![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 43 to 67 of 69. Go back in thread:
Posted by Honore on March 11, 2007, at 10:49:19
In reply to Re: Judges from Maryland, posted by linkadge on March 11, 2007, at 9:52:50
I've read "Talking Back to Prozac." It seemed pretty unbalanced to me, although at the time, I was in agreement with parts of it.
I'm not in agreement with the basic point. Maois are good ADs-- and are, I believe, underused. I hope that will change.
But Breggin is not, from anything I know, a Scientologist, or in it for the money. He seems to be someone who has some good science in his favor, and a lot of good science against his position, but who believes the part of the science that he believes.
I wanted to add that being an expert witness is a perfectly respectable thing to be. Expert Witnesses are paid not to have a point of view==as is the common belief-- but are hired because they genuinely, legitimately and authoritatively have the ability to give facts that are relevant. In cases with complex factual bases, such as cases involving science or certain types of law not generally understood (the law of corporations, or taxation), expert witnesses are brought into court to explain, either to judges or juries, some important facts about the area of science or institutional relationships.My Sig O has testified as an expert witnesses a bunch of times. He only takes cases where he thinks the position he's articulating is right. Often he supplies arguments for a person's position, because he knows more about that area of law than anyone on the defense or prosecution team. If he doesn't think the person is correct or he doesn't believe the arguments they want to make, he turns down the case. He never takes a case just to get paid, or testifies under oath that he belives certain facts or ideas, if he doesn't. His testimony is only worth the money, actually, if he can come into court free of the suggestion that he does say something just for money-- if you see what I mean.
While I don't agree with Breggin, I think he does believe what he says. I think he takes cases, even if he's paid, where he believes the position he's being asked to testify to. There's nothing wrong or phoney about that. It's what expert witnesses do.
Is he doing harm? quite possibly. Is he completely without any justification or leg to stand on? probably not. I wish he didn't enter into these discussions, because I think he's propagating hurtful ideas. But that's an opinion.
Honore
Posted by linkadge on March 11, 2007, at 11:11:22
In reply to Re: Judges from Maryland » linkadge, posted by Larry Hoover on March 11, 2007, at 10:46:47
When evaluating statments independantly it is of no use (IMO) to lable somebody credable or not.
I can make 100 statements, 99 being false and one being true.
Regardless of the proportion of true to false, the 99 false statements do not make the 1 true statement false.
I see what you are saying, I just have a slightly different approach.
Linkadge
Posted by bulldog2 on March 11, 2007, at 12:30:41
In reply to Re: Judges from Maryland, posted by linkadge on March 11, 2007, at 11:11:22
These days you can find a book for any opinion in the universe. The world is filled with experts on everything. The bottom line is that some people with mental disorders will never get better on their own and often continue to decline and often cannot even fucnction on a basic level. The psychotropic meds may be the only thing that allows them to function and have some degree of fulfillment in their lives.All meds have potential sides and can harm the body. That goes for high blood pressure meds, high cholesterol meds, arthritis meds ect. Sure we should see if we can address the pathology naturally but often it just does not work out that way.
Posted by Ken Blades on March 11, 2007, at 12:42:46
In reply to Re: Peter Breggin » Ken Blades, posted by Declan on March 11, 2007, at 1:59:49
Maybe some people forgot they'd read it?
[especially when it first came out]I remember seeing that Breggin on TV; not for
quite a few years though. He was pushing
books every time he appeared.If he hadn't dismissed the whole AD drug
concept from every angle, it wouldn't
have appeared that his sole reason for
writing books was profit.AD's aren't perfect, and there are
problems in some cases, but he doesn't
credit ANY success to them. How does
HE know the actual success rate? You
know how that goes...you only hear the
BAD news.
Posted by clint878 on March 11, 2007, at 13:15:42
In reply to Re: Cherry-picking evidence » clint878, posted by linkadge on March 10, 2007, at 20:17:11
I'm still not convinced. I don't doubt you have a problem, linkage - those are serious symptoms. But there are a lot of things that can cause similar symptoms and there are many treatments for those symptoms. It's the cause of the symptoms I would question, not the symptoms themselves.
As for this discussion in general, this board is not a representation of the world as a whole. There is a systemic bias. The only people who are commenting on this discussion are those who actually care about it.
Go to www.benzo.org.uk and you'll read about the "benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome," which supposedly consists of long-lasting cognitive problems and other unusual symptoms that didn't show up in all subjects. But a closer look at this reveals a study by one researcher, who found that only patients for whom benzos were initially prescribed for anxiety experienced these symptoms. There were no patients in a control group for whom benzos were initially prescribed for insomnia AT ALL who developed any such "protracted withdrawal."
Could it be that anxiety or depression is responsible for the large majority of such complaints of "protracted withdrawal?" It's easy to ruminate about what might have happened when your life now isn't what you want it to be.
Posted by bulldog2 on March 11, 2007, at 13:49:21
In reply to Systemic bias, posted by clint878 on March 11, 2007, at 13:15:42
Millions of people medicate themselves with alcohol for anxiety or depression. I'm sure alcohol has some effect on brain function. Where's all the books telling people not to drink because most people wouldn't be interested in such a book. As a matter of fact there's shows on tv dedicated to wine or fine whiskeys.
Years of unmedicated anxiety or depression also do terrible things to the body and mind.So not medicating and living with these conditions are poor options. Now if you want to go the alternative route that's another option. You know diet,exercise,vitamins and etc. But if that doesn't work I wouldn't just exist in a state of depression and suffer because someone wrote a book for profit.
Reminds me of diet books. There must be over twenty books on the ultimate solution to losing weight and keeping it off forever and their pseudo science backing up their theories.
Posted by notfred on March 11, 2007, at 14:11:31
In reply to Re: Judges from Maryland, posted by Honore on March 11, 2007, at 10:49:19
"While I don't agree with Breggin, I think he does believe what he says. I think he takes cases, even if he's paid, where he believes the position he's being asked to testify to. There's nothing wrong or phoney about that. It's what expert witnesses do."
Except this expert witness has had several judges discount his testomony as they found it not based on science.
Posted by Declan on March 11, 2007, at 16:08:10
In reply to Re: Peter Breggin » Declan, posted by Ken Blades on March 11, 2007, at 12:42:46
Yeah, he is onesided, sure.
I actually liked "Toxic Psychiatry".
Posted by Declan on March 11, 2007, at 16:09:46
In reply to Re: Peter Breggin » Ken Blades, posted by Declan on March 11, 2007, at 16:08:10
Posted by linkadge on March 11, 2007, at 16:33:13
In reply to Systemic bias, posted by clint878 on March 11, 2007, at 13:15:42
>I'm still not convinced. I don't doubt you have >a problem, linkage - those are serious symptoms. >But there are a lot of things that can cause >similar symptoms and there are many treatments >for those symptoms. It's the cause of the >symptoms I would question, not the symptoms >themselves.
I have heard of people having the same symptoms. Why is it so inconcievable? Yes, I have taken other meds, but not nearly as long as SSRI's. The symptoms started the first time I really tried to get off SSRI's and have persisted ever since. Why would they imediatly abate upon reinstitution of an SSRI?
Some people have similar problems with neuroleptics, where the discontinuation will uncover certain movement problems and wierd body sensations that will only abate when the drug is resumed.
I can't think of anything else that would account for the issues. I am not clinically depressed, nor to I have clinically significant anxiety.
>But a closer look at this reveals a study by one >researcher, who found that only patients for >whom benzos were initially prescribed for >anxiety experienced these symptoms. There were >no patients in a control group for whom benzos >were initially prescribed for insomnia AT ALL >who developed any such "protracted withdrawal."This is one situation. I have no doubt that certain substances if ingested long enough can induce alterations in brain morhpology and functionality. I will try to find the one study I read where animals exposed to SSRI's for long enough developed morhological chnges to the basil ganglia. We already know that anitpsychotics can induce such physical brain changes. The brain doesn't always just spring back from such peturbaton.
>Could it be that anxiety or depression is >responsible for the large majority of such >complaints of "protracted withdrawal?" It's easy >to ruminate about what might have happened when >your life now isn't what you want it to be.
But thats the thing. My life is going better now than it ever was on medications. I will graduate from university in one year. My marks have improved substantially since stopping SSRI's.
I am not really trying to sit and blame all of my lifes problems on SSRI's. What I am attributing to SSRI's is very specific.
For instance, in specific, within one week of stopping zoloft, it felt like somebody was twisting my head to the left. Even years later, I feel like somebody is twisting my head to the left. I've never heard of this as a symptom of anxiety. Drugs that help anxiety, ie benzo's do not remove the sensation. Zoloft in specic, is the only drug that removes the sensations within half an hour of taking it.
Linkadge
Posted by Phillipa on March 11, 2007, at 20:02:15
In reply to Re: Systemic bias, posted by linkadge on March 11, 2007, at 16:33:13
My only experience with a situation was when I tried l0mg the only SSRI I stayed on for two years. I had to bite off a piece of the pill for weeks til I could function without it. I've completed stopped benzos for long periods of time that were prescribed for panic attacks and not insomnia. And it's the SSRI's or any category of ad that I have problems with. My new pdoc thinks no more ad's after my thyroid reaches l-2 again just long acting xanax and he's wholistic. I also worked as an expert witness in nursing and was fed info by the lawyers that showed definite malpractice then the day of the deposition or trial added a twist that would have clearly changed my mind on taking the case too late by then as I receive $l25 an hour. And it was spent. Love Phillipa ps I know it doesn't apply to Peter Breggin.
Posted by FredPotter on March 11, 2007, at 22:54:46
In reply to Re: Judges from Maryland » linkadge, posted by Larry Hoover on March 11, 2007, at 10:46:47
Larry as you imply these Drs who blow it have some sensible things to say but it's too late. Mercola is a case in point certainly. Yes potatoes are poisonous to rats. He advises smokers not to try giving up, but get their weight down first. He eats raw meat even though he once had severe food poisoning from it. OTOH he proclaims that soft margarine and other forms of trans fats are terrible for you. And so they are Fred
Posted by Ken Blades on March 12, 2007, at 5:28:37
In reply to Re: Peter Breggin » Ken Blades, posted by Declan on March 11, 2007, at 16:08:10
I skimmed that one, but it was basically
more of the same...pills bad, talk good.I'd love to see a statistical accounting of
that man's psychiatric 'successes' over the
long term.He just takes the same old stuff, recycles it,
and spews out another book title.B-O-R-I-N-G!
Posted by clint878 on March 12, 2007, at 16:45:39
In reply to Re: Systemic bias, posted by linkadge on March 11, 2007, at 16:33:13
Are you sure these symptoms didn't exist before taking the drugs? I took SSRI's for several years, and experienced the anhedonia you describe. But after I stopped, things returned to normal.
If Zoloft removes the problem, then have you considered taking Zoloft? Is there a problem with taking a low dose of Zoloft long-term? People take Benadryl, an SSRI, for their entire lives to relieve allergies, with few problems. You can try discontinuation again in a few years.
All the animal studies I saw in relation to SSRI's didn't prove much clinical effect. Some of them showed that huge doses of SSRIs caused changes in cells, but the doses used were 100 times the usual dose, there was no control group, and nobody followed up a few months later to see what happened then. And nobody researched what the actual changes in behavior induced by such cell changes would be - if any behavioral change at all.
An eye doctor once said to me that I was very picky with my vision. He said that I was one of his more difficult patients not because I had worse vision than most people, but because I noticed every little visual problem. Could the same be true about mental health?
Posted by clint878 on March 12, 2007, at 16:50:18
In reply to Re: Systemic bias, posted by bulldog2 on March 11, 2007, at 13:49:21
This is exactly the point I'm trying to prove. EVERYTHING YOU DO changes brain function. If you took an SSRI for two years, you can't blame the SSRI for everything that went wrong with you. Perhaps eating foods high in trans-fat caused the symptoms you described, or smoking, or taking an unrelated medication, or just the depression itself.
Please forgive me, linkdage, and I don't want to seem like I'm railing against you, but there are too many variables here to state conclusively that you or anyone else experiences these problems solely as a result of SSRI use.
There is a danger in looking on the Internet for ratings of drugs and side effects - and this is it. Evidence-based medicine seems to lose its value on the Internet among sites like RemedyFind.com.
Posted by Phillipa on March 12, 2007, at 18:29:05
In reply to Re: Systemic bias, posted by clint878 on March 12, 2007, at 16:50:18
I e-mail with a lot of people whose docs have said to stay away from med sites when taking meds. And they do well with them. Too many variables here and at the other sites. Love Phillipa ps they also lots of them never had any withdrawal from going off SSRI's or other ad's Usually my own body sighs in relief. If my docs have always liked and use benzos then that is what I plan to use and they do work for me.
Posted by FredPotter on March 12, 2007, at 20:55:04
In reply to Re: Systemic bias, posted by clint878 on March 12, 2007, at 16:50:18
> This is exactly the point I'm trying to prove. EVERYTHING YOU DO changes brain function. If you took an SSRI for two years, you can't blame the SSRI for everything that went wrong with you. Perhaps eating foods high in trans-fat caused the symptoms you described, or smoking, or taking an unrelated medication, or just the depression itself.
>
> Please forgive me, linkdage, and I don't want to seem like I'm railing against you, but there are too many variables here to state conclusively that you or anyone else experiences these problems solely as a result of SSRI use.
>
> There is a danger in looking on the Internet for ratings of drugs and side effects - and this is it. Evidence-based medicine seems to lose its value on the Internet among sites like RemedyFind.com.Fred talking: This is all true. That list of side effects on benzo.org contains every condition known to mankind. And like you say we're not looking at the damage depression can do, which is probably far greater than any drug
Posted by Honore on March 12, 2007, at 22:47:44
In reply to Re: Judges from Maryland, posted by notfred on March 11, 2007, at 14:11:31
I don't know the particulars of the cases, or the possible prejudices of the judges--or, perhaps, the greater expertise and sophistication of judges-- who dismiss Breggin. Judges may think Breggin is not a credible expert-- in which case, he probably won't be hired as such very often.
I was concerned more about the idea, in several posts, suggesting that expert witnesses are, as the term goes, "hired guns"-- willing to say anything for a certain amount of money. That isn't true, of expert witnesses-- usually they can't do the job they're being paid for if there's any suspicion that their opinions are for sale.
If nothing else, it's common practice for an opposing lawyer to question an expert witness about what they're being paid, and try to find things in their history or publications that contradict what they testify to. If there are such things, their testimony is undermined for a judge or jury, anyway-- and experts usually have a paper trail of some sort, which is how they qualified as experts.
Honore
Posted by Declan on March 13, 2007, at 0:28:13
In reply to Re: Judges from Maryland » notfred, posted by Honore on March 12, 2007, at 22:47:44
If I quoted a judge from Krasnoyarsk, what would you think?
Posted by Quintal on March 13, 2007, at 2:23:56
In reply to Re: Systemic bias, posted by clint878 on March 12, 2007, at 16:45:39
I remember having a similar argument with you clint RE: Lamictal and the dyslexia-like problems it caused when reading. Why is it such a problem for you to accept what people say about their negative experiences with psych drugs?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20061129/msgs/708949.htmlIt would indeed make life much easier for doctors, pharmacists and drug reps et al if we patients just kept our big mouths shut about the side effects we suffer, our minds closed to outside influence, and our eyes down in docile compliance wouldn't it? If the beneficial effects are so easily negated by reading websites like RemedyFind that only makes me further question their true efficacy. Drugs of abuse don't lose their 'beneficial' effects when a person reads 'War on Drugs' propaganda, I don't see why psych medications should lose their therapeutic benefits so easily just because a person reads they might be less effective than claimed, or that they might suffer potential side effects.
Q
Posted by Ken Blades on March 13, 2007, at 5:18:12
In reply to Re: Judges from Maryland, posted by Declan on March 13, 2007, at 0:28:13
> If I quoted a judge from Krasnoyarsk, what would you think?<
How about one from Irkutsk? :)
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 13, 2007, at 8:34:18
In reply to Re: Judges from Maryland, posted by FredPotter on March 11, 2007, at 22:54:46
> Larry as you imply these Drs who blow it have some sensible things to say but it's too late. Mercola is a case in point certainly. Yes potatoes are poisonous to rats.
Really? Potatoes are notorious for producing toxic alkaloids if they're improperly stored.
> He advises smokers not to try giving up, but get their weight down first. He eats raw meat even though he once had severe food poisoning from it. OTOH he proclaims that soft margarine and other forms of trans fats are terrible for you. And so they are Fred
Mercola lost me when he started promulgating a specific sort of coconut oil. He advises smokers to lose weight? Many smokers use tobacco as a weight control agent.
I guess it's a long time since I paid him even cursory attention. The anti-GM thing caught my eye, though.
Lar
Posted by FredPotter on March 13, 2007, at 14:45:54
In reply to Re: spuds and rats » FredPotter, posted by Larry Hoover on March 13, 2007, at 8:34:18
Larry I think potatoes are very slightly poisonous anyway, at least raw, especially if green. It all depends on dose of course but I think the rats were consuming what would be for us vast amounts Fred
Posted by clint878 on March 14, 2007, at 18:09:45
In reply to Re: Systemic bias » clint878, posted by Quintal on March 13, 2007, at 2:23:56
I do recall that discussion. It is certainly possible that in your case you did have the highly unusual reading problems, in which case you did the right thing - to stop the medication.
I stopped posting on remedyfind.com because there are people there who blame everything on drugs. The post that made me stop using the site was written by someone who had taken one 250mg Depakote ER pill. The post read something like the following:
"I TOOK THE FIRST PILL AND WOKE UP THE NEXT MORNING AND WHILE I WAS WALKING TO MY CAR I HEARD A VOICE IN MY HEAD SAY 'DEPAKOTE IS BAD FOR YOU' AND I NEVER TOOK ANOTHER PILL."
Even if he did experience this psychosis, he was probably prescribed the drug to combat the very condition of psychosis which is commonly caused by mania. Or perhaps he took the wrong drug or something. We'll never know, which is why I'll stick to the published literature from now on.
Posted by Quintal on March 14, 2007, at 20:33:06
In reply to Re: Systemic bias » Quintal, posted by clint878 on March 14, 2007, at 18:09:45
>I do recall that discussion. It is certainly possible that in your case you did have the highly unusual reading problems, in which case you did the right thing - to stop the medication.
I didn't stop the Lamictal - I kept on taking it, the reading problems went away and I had two years of depression free stability because of it. The reading problems seem fairly common in the beginning of treatment, I suspect not everyone affected by it does enough reading to notice though.
>Even if he did experience this psychosis, he was probably prescribed the drug to combat the very condition of psychosis which is commonly caused by mania. Or perhaps he took the wrong drug or something.
I think that's fairly obvious to anyone reading the post, so I don't understand;
> We'll never know, which is why I'll stick to the published literature from now on.
Why?! It's clear published literature too has bias, but it is much harder to detect and dissect. It's clear that some people don't want to respond to anything and you can see this by looking at their profiles and getting a general picture of their character and temperament. I've found people like myself on RemedyFind - in fact many have contacted me over the years and I've formed some of the most meaningful online friendships with these people because we share the same treatment history and have similar views and experiences with medicines. I think it's a very useful site for that purpose.Q
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.