Posted on 11/18/2005 1:39:54 PM PST by Jenny Hatch
AH! I know I do..Blessings to you if your mother is not with you...I do appreciate her even if she drives me crazy sometimes!
And thanks for posting about the cortisol levels.
First off,
You seem to have a hate on the size of Kansas for these meds...so I do see you to be a bit closed minded and biased yourself. Understandably so, if I was forced to take a med, I would never trust it or the situation that put me on it.
Secondly,
Since I was 8 (and I'm 49 now) I've battled suicidal ideations, chronic depression, anxiety, PTSD etc. So have 2 out of my 3 siblings. This isn't just a temporary thing for me, or them. There is a wicked genetic/ evironmental component to the demon we are fighting....So up close and personal, I've seen the positive effects of these meds on myself and loved ones. Even a late, semi-sociopathic hubby that was at least made a tad more sane and bearable when put on SSRI's.
Thirdly,
My profession is nutrition, and while I do believe that it can help, I don't believe it can cure. There are so many factors, that I don't see one silver bullet, but several. Brain scans are showing the 'hot' spots and missfires in certain types of ADD, depression, BPD etc They are showing up to a 26% atrophy in the hippocampus/limbic system in those suffering from hx of abuse/PTSD related depression. Nutrition can't change brain these things totally.
Fourthly,
My current profession has me working with over 200 mentally ill patients and 15 peds. I sit on a P&T committee monthly discussing meds, their effecacy, new trends and medical alerts. I work with caring, long term Dr.s who are battle weary, but truly devoted. They ain't doin' it for the money. The degree of suffering we all see on a daily basis is heartbreaking.
I see daily folks who come in ill, who get better over time and go home. Then, go off their meds, get sick and come back. Get put back on the right meds, do better etc.
And yes, we even give these meds to kids. A suicidal 8 year old kinda leaves a mark on your memory (and no, she wasn't on ANYTHING prior, other than having an azzhat of a mother).
So for every 'bad' story you read about, I see, up close, personal and in my face dozen's of happy outcomes.
Fifthly, for my own sake, am involved with mental health and support groups, from incest survivors to those dealing with mental illness, ADD, abuse, neglect etc. Repeatedly, we discuss what meds work, which ones don't, what treatments don't etc. Most of the time, SSRI's in some form and dosage get positive remarks.
No, they aren't for everyone, I hear and read hell stories all the time. But for those they do help, they are truly a gift from heaven.
In a nutshell, my whole world is saturated with info about psychotropic meds, their effects, research about their effecacy etc. Marketing them to the public? Heck yeah...it's time for intelligent people to take personal repsonsibility for their own care, read up, research etc. All the Dr.s have to go on often is what they are told by the patient themselves. So someone who can give clear data on symptoms, improvements and expectations will do better than a sheep who walks in saying
"I read this and it said this drug was good." or worse "I heard this drug was bad and I refuse to try it."
My current meds, dosage etc was tinkered and tailored by me, for me with my GP and PDoc with input from a PharmD friend. I couldn't be more pleased with the outcomes.
As for them never being proven to work....
Yeah, I could probably go out and find lots of data to prove otherwise. Off the top of my head I do remember reading just last week about the protective qualities of SSRI's in preserving the integrity of the hippocampus in those with histories of chronic depression.
And another article stating that those with BPD see a profound change, correlated to limbic function improvement to the point of even declaring a 'cure' after a period of SSRI use. Several Dr.s insist on Prozac as THE only drug for treating BPD, because of the profound mood stabilization and long term leveling effects.
Anyhow, that's enough for now. I'm home, its Friday and I'm walking over to Grumpy Batchelor Brother's in 5 minutes to drink a coupla beers.
I take it to mean by "FORMULA HGH" you mean you take some form of human growth hormone or am I wrong? Is this a "commercial" brand name, as opposed to true growth formula which is extremely expensive and requires a prescription?
It's the natural HGH supplement with Colustrum and yes Formula HGH is the brand name...
It really is great!
Najida,
you said:
"You seem to have a hate on the size of Kansas for these meds...so I do see you to be a bit closed minded and biased yourself. Understandably so, if I was forced to take a med, I would never trust it or the situation that put me on it."
Throw a gang rape by the mental hospital staff into the mix and you have it about right in terms of my hate for the profession. I was raped just before they threw me naked into the seclusion room to sit and rot for three days. Yeah, I have some issues about the mental health profession.
Your "evidence" really does make me want to do something that has constantly been thrown in my general direction for the past fifteen years as I have healed and made my claims of wellness.
ANECDOTES!!!!
Everyone has told me I am an anecdote, an oddity, "well OK, that worked for you, but for REALLY sick people, well, they need the drugs, etc,etc,...
I'm not dissing those professionals who like you, are in the trenches, working with the mentally ill, seeing results day in and day out...but as I said to another person, if symptom relief is what we are talking about here, OK, then let's call it what it is, symptom relief...
I would LOVE to see how all of those people you work with, and yourself for that matter, would do on a regimen of nutrients specifically designed for your personal needs. Orthomolecular medicine has some great answers, and yet it has been discredited and ignored. I have to ask why?
Did you read the debate with Pfizer??
Here is the link once again.
http://www.mindfreedom.org/mindfreedom/pfizerlies.shtml
What do you have to say about their waffling?? Distracting??? And ignoring the evidence??
I would just like some serious questions to be made about the efficacy of these drugs.
Tom Cruise had it right a couple months ago. The drugs are killing us, and when will it end??? When everyone is taking dope in one form or another???
I really would like to know what you think of that Pfizer debate, and would love links to the articles you mentioned as "evidence" that chemical imbalances are "cured" by drug therapy.
Jenny
Here's a new, safer alternative for all of you who are concerned about SSRIs:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/#WHAT
Forced by the courts? Apparently they considered you a danger to yourself or others. Why was that?
Like I said,
It's Friday,
I'm putting on my shoes and jacket to go pester my brother.
I'll treat your post with the same respect you treated mine... You're angry and bitter and upset...understandably so....
Mental illness is hell. Made moreso when you are helpless. I'm very sorry about what happened to you.
And yes, you're flaming all of us hun who don't see it the way you do, and your mind is very, very, very made up. You're lashing out at us. And I understand why.
I quoted research and articles in several places (the hippocampus studies, they BPD studies etc) Yes, their are anecdotes too, but I more than once referred to supporting data. Am I going to go find it all? No. It's Friday and I have a cold beer waiting on me 600 feet down a country road.
I know that if I go through all the trouble to find 1908 articles research papers that support the effecacy of SSRI's, would you read them all? Or do you think, like I believe, that they would have a snowball's chance in hell of changing your already very made up mind?
I'm not going to waste my time hun. Do what works for you and heals your mind. Let the rest of us find our own way too.
Godspeed to you.
I know quite a few folks who have been helped by these drugs.. Celexa in particular.. they are better...
shouldn't be long for the Scientologists to chime in here... anyone? ..... anyone?...... nahhhhh we don't need no stinking drugs... just a 2 metal cans and an auditor to help rid you of your engrams. get that needle floatin!
All of the above..........and they should all be under the same heading. :)
LOL...*wink*
"the amino acid 5HTP and the herb St. John's Wort work just as well, if not better, than any prescription and have zero side effects"
St. John's Wort is associated with increased sensitivity to sunlight in some individuals.
5-HTP affects some people's digestion.
Generally these are not serious side effects, but it's not accurate to say they have "zero" side effects.
Do you have clinical proof of that, or just your personal experience/opinion?
Now if you want to talk about the episiotomy-crazy doctors who just can't be bothered to WAIT for the perineum to stretch and grab a pair of scissors upon walking into the room....I'm with ya on that.
"I know that if I go through all the trouble to find 1908 articles research papers that support the effecacy of SSRI's, would you read them all? Or do you think, like I believe, that they would have a snowball's chance in hell of changing your already very made up mind?
I'm not going to waste my time hun. Do what works for you and heals your mind. Let the rest of us find our own way too."
I don't need hundreds of research papers, I would just like to see ONE.
Links, Please?
Line from the Pfizer debate from Mind Freedom...
20 September 2004
[FROM]
Scientific Panel
MindFreedom Support Coalition International
454 Willamette, Suite 216
PO Box 11284
Eugene, OR 97440-3484 USA
[TO]
Cathryn M. Clary, MD, MBA, Vice President
Psychiatry, Neurology, Consumer & Markets Development
Pfizer Global Pharmaceuticals
235 E. 42nd St 235/10/30
New York, NY 10017
Dear Dr. Clary:
David Oaks, Executive Director of MindFreedom Support Coalition International has asked us to review your letter of response to our letter of April 16, 2004 and to reply to it.
In your response you have again failed to answer our questions. You cite two articles from peer-reviewed scientific journals. One is an article entitled "Neurobiology of Serotonin in Depression and Suicide" by Stockmeier in Volume 836 of the Annals of the New York Academy of Science.
Stockmeier discusses several different avenues of research suggesting that serotonin alterations are implicated in clinical depression. For instance, he notes there have been 12 studies that examined the postmortem brains of suicide victims, but he also points out that some studies found an increased number of serotonin receptors while some studies found no changes. Stockmeier's conclusion: "The current results suggest that the number of serotonin-1A and serotonin-2A receptors in the right prefrontal cortex or hippocampus are not altered in suicide victims with major depression." (p. 223).
In short, at best, Stockmeier talks about some interesting possibilities but offers little in the way of specifics to back up your claims.
You include the following quote from Stockmeier's article:
"Powerful evidence of an imbalance in serotonin neurotransmission in major depression comes from the observation that the symptoms of this disorder are relieved by repeated treatment with drugs that block the reuptake or metabolism of serotonin."
The use of the word "imbalance" in that quote is a breach of scientific protocol in that it exaggerates and misrepresents what was actually demonstrated by the research reported in the article. The research merely demonstrated that a psychotropic drug had an effect on the reuptake and metabolism of serotonin. To say that is evidence of "an imbalance in serotonin neurotransmission" is erroneous because nobody has demonstrated what the balance of serotonin transmission is in the healthy human brain.
This is not quibbling or nitpicking. Determining the balance of serotonin in the healthy brain would be a great scientific breakthrough. Unfortunately, we haven't succeeded in achieving that breakthrough yet. In the absence of that knowledge, to claim as you do in your advertising that Zoloft "helps correct the chemical imbalance of serotonin in the brain" is a misrepresentation of the truth.
The quote bases the evidence of imbalance on the "observation that the symptoms of this disorder are relieved by repeated treatment with drugs that block the reuptake or metabolism of serotonin." We would point out that the symptoms of depression are also relieved by cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines and marijuana. As you know, all of those drugs also inhibit the reuptake of neurotransmitters, including serotonin. And they all have very damaging side effects on human beings. Using the scientific principle of parsimony, we would infer that the psychotropic drugs your firm manufactures and sells have similarly damaging side effects. And, as you also know, there is evidence that your drugs do increase the risk of violence and suicide in people who use them, do inhibit sexual functioning and do create problematic tolerance and withdrawal effects in users. In fact, after its February, 2004 hearing on the impact of SSRI use on suicidal ideation and behavior in children and adolescents, the United States Food and Drug Administration ordered drug companies to add warnings of these dangerous side effects to their drug labels.
In your letter you cite a textbook by Stephen A. Stahl entitled Essential Psychopharmacology: Neuroscientific Basis and Practical Applications. This is a textbook that discusses the mechanism of action of many psychotropic drugs. It is an interesting book but it hardly serves as documentation of a biological basis of mental illness.
Here are two quotes taken directly from the book:
"No single reproducible abnormality in any neurotransmitter or in any of its enzymes or receptors has been shown to cause any common psychiatric disorder. Indeed it is not longer considered likely that one will be found, given the complexity of psychiatric diagnosis and the profound interaction of environmental factors with genetics in psychiatric disorders." (p. 103).
"Since it was recognized by the 1960's that all the classical neurotransmitters boost NE, DA and SHT in one manner or another, the original idea was that one or another of these neurotransmitters, also chemically known as monoamines, might be deficient in the first place in depression. Thus, the 'monoamine hypothesis' was born. A good deal of effort was expended, especially in the 1960's and 1970's, to identify the theoretically predicted deficiencies of the monoamine neurotransmitters. This effort to date has unfortunately yielded mixed and sometimes confusing results." (p. 45)
Stahl's conclusions seem very different from the standard advertising slogans that are used to sell SSRI's.
In your letter you also cite an article entitled "The Serotonin Transporter: A Primary Target for Antidepressant Drugs" by Schloss and Williams in Volume 12 of the Journal of Psychopharmacology and include the following quote:
"Decreased serotonergic neurotransmission has been proposed to play a key role in the aetiology of depression. The concentration of synaptic serotonin is controlled directly by its reuptake into the pre-synaptic terminal and, thus, drugs blocking serotonin transport have been successfully used in the treatment of depression....The therapeutic effect of SSRI antidepressants is thought to result from an enhancement of 5-HT neurotransmission due to long-lasting adaptive changes in serotoninergic neurons."
In this quote, the use of the phrase "key role in the aetiology of depression" is another breach of scientific protocol, another case of exaggeration and misrepresentation. In fact, there is no evidence that decreased serotonergic neurotransmission has any role at all in the aetiology of depression. There is only evidence that when some human beings ingest a drug that has an effect on the reuptake of serotonin, they experience relief from the symptoms of depression. That is only evidence of a correlation between ingesting a substance and relief of symptoms. It says nothing about the aetiology of the symptoms.
Correlation does not constitute causality. A causal relationship must be proven by other than statistical correlation, a standard which biopsychiatry has yet to meet.
As we pointed out in our last letter, we agree that Zoloft and the other SSRI's act on the serotonin receptors. Although you continue to state that this is the heart of the disagreement, it is not. What we disagree about is your continued reference to evidence proving that psychological distress results from altered neurotransmitter levels. You continue to talk about these two ideas in the same sentence implying that, if evidence documents that Zoloft acts on the serotonin receptor, then that same evidence somehow proves that depression must be due to a shortage of serotonin.
We have received a total of four letters from Pfizer, Inc. and the American Psychiatric Association responding to our request for scientific evidence that mental disorders are "biologically-based brain diseases" and not a single letter has provided any specific citations to support that claim.
We believe the aetiology of depression resides in the cognitive, emotional and somatic experience of individuals as they struggle to create meaningful and satisfying lives and that the biochemical dynamics on which your drugs work are mediating rather than causative variables.
In fact, the Schloss and Williams article is a somewhat speculative review of research on the molecular structure of the serotonin transporter and the chemical and electrical characteristics of the serotoninergic system. It contains frequent use of words such as "putative" (assumed to exist or have existed), "possible" and "proposed."
On page 115 of the article, the authors write:
"The direct mechanisms underlying inhibition of (serotonin) transport as well as the long-term, mood-modulating effects of these drugs are, however, not yet understood."
Reading the article leads one to question the wisdom of ingesting a drug which affects a complex, intricate and critically important organic system about which so little is known.
In your letter you say it is disingenuous of us to not have disclosed our conflicts of interest. Apparently you consider clinical trial researchers' undisclosed receipt of millions of dollars from pharmaceutical companies, on the one hand, and efforts to advocate for victims of harmful drugs and to study human health independently, on the other, as equivalent conflicts of interest. Now that is truly disingenuous.
Given the vast influence of drug companies over academic medicine and clinical biopsychiatry, our questioning of the science behind biopsychiatry actually limits our career opportunities.
The misrepresentation exhibited in the quotes and article you have offered is precisely what we object to. Through such statements, you create the impression that biopsychiatry and the widespread prescription of psychotropic drugs rest on a solid scientific foundation. Unfortunately, the media and much of the public have been fooled by you. We haven't been and we think it is important that we share our skepticism and concern as widely as possible.
We don't impugn the fundamental motivation of the people leading Pfizer, Inc and other pharmaceutical companies. However, we believe that, by continuing to misrepresent current scientific knowledge you are doing a disservice to human beings and harming rather than helping their efforts to achieve better levels of health and well-being.
Specifically, your web site contains the following statement:
"Although the way Zoloft works for depression, panic disorder, OCD and PTSD is not completely understood, what is understood is that Zoloft is a medicine that helps correct the chemical imbalance of serotonin in the brain."
We have asked you repeatedly for scientific evidence to support that statement. You have sent us citations of textbooks and articles that fail to meet the test of any established scientific standards to demonstrate the truth of that statement. We, therefore, conclude that your statement is not a true statement and wonder why you justify continuing to state it.
Sincerely,
Fred Baughman, MD
Mary Boyle, PhD
David Cohen, PhD
Ty Colbert, PhD
Pat Deegan, PhD
Al Galves, PhD
Tom Greening, PhD
Keith Hoeller, PhD
David Jacobs, PhD
Jay Joseph, PhD
Jonathan Leo, PhD
Bruce Levine, PhD
Stuart Shipko, MD
As I said, Honey Pie, I would like to see just ONE. That shouldn't take up too much of your time now, will it???
Jenny
Not for me. If you can avoid SSRIs, then that's great, but at a particular time of turmoil and overload it took an SSRI to get my chemistry back in order. None of the other things worked. Are they overprescribed, probably so. But for bad cases, they can help. (And no, you don't have to necessarily be on them the rest of your life. I've not been, but they served their purpose at the time).
Amelia,
As I said before I experienced a post partum psychosis after the birth of my first child. I was psychotic, I knew something was off in my brain when I went to court, but I was adament that I did not want to be medicated for my illness.
"Forced by the courts? Apparently they considered you a danger to yourself or others. Why was that?"
This line implies that I did not know I was mentally ill. I knew I was, but I wanted to use alternatives to drug therapies, (like getting some sleep) instead of using the meds. I also wanted to continue to breastfeed my daughter. All sorts of professions understand the implications of sleep deprivation on the functioning ability of certain jobs. All except motherhood. Pilots, military personelle, etc.. all understand what happens to the brain when someone does not get enough REM sleep.
yet to date there has not been one study documenting the effect of sleep deprivation on new mothers and the links to emotional illness, especially psychosis.
Even while I was in the hospital, I kept saying, "I just need to sleep" - yet a state mental hospital was the absolute worst place to try and get some rest.
I'm not denying the illness, I'm seriously questioning the treatment. All that my research has done over the past sixteen years has simply added fuel to the fire.
Ann Blake Tracy has articulated why anti-depressants given to sleep deprived mothers are the absolute worst treatment possible for post partum emotional illness.
Check it out...
http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/Miscellaneous/MRAfter.html
Yeah, I have some serious issues on this topic and I'm still mad at the way I was treated, and the complete removal of my rights of self determination, but don't YOU have some concerns about these issues as well, or are you just willing to say...Oh well, it works for most, but those it doesn't work for, well, too bad for you...
Not good enough in my opinion.
Jenny
Jenny,
There are also groups with agendas that push articles against drugs and try to destroy their rightful use. Paxil worked for me. Nothing else would. I was on it about a year. Then I went off. I am fine. St. John's Wort did nothing. No natural substance helped. Paxil helped almost immediately. I'm me again, when I was thinking for a while I never would be. Been off of the drug for some time now, but I'm thankful it was there.
I suspect they may be the source of some of the anti-drug propaganda here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.