood-stabalizers have proven ineffective. they are sometimes needed, but sould be avoided if they can.
>> Again, not for everyone.
there are way more exceptions i couldnt list them all, or even possibly know them all."You seem to be making awfully broad sweeping generalizations here."
broad sweeping generalizations huh? mabey if the mojority is a broad sweeping generalization.
But I am sure that if you go to medical school, then some of your rigidity will be tempered by treating a lot of patients and seeing a wide range of responses to different drugs. You'll get the hang of picking the *best* drugs for a given person and may loosen your bias. After all, as I noted above, as an *individual* I tolerate two APs pretty well and have been helped by them at critical times even though I've never been psychotic. From my own point of view, for example, Effexor is *way* tougher to deal with.
>
im completely aware that difrent people respond diffrently to certain drugs. im aware that many people can be treated with zombie-pills. i just choose to avoid them becuase there are more then just side-effect related reasons why. they alter your core personality usualy in a negative way. they don't just work on neurotransmitters like anti-deppresants. there are things you won't notice while being treated. i don't even want to say them becuase i'll get the "not to everyone" crap. i've seen enough people on anti-psychotics to tell you they alter the personality significantly. mabey , "not everyone" at the low dose you imagine could help someone who is very neurotic. im talking about the dose required to actually help someone who is psychotic, which is miles away from the side-effects you can even imagine.
Posted by jay beck on July 6, 2003, at 23:08:06
In reply to Oh yeah, you'd make a GREAT psychiatrist » jay beck, posted by whiterabbit on July 6, 2003, at 15:42:27
>
>
> Thanks for the heads-up.it least it was free :)
Posted by Emme on July 7, 2003, at 9:22:53
In reply to Re: Seroquel weight gain and other evils, posted by jay beck on July 6, 2003, at 23:06:52
I'm too tired to get into a contest with you. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. As Gracie said, have a good life.
But in the future if you respond to any of my posts, please don't throw words like "crap" at me.
Emme
Posted by jay beck on July 7, 2003, at 19:53:10
In reply to Re: Seroquel weight gain and other evils » jay beck, posted by Emme on July 7, 2003, at 9:22:53
> I'm too tired to get into a contest with you. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. As Gracie said, have a good life.
>
> But in the future if you respond to any of my posts, please don't throw words like "crap" at me.
>
> Emmeill say crap if i want to :)
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.