I'm happy!:)
Two good news today.
I've just seen on Bloomberg that it's becoming a little bit more difficult to cover it all up!
:)

Current Depression Medications: Do The Benefits Outweigh the Harm?

Presently, for the treatment of depression and other what some claim are mental disorders, some of which are questionable, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are the drugs of choice by most prescribers. Such meds, meds that affect the mind, are called psychotropic medications. SSRIs also include a few meds in this class with the addition of a norepinephrine uptake inhibitor added to the SSRI, and these are referred to SNRI medications. Examples of SNRIs are Cymbalta and Effexor. Some consider these classes of meds a next generation after benzodiazepines, as there are similarities regarding their intake by others, yet the mechanisms of action are clearly different, but not their continued use and popularity by others.

Some Definitions:

Serotonin is a neurotransmitter thought to be associated with mood. The hypothesis was first suggested in the mid 1960s that this neurotransmitter may play a role in moods and emotions in humans. Yet to this day, the serotonin correlation with such behavioral and mental conditions is only theoretical. In fact, the psychiatrist’s bible, which is the DSM, states that the definite etiology of depression remains a mystery and is unknown. So a chemical imbalance in the brain is not proven to be the cause of mood disorders, it is only suspected with limited scientific evidence. In fact, diagnosing diseases such as depression is based on subjective assessment only, as interpreted by the prescriber, so one could question the accuracy of such diagnoses.

Norepinephrine is a stress hormone, which many believe help those who have such mood disorders as depression. Basically, with the theory that by adding this hormone, the SSRI will be more efficacious for a patient prescribed such a med.
And depression is only one of those mood disorders that may exist, yet possibly the most devastating one. An accurate diagnosis of these mood conditions lack complete accuracy as they can only be defined conceptually, so the diagnosis is dependent on subjective criteria, such as questionnaires. There is no objective diagnostic testing for depression. Yet the diagnosis of depression in patients has increased quite a bit over the decades. Also, few would argue that depression does not exist in other people. Yet, one may contemplate, actually how many other people are really depressed?

Several decades ago, less than 1 percent of the U.S. populations were thought to have depression. Today, it is believed that about 15 percent of the populations have depression at some time in their lives. Why this great increase in the growth of this condition remains unknown and is subject to speculation. What is known is that the psychiatry specialty is the one specialty most paid to by certain pharmaceutical companies for support of their psychotropic meds, as this industry clearly desires market growth of these products, as this objective is part of their nature. Regardless, SSRIs and SRNIs are the preferred treatment methods if depression or other mood disorders that may be suspected by a doctor. Yet these meds discussed clearly are not the only treatments, medicinally or otherwise, for depression treatment.

Over 30 million scripts of these types of meds are written annually, and the franchise is around 20 billion dollars a year, with some of the meds costing over 3 dollars per tablet. There are about ten different SSRI/SRNI meds available, many of which are now generic, yet essentially, they appear to be similar in regards to their efficacy and adverse events. The newest one, a SNRI called Pristiq, was approved in 2008, and is being promoted for treatment for menopause. The first one of these SSRI meds was Prozac, which was available in 1988, and the drug was greatly praised for its ability to transform the lives of those who consumed this medication in the years that followed. Some termed Prozac, ‘the happy pill’. In addition, as the years went by and more drugs in this class became available, Prozac was the one of preference for many doctors for children. A favorable book was published specifically regarding this medication soon after it became so popular with others.

Furthermore, these meds have received additional indications besides depression for some really questionable conditions, such as social phobia and premenstrual syndrome. With the latter, I find it hard to believe that a natural female experience can be considered a treatable disease. Social phobia is a personality trait, in my opinion, which has been called shyness or perhaps a term coined by Dr. Carl Jung, which is introversion, so this probably should not be labeled a treatable disease as well. There are other indications for certain behavioral manifestations as well with the different SSRIs or SRNIs. So the market continues to grow with these meds. Yet, it is believed that these meds are effective in only about half of those who take them, so they are not going to be beneficial for those suspected of having certain medical illnesses treated by such meds. The makers of such meds seemed to have created such conditions besides depression for additional utilization of these types of medications, and are active and have been active in forming symbiotic relationships with related disease specific groups, such as providing financial support for screenings for the indicated conditions of their meds- screening of children and adolescents in particular, I understand, and consider dangerous and inappropriate for several reasons.

Danger and concern primarily involves the adverse effects associated with these types of meds, which include suicidal thoughts and actions, violence, including acts of homicide, and aggression, among others, and the makers of such drugs are suspected to have known about these effects and did not share them with the public in a timely and critical manner. While most SSRIs and SNRIs are approved for use in adults only, prescribing these meds to children and adolescents has drawn the most attention and debate with others, such as those in the medical profession as well as citizen watchdog groups. The reasons for this attention are due to the potential off-label use of these meds in this population, yet what may be most shocking is the fact that some of the makers of these meds did not release clinical study information about the risks of suicide as well as the other adverse events related to such populations, including the decreased efficacy of SSRIs in general, which is believed to be less than 10 percent more effective than a placebo. Paxil caught the attention of the government regarding this issue of data suppression some time ago, this hiding such important information.

And there are very serious questions about the use of SSRIs in children and adolescents regarding the effects of these meds on them. For example, do the SSRIs correct or create brain states considered not within normal limits, which in effect could cause harm rather than benefit? Are adolescents really depressed, or just experiencing what was once considered normal teenage angst? Do SSRIs have an effect on the brain development and their identity of such young people? Do adolescents in particular become dangerous or bizarre due to SSRIs interfering with the myelination occurring in their still developing brains? No one seems to know the correct answer to such questions, yet the danger associated with the use of SSRIs does in fact exist. It is observed in some who take such meds, but not all who take these meds. Yet health care providers possibly should be much more aware of these possibilities

Finally, if SSRIs are discontinued, immediately in particular instead of a gradual discontinuation, withdrawals are believed to be quite brutal, and may be a catalyst for suicide in itself, as not only are these meds habit forming, but discontinuing these meds, I understand, leaves the brain in a state of neurochemical instability, as the neurons are recalibrating upon discontinuation of the SSRI that altered the brain of the consumer of this type of med. This occurs to some degree with any psychotropic med, yet the withdrawals can reach a state of danger for the victim in some classes of meds such as SSRIs, it is believed.

SSRIs and SRNIs have been claimed by doctors and patients to be extremely beneficial for the patient’s well -being regarding the patient’s mental issues where these types of meds are used, yet the risk factors associated with this class of medications may outweigh any perceived benefit for the patient taking such a drug. Considering the lack of efficacy that has been demonstrated objectively, along with the deadly adverse events with these meds only recently brought to the attention of others, other treatment options should probably be considered, but that is up to the discretion of the prescriber.

“I use to care, but now I take a pill for that.” --- Author unknown

Dan Abshear

You know what is interesting about this, is that the psychiatrists are shifting and thinking about it, but I have a feeling they have not a clue beyond the "box" they've been so used to rx'ing this stuff out of --think about it, they would essentially possibly be telling patients to go next door to the therapist, I can't help you with medication--and then what? out of business? my psych doc is open about this, that if I don't need meds, I don't need him.(thankfully he thinks this way,but on the other hand it's really up to me to say I don't need the meds and some ppl don't get to that point) I think it's gonna take a while for this shift to move where it needs to, and that is away from medicating ppl./ but then we have the new antipsychotic march replacing anti depressants, so in fact that could be where the American docs take the next leap (and let's hope they don't, but hell, we know it already has happened).

ssri's are yesterdays meds,
now anti-psychotics are approved for kids. . .

"but I have a feeling they have not a clue beyond the "box" they've been so used to rx'ing this stuff out of"

Stephany,
At the beginning I believe they didn't know. But at least by 2005 they already had their clinical experience on SSRIs.
Patients had already reported side effects, terrible side effects. At this point they should have started respecting patients complains but they always answered like this:
"-It does not happen to my other patients." "-It will go away." or they remained in silence.
They still remain in silence when we talk about side effects, withdrawal symptoms even if we show them the huge amount of data on the Web.
I have to go to a psychiatrist to get prescriptions to buy the drugs.
He's a nice man, deeply concerned about their patients and a researcher. I have already send him by e-mail some sites.
He keeps on denying. The last time I talked to him he said: "-These sites are very sensationalists."
I'll send him this review and some other important data that are unquestionable to see what will be his reaction.
I know he knows!
He knows that I know he knows and we keep on playing this game.
When I started withdrawing Effexor he told me:
"-Good! This is what causing most of the things you're feeling."
I believe he forgot he told me that.
I tapered Effexor for 19 months feeling all withdrawal symptoms alone. It was hell.
After 3 months out of the drug I felt terrible.
I know it was withdrawal symptoms. It has been reported that some people keeps on feeling withdrawal symptoms for years and some for the rest of their lives.
But the way I was feeling I could not live. I cannot even express in words what I felt. So I had to go back to Effexor.
He diagnosed me as "depressed".
It hurts me because my feelings and reasoning are totally invalidated.
I became a "psychiatrist patient" and there was a time when he told me that I was... bipolar.
My ex-husband is maniac-depressive. And when "bipolarity" started to be used I thought it was so good not to say "maniac-depressive".
When he say to me: "-You're a little bipolar." I didn't understand anything and got really confused.
I've called my psychoanalyst and she told me not to be worried for "bipolarity" was being used to anything.
I'm neurotic.
I don't care about being label as a neurotic.
It makes perfectly sense to me being called neurotic.
But I'm not bipolar and many people are being label as such and are "normal". LOL
Even babies are bipolar...:o) I know I'm not normal. I even prefer not being "normal".
But I want him to tell me: "-You were misdiagnosed."
When I showed him the prescription of the crazy psychiatrist that has put me on 6 drugs in high doses he, as others, could not believe.
He went to talk with a friend.
Why on earth cannot he tell me that I'm on these drugs because I'm one of those people who could not withdraw?
Fortunately I have seen many testimonies of people saying: "-... but I KNOW it is withdrawal."
I see people being treated with antidepressants because "-I found out that I suffered from depression after my father's death."
I beg your pardon?!
What happened with "mourning"?

Seroxat in particular has recieved bad press over here Phil - It's been the subject of four Panorama programmes on BBC TV.

Doctors still need to be educated though, there are still some that are unaware that there is a liquid form of Seroxat - apparently it makes life easier when tapering from the drug. My own experience suggests otherwise.

Fid

Prozac also have it's liquid form.
Effexor don't. I believe that Zolof neither or Cymbalta, Celexa, Lexapro, Luvox, Zelmit or all the others that causes same harms.
Good that Paxil has all these data and the media is reporting it all.
Unfortunately people who are on other SSRIs and SSNRIs that are as hard as Paxil to withdraw and causes the same side effects don't have all these support.
It's getting harder to withdraw some of them since it's almost impossible to low doses using XR capsules that is the only version of Effexor and Cymbalta on the market.

"Brainzaps: A Journal of Effexor Withdrawal"
http://brainzaps.tblog.com/

Perhaps it will be necessary to unite people who are on different SSRIs and SSNRIs because it looks as if their problems are not the same.

I don't understand why on ssristories there are many cases that the drug's name is described as:
"antidepressants" or "Med for depression".

"In the almost two decades since Prozac — the first of the antidepressants known as SRIs, or serotonin reuptake inhibitors — hit the market, many patients have reported extreme reactions to discontinuing the drugs. Two of the best-selling antidepressants — Effexor and Paxil* — have prompted so many complaints that many doctors avoid prescribing them altogether."

*it means a lot!

"Generally the drugs that are metabolized most quickly cause more severe symptoms, Shelton said. Effexor, with a half-life of just a few hours, is one of the worst SRIs in that regard; Prozac, which has a half-life of about a week, is considered the best."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14126142/

The Effexor petition online with 17.951 signatures has some data.

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?effexor

Effexor users unite!
Prozac users unite!
Cymbalta users unite!
Zol...................

A liquid form, in principle, should allow a finer gradation to a tapering program than would a pill splitter. However, as you say Fid, this is certainly no guarantee the withdrawal will be anything close to pleasant.

@ Posted by: Fiddy at May 25, 2008 10:53 AM

"Seroxat in particular has recieved bad press over here Phil - It's been the subject of four Panorama programmes on BBC TV."

Yes the stories were all placed in the media by a company called Goodrelations working under the instructions of UK litigation lawyers.

Unfortunately this action allowed the media to take it's eyes off the wider SSRI/SNRI agenda.

Doctors need to be educated that Seroxat is not the only rogue SSRI

Sara xxx

"Yes the stories were all placed in the media by a company called Goodrelations working under the instructions of UK litigation lawyers."

Good job!
If it wasn't for their work and the work of many people in UK like Charles Medawar who has been working on this since 1998 perhaps no Panorama, no nothing.
Whenever we have problems with criminality we need lawyers.
Peter Bregguin has been working as a lawyer too.
What next Sara? What about defamatory allegations about them and perhaps other names?
Once again:
You're disrespecting Philip Dawdy and everybody here.
I believe Philip gave up writing new posts.
He must be waiting for you to stop your delusions for it seems that you want to put all work in jeopardy.
You're stopping good discussions and making all efforts to use any line written here to continue your circus.
People have stop commenting.
Why don't you start your own blog about your "case"?
Stop using other people's places.

Paul,

Withdrawal is always a hell. What I've tried to explain is that it's impossible to reduce the right amount of the dose when you have a capsule you cannot break.
But let's continue to talk about it later.
For the moment we cannot say anything.

Continue Sara......

Dear Ana

I have made no as you call them, "disrespectful comments" about Charles Medwar. I have made no comments about Breggin.

As a UK tax payer I have a right to expect better from an orginsiation in public ownership i.e the BBC. Panorama is supposed to be an investigative programme - so why did it NOT investigate each and every SSRI/SNRI in the entire drug class.

Ana are you trying to tell us that paxil/seroxat is uniquely bad?

You know the average GP in the UK seem perfectly happy to prescribe every other brand.

So how does all the hype about Seroxat serve the average person who took brands other than the GSK product?

Sara XXX

The answer is of course it does not.

I don't exchange ideas with people who say nonsense, and distort my words, don't read all I've written and have no dignity or ethics.

Philip,
Please! Could you moderate comments that are making more and more misunderstandings?

A psychiatrist I had in the past, with decades of clinical experience, told me that antidepressants generally work no better than placebo. But, and he emphasized this, the studies are distorted to this conclusion because of selection bias.

Patients who are suicidally depressed are not allowed in the trials. Ethical reasons as well as not being representative. People with bipolar disorder are screened out because of the possibility of a manic switch.

So the patients with the most possibility of showing a true response to the medication are excluded.

Secondly, most people who are mildly to moderately depressed, however you scale it, generally go into remission in a few months. Generally within the study period. So it makes sense placebo and medicated but unresponsive cases show similar outcome.

But some patients do respond dramatically, he said, and keeps that option open whenever treating a patient.

I'm curious to people's comments here.

I always find it interesting that the UK and Europe seem more ahead of the health curve when it comes to research on medications.