Philip,

I am glad to see that you are taking a much needed rest this morning. It is so easy to get "burned out" in this work.

Also, I am happy that you are going to approach the subject of suicides among middle-aged men. We need to know more what the reasons are for this. Actually, we need to try and understand why the suicide rate is so much higher for men in general, not just middle aged man. Since stats were first kept on suicides at the beginning of the 20th century, men have always committed 75% of the suicides.

I am sorry to see that the woman who posted positively on Prozac has left the readership. People on these drugs have so much 'rejection sensitivity'. This phenomena was reported over and over to the Prozac Survivors Group and the International Coaltion for Drug Awareness. Yet there was also some 'emotional blunting' there that can be associated with the Prozac. I guess the woman did not understand that those who have lost a loved one to the drugs are going to fight back. We wouldn't have all these anti-SSRI Websites if these people were not willing to have justified anger over the drugs.

To give an analogy, if I had a son who was killed in a motorcycle accident and someone said to me, "I love riding my motorcycle. It takes away my stress and has saved my life", I might have an automatic reaction of "don't ever speak of motorcycles. It makes me ill". I think most people can understand this viewpoint.

Also, we anti-SSRI people are not to be discouraged. I think the posters on the Effexor Activist and Paxil Progress for example will raise an eyebrow at the Steven K tragedy and the consensus that "we may never know". We will keep working diligently so that people finally 'know.'

It's not surprising the commenter who Prozac works for left the site; it was a pretty harsh smackdown, calling her in one comment "where's the respect" and as well as several other comments directed rudely right toward that person.

This is just my opinion, so for whatever this matters it doesn't--but it's not the site that ran off a "pro-med" commenter. It's the anti-med commenters.

Even the apology was attached to a lecture re: SSRI's, essentially keeping the anti-med flame burning.

Hopefully, people like the ones who want to say positive things about their life on medication will read the article and post their thoughts without reading comments; that's what I try to do most of the time when it gets this way in this forum.

Just my opinion.

The way I see it is that for the past 15 or so years, no one could say a whole lot about the problems they were having regarding medications because, well, basically it wasn't common knowledge. If you said anything negative about psych med's you were run off as being a scientologist and no one wanted to hear what you had to say. Now we are seeing a shift to where more and more people realize that hey, it's not just scientologist, there are a lot of people who have been hurt by taking these medications.

My Dad was killed in a plane crash and never in my right mind would I tell someone not to talk about planes [as the motorcycle comment].

Lizzie posted her personal positive story re: Prozac and was ran off , and now it's called "rejection sensitivity"? Of course, she posted knowing everyone is shooting from the emotionally charged hip--not.

This is ridiculous.

No new news? Only that he was also using Ambien, a drub known to cause bizarre sleepwalking behaviour

'Also, the former girlfriend of gunman Steve Kazmierczak told CNN in an interview aired Wednesday that in addition to the anti-depressant Prozac, Kazmierczak had been taking Ambien, a sleeping aid, and Xanax, an anti-anxiety drug, prior to the shootings.'
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/health/chi-niu_invest_21feb21,1,3399058.story

But the same old same old: the authorities are stilll stuggling with a 'mystery' They cant work out why he would kill! The doctors deny any of these drugs are dangerous..etc etc. Of course, they will deny, because it would be litigous for them to admit they prescribe drugs that cause mass murder.

Actually, 'Rejection Sensitivity" needs to be taken seriously by anyone who is studying these murders & rampages that are taking place on and in withdrawal from SSRIs.

A study presented at the 159th Annual Scientific Meeting of the APA in Toronto, Canada in 2006 identified 5 predictors for bipolar disorder risk in patients who have been unsuccessfully treated with antidepressants. Rejection Sensitivy was one of the criteria.

At least 200 of the 2,129 stories on SSRI Stories involve someone who reacted negatively because they felt rejected, according to the motive revealed in the media article.

As for the "glow" that some people get from Prozac/SSRIs, this is fine but it is not exactly recovery. It is known as hypomania and, while I am not against hypomania, it is something to watch because it could turn into mania.

I have heard of three of these people with the "glow" who later ruined their lives with unsound jugement. One was a good friend who divorced her husband and later lived to deeply regret it.

In the book, "Halfway Heaven: Diary of a Harvard Murder" by Melanie Thernstrom, a woman from Ethiopia kills her roomate in their corm at Harvard [a woman from Vietnam] by stabbing her 47 times. She then kills herself. The woman from Ethiopia was a junior at the University and she had been in counseling at the Health Service Center since her freshman year. In her diary the woman did not mention taking a medication but this is not unusual. I was once allowed to read the diary of a 12 year old who committed suicide on an SSRI. Not once did she mention the medication although she had been taking it for many months. Anyway, the point of this story is that a man friend from Ethiopia had lunch with this woman one day and he was amazed when she walked into the lunchroom. He had not seen her for many months but there she was, suddenly, all "aglow". He could hardly believe this was the same woman. She conversed in a lively manner and seemed so very different from the woman he had know. He even said there ws a "glow" about her. Three months later she was dead.

This case is not on SSRI Stories because there is no proof that she was taking an SSRI but I have to wonder how someone can go to the student health center, depressed, for three years and not receive one of the wonder drugs, especially in the 1990s.

So yes, we should all be concerned about any friends who are on these SSRIs and we should know that they are particularily sensitive to what they perceive as rejection.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxRLap9xLag
this is a link to kay jamison who is an expert in bipolar, i recommend u to watch it.

I don't have time to listen to Kay Jameison but I did read her book on bipolar disorder several years ago.

I noticed she never took an SSRI. She was always on lithium.

I sincerely believe that the SSRIs are causing mania in people who are not bipolar. How much of this 5 million person increase in the last 11 years in bipolar disorder is real and how much is artificially being induced by antidepressants is unknown but I bet it is a whooping figure.

Actually, bipolar disorder was once considered quite rare - at about 1% of the population. Now everyone is 'bipolar' - even the fictional characters in novels.

There are so many other ways of helping people who are moderately depressed - social support [extremely important], exercise, Omega 3's, a good relationship with a talking therapist, diet, etc. ,etc .

Why turn so many people into bipolars and then give them an antidepressant, a mood stailizer, an antipsychotic, etc. It only shortens their lifespan. Tragic

Thank you Philip for your reasoned, balanced posts. It's so hard to find any sort of medium in this subject.



I'm so sick of reading these rabid comments that are so quick to jump to conclusions. Stop making black and white conjectures on fuzzy or bad science. If Kay Jamison had taken an SSRI, despite whether or not it benefitted her, she would be slandered. Just because you have had a bad experience doesn't mean you should dictate the treatment of other people. I've heard arguments along the lines of "my cousin was killed in a motorcycle accident so all motorcycles should be banned."

The issue of antidepressants and bipolar disorder is not black and white. It's a very tricky issue but they can be helpful. My lithium (more effective at being an anti-manic agent) was not stabilizing the lower end of my mood well enough. A very low dose of the SNRI bupropion has made an immense difference in my life. Notice, these are both cheap and generic.

Don't assume you know what's best for me or anyone else for that matter. I understand why that person left the site, especially after those disgusting comments I read that justified the killing of that psychologist. I'll keep reading the site despite these unbelievable readers, but the comment page often becomes ridiculous. It's sad that instead of a genuine discussion some people have turned this into a venue to plug their site and attack those who disagree.

I've heard arguments along the lines of "my cousin was killed in a motorcycle accident so all motorcycles should be banned."

The issue of antidepressants and bipolar disorder is not black and white.

Anne,

It is you who are making complex arguments into black-and-white. The person who made the motorcycle comment was NOT in any way trying to support a ban, it was to explain how someone could feel about motorcycles if a loved one was killed in a motorcycle accident. People telling them that motorcycles were great, that they had a wonderful experience with motorcycles, would seem to be dismissive of the very real risks involved with this activity.

In fact, the motorcycle and airplane analogy is a very good lens through which to view antidepressants. Most people would think a fear of traveling on airplanes is somewhat irrational, even though accidents do sometimes happen. Most people regard a fear of traveling on motorcycles more founded in rationality, because of the greater likelihood of accident. Which of these is more similar to antidepressants? I would argue the motorcycles, but note that I am not advocating banning motorcycles or antidepressants.

I am simply saying that the risks one takes when riding a motorcycle or taking antidepressant should be understood and not minimised. And just like one chooses freely to ride motorcycles, the choice to use antidepressants should be a free choice.

Susan, exactly. Free choice, and if a person comes here where a forum is welcoming all sides and viewpoints, they should be able to do so freely without attack. I've linked Lizzie's blog to mine, "Bipolar Journey", if anyone desires to leave her a word of support, as I did.

In that thread re: Lizzie's positive use of Prozac, there are other people who were also berated there.

There's a fine line when comments turn into hostile attacks, based on emotional grief and total one-sided thinking.

This is why there will always be a division of mental health world discussions and answers. Because it is not all black and white. The gray area we often do not speak of here holds a LOT of people successfully living on medication, and off.

Why the grandstanding happens is based on emotions here. Death of loved ones often creates a hysterical one-sided view of life, based on how the loved one died.

That, in my opinion is called "shutting down" and not seeing the world from any other perspective, which is in my opinion a dangerous and unbalanced way to live, which also lends to harbor bitterness and anger, and that is not a good platform to base an arguement upon.

Just my .3 cents.

Susan, I wanted to clarify, not to run this on and on, but my analogy is based on flying is with recreational aircraft, like my Dad was when he crashed his plane. Like people who ride motorcycles for fun, that's what he did.

Why I used this an an analogy, is because I also have received comfort from other pilots who told me they still fly for recreation and fun, though losing people they love, like I did to a crash and the pilots encouraged me not to fear flying or taking lessons myself.

Same thing goes with the Prozac story left by Lizzie. Some other person reading might be comforted to know she does fine on the med and won't become "the next shooter".

My point is we can seek solace in other people's stories, and all sides can and should be appreciated and respected.

"Rejection sensitivity?" I think most people, on meds or off, get pretty sensitive when their deeply felt personal experiences are discounted and demeaned.

I don't care how high your emotions are running or what you have been through in your life, that doesn't give you the right to pass judgment on others who may have also suffered terrible things, or tell them their experiences are somehow not real just because they do not match up with yours. People concerned about mental health should be able to treat others' personal stories with interest and compassion - not like demons to be cast out in some crusade between good and evil.

TO: Stephany - On the "why more middle age men commit suicide" . The reports I have read actually have women attempting suicide more than men but men completing the act more than women. "Assessment, Treatment, and Prevention of Suicidal Behavior" had some interesting information. However being a pysch industry book its written with anti slant on the information. This was partially explained by the aggressive means on which men attempted suicide i.e gunshots and hanging where women used more passive means like over dose.

Part of the problem is there is no way to log valid research. People carry the act out in private and the people who have had attempts intervened do so with more secrecy. First attempts usually fail and later attempts are more successful. A person who fails an attempt may not go for medical treatment out of fear for being seized. There's a problem of I don't want to go through that shit. And after what they just went through can you rightful blame them? Living through a failed attempt is a hell within itself. More civilized area actually have NO fear/consquencies laws where any person who self harms or has a bad drug reaction or overdose can seek medical treatment for it without fear from the police or having the information come back latter to be used against them. Any person being held against their will isn't likely to give truthful information that can be used against you. Any person who wants the help to live from the psych industry doesn't have as severe level of desire of death than a person who doesn't. And such cooperation askews the results.

Any research done on involuntary patients is done on people who have a portion who are reciting whatever the shrinks want to hear to get out. Tell them your going to try again and you won't get out. ANd lets not forget what they do to treat you if you keep saying your suicidal. Only the most insane won't learn to shut their mouth.

Often "the people regret it" isn't defined into the two groups (since it doesn't support siggy fraud's little pet theory) that if the regret is for trying is for ending their life or that the regret is for what they went through for trying. Those are to very different factors.

On the Scientology subject

You know when they attack the group that brought the thought forward instead of the thought/question of facts, there must be reason why they won't argue the thought/fact. IF someone came out saying the earth is flat would we discredit because it came from group so and so or would we hammer them with hard science?

One of the lessons from sci-fi and mythology is the wise fool. As the "evil overload list" says if a 5 year old kid tells me my plan is going to fail, I won't proceed until my trusted advisor's can disprove him. It doesn't matter the source if the question might be valid.

Scientologists spoke up when other religions condoned the dangers of these drugs and the suffering of users. They dare raise unpopular questions. How close is psychiatry and marketing related again? No wonder the attacks against them are so welled tailored and the masses believe them without question. How many people calling them a cult and money racket have actually read the materials in context and with an open mind? If I want to find something bad in anything I'm sure I can easily find it or at least twist it out of it. Like one can say this site promotes stopping medications. While that may be true this site promotes being informed and if you choose to, then doing it safely. While the first statement might be "correct" it leaves out lots of important details that change the context.

There sure seems to be a lot of hate attacks on them. I wonder what the great hackor attack was for, if Scientology supposedly wants its material off of all the internet sites then why did they do DOS attacks and attack all the wikipedia articles requesting and arguing for deletion? Ether they are being played by them or the hackors are just trying to censor a group they don't like.

I guess its the new irish/black/jew/russian/mexican/muslim to hate and discriminate and discredit. Same pattern of behavior by the masses/authority/companies to anyone different. Ever notice the same type of discrediting statements are used against other minority and "anti" groups? People mock what they can't discredit. At least they're in great company.

YY,

I am not sure why you directed your post to me.

Sorry,that should have been directed to Rosie's comment . My browser, extensions and screen resolution aren't playing nice with formating.

Just in case I'm still not reading the page correctly, It was in reply and discussion of "Also, I am happy that you are going to approach the subject of suicides among middle-aged men. We need to know more what the reasons are for this. Actually, we need to try and understand why the suicide rate is so much higher for men in general, not just middle aged man. Since stats were first kept on suicides at the beginning of the 20th century, men have always committed 75% of the suicides."

There's a lot bad information on suicides and the numbers seem to contradict and mislead.The question of which sex and demographic attempted and which group completed more suicides is often mixed and confused. One would think that the group who tries the most would have the higher success rates but this didn't seem to be the case.

It doesn't help that each shrink is trying to farther their own pet theories on the "why's", "warning signs" and "treatments/interventions".

You can't get reliable answers from the patients who attempt it, when their freedom hangs in the balance. And probably not until it's also recognized as valid, thought out and a sane option. If you automatically discredit the action as being only done by the insane, then they rule out some of the very logic and reasons why people commit suicide. I've read editorials who said the psyche industry has a higher rate for suicides than other disciplines of medicine.

There needs to be a standard of gathering evidence that is not designed to farther the creators opinions. Part of the problem is the causes are extremely varied but getting grouped together. For example the person who lost their job and house they bought verses the person who is in chronic pain and vomiting most days. What about when the two overlap... One has external causes and one has internal causes but both get grouped the same.

While people may attempt it while not thinking clearly, that does not mean a person who faces a life that is unacceptable and going to be filled with pain and horrid conditions, doesn't have the right to end their suffering. Each person should get to decide their own limits and no one should ever be "put down" and/or be pressured to because of costs/strains/lack of positive outcome chances to treatments. To quote the Right To Die movement "Life shouldn't be a sentence" No one should have to end their life unnecessarily but no one should be made to suffer either.

The Scientology was to the general discussion and about the discredit and disdain they receive for their beliefs. It troubles me how the same pattern of hate only changes the name of the group targeted. That the discrimination in the past was wrong but this time its justifiable and logical. Sadly that's human nature we seem to always need to someone to dislike and accuse of being wrong for being different. If it's all only one god then it doesn't matter what name you call it. The message of "try to be a decent human being" is the same.