We all bitch about meds because meds have got their problems. The side effects suck and many of us wonder how effective the meds actually are. Don't read that as an anti-meds argument. It is just an honest assessment of the facts for those of us who have to live with mental illness long-term. When you take psych meds for "maintenance" as opposed to short-term crises, then the side effects really blossom in a way that they just don't in the 4 to 8 week studies that are often the basis for both gaining FDA approval for Med X. When you take Seroquel for a year as opposed to two months, it's a different equation.
I don't think Big Pharma gets that. I don't think they have the least motivation to make meds that work better; ie, treat us without side effects. That's because they are already making gobs of money as things are now.
I think it's time for us patients out here to have a summit with the pharma companies. They need to listen to us. They need to listen to us in an environment that is unfiltered by governmental agencies. We need to set up a meeting where we all can show up and tell them what's what.
Would Big Pharma show up?
It must suck being a pharma executive these days. Last year, Paxil and some other anti-depressants got slapped with the FDA's black box warning label. Last week, out came the CATIE study--a landmark in my opinion--which established that atypical antipsychotics don't live up to the drug companies' hype. And, then, this week comes goes a warning that pregnant women might want to steer clear of Paxil. Lastly, today, it's announced that Strattera, used for attention deficit disorder, merits its own black box warning. Both Strattera and Paxil cause some suicidality in youngsters. That's why they merit the warnings.
You'd think all of this would be an opening for some honesty from Big Pharma about just how well their meds work and an open accounting of what the side effects of these meds truly are. Silence. You'd think that maybe a skeptical reporter would call Eli Lilly and Astra-Zeneca and all the rest and ask them if they are going to cut prices on atypicals--a typical dose can easily amount to $400 a month--since they only work about as well as older "conventional" anti-psychotics, which cost maybe $40 a month. Silence. You'd think that mental health advocacy groups would be pressing the drug companies to explain the yawning gap between their marketing rhetoric and the reality--very mixed--of how their meds work in the real world. Silence.
Silence is criminal.
My guess is that I am not the only one who wants some answers and, perhaps, some honesty. After all, I've been treating my bipolar disorder with meds for over 16 years now. I've seen the good and bad effects of meds on me and many others with mental illnesses. I've realized that I have little choice but to take them in order to live well with the monkey on my back and spent tens of thousands of dollars in pursuit of the kind of stability our country seems to demand of its citizens if they wish to not wind up living in a drain pipe somewhere. I've bought into the medicate-me-I'll-be-better-soon paradigm as hard as any patient.
So, I'm at the point where I'd just like to see the pharma companies actually honestly address the shortcomings of psych meds. Anyone else feel that way? Email me. Add a comment.
Obviously, I am still figuring out the basics of making one of these blogs work. In fact, the pics of the cheese and wine are dumb placeholder pics until I figure out how to upload replacements. Which I'll get around to doing soon.
It must suck being a pharma executive these days. Last year, Paxil and some other anti-depressants got slapped with the FDA's black box warning label. Last week, out came the CATIE study--a landmark in my opinion--which established that atypical antipsychotics don't live up to the drug companies' hype. And, then, this week comes goes a warning that pregnant women might want to steer clear of Paxil. Lastly, today, it's announced that Strattera, used for attention deficit disorder, merits its own black box warning. Both Strattera and Paxil cause some suicidality in youngsters. That's why they merit the warnings.
You'd think all of this would be an opening for some honesty from Big Pharma about just how well their meds work and an open accounting of what the side effects of these meds truly are. Silence. You'd think that maybe a skeptical reporter would call Eli Lilly and Astra-Zeneca and all the rest and ask them if they are going to cut prices on atypicals--a typical dose can easily amount to $400 a month--since they only work about as well as older "conventional" anti-psychotics, which cost maybe $40 a month. Silence. You'd think that mental health advocacy groups would be pressing the drug companies to explain the yawning gap between their marketing rhetoric and the reality--very mixed--of how their meds work in the real world. Silence.
Silence is criminal.
My guess is that I am not the only one who wants some answers and, perhaps, some honesty. After all, I've been treating my bipolar disorder with meds for over 16 years now. I've seen the good and bad effects of meds on me and many others with mental illnesses. I've realized that I have little choice but to take them in order to live well with the monkey on my back and spent tens of thousands of dollars in pursuit of the kind of stability our country seems to demand of its citizens if they wish to not wind up living in a drain pipe somewhere. I've bought into the medicate-me-I'll-be-better-soon paradigm as hard as any patient.
So, I'm at the point where I'd just like to see the pharma companies actually honestly address the shortcomings of psych meds. Anyone else feel that way? Email me. Add a comment.
NOTE: I'll provide links to relevant articles on these meds just as soon as I figure out how to do that.
I went to Seattle's version of the anti-war protest yesterday. It was organized by ANSWER, one of many lame organizing groups on the left these days.
One of the first things the main speaker said was to encourage smokers to move out of the crowd and "be sensitive" to those around us. Was this an anti-war protest or a public health rally? Is the left really that confused?
My other beef with the protest is that ANSWER is one of those activist groups that insists on attendees standing around for 90 minutes listening to tedious speech after tedious speech, before marching in the streets. Do they really think people coming to an anti-war march are going to be further edified by listening to more speeches? Do they need further convincing that the Iraq War is bad deal?
I just don't get the left anymore.
I lit a cigarette and left the protest long before the speeches ended.