Hey, I saw one of those phone booth Abilify ads on the Ave in the U District the other day. Sadly I was running late and didn't have time to snap a pic for you.

That's because the word "urgent" is often used in business matters; and "acute" is a psychiatric term.

The CEO clearly runs a business, and cares nothing about who the medication is treating. He has probably never used the term "Gravely disabled" either, in a boardroom meeting.

I have. In a psychiatric board room meeting. My daughter was determined to be "gravely disabled" in April 2006, while on 30 mg. a day of Zyprexa.

.."pharmacist writes about akathisia in patients.." and from the article:

.."monitoring for unpleasant effects."

It really bugs me when they use the word unpleasant. Try life-altering, crippling, annoying;anything but "unpleasant".

I agree with Stephany. I don't think the pharmacist really gets it about akathisia. It's a lot more than "unpleasant" -- let's try life threatening. IMO it represents the beginning of serotonin syndrome. The pharmacist says, "If possible" the patient should reduce or stop the offending medication -- and why in heaven's name would it not be possible to stop something that's poisoning you? And "keep taking it if there's no alternative and just medicate the agitation with something else or treat with education." (That's the gist of what she's saying.) Please -- this does not represent a very profound understanding of the seriousness of this phenomenon nor of the best ways to treat psychosis and mania.

I posted earlier, telling of the killing of my son from Zyprexa, and warning Lilly that they'd better not get near me, because I feel violent. Especially after the "secret documents" came out and proved what I knew all a long.

Philip, if I could bear to go to a Lilly meeting, I couldn't restrain myself at heckling. Pandemonium would break out.

Do I detect a value system that prefers "simple" physical restraint over chemical assistance to treatment?

I doubt anyone, including Lilly, would say their methods are highly effective in relieving all patient symptoms or without potential for significant side effects.

Of course we should forget those who suggest the issue lies not with any particular patient but with modern societies. They are correct that from the purely macroscopic statistical view things wouldn't be that different if we returned to the "ideal" days where "madness" was equated with "divine inspiration". Sure modern technology allows a single person having a episode to drive a car through a crowd. Offset that against the historical past where they could add hemlock to the community stew. But that is sociology not psychology.