Posted by Elizabeth on April 19, 2002, at 19:42:07
In reply to Re: Opiates and MAOIs » Elizabeth, posted by kazoo on April 17, 2002, at 3:08:02
> > I don't think that's true.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> But you don't know for sure.Of course not. If I knew for sure, I simply would have said, "That's not true," or something similar. I think Shelli is smart enough to be able to distinguish facts from opinions.
> > Some doctors believe that you shouldn't take opioids with MAOIs *at all*. Obviously this is wrong.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> How is this "wrong"? And "obvious" to whom?It's "wrong" in the sense that it's an incorrect belief. (What else would be meant by "wrong???") It's obvious that it's incorrect because there has been plenty of research on the use of several different opioids with MAOIs, as well as a number of well-documented case reports of lack of interaction. (Morphine is the best-studied opioids in this area.)
> > Morphine is definitely safe, and therefore codeine is too.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> However, one can accidentally overdose on morphine, so this makes it not "safe."*sigh* It should be obvious from the context that the meaning here is that morphine poses no special risk when combined with MAOIs. By your definition, there *aren't* any "safe" drugs, since *any* drug can cause adverse reactions.
I know you're a smart person, so it's difficult to believe that you don't have enough reading comprehension skills to be able to put a remark in context, distinguish fact from opinion, etc. I don't feel a need to dumb down my writing. If someone asks for a clarification, I'm happy to provide it, as I have for you; however, I don't think you really needed any clarifications, so I'm wondering why you requested them. Maybe you're trying to be pedantic. If so, that's unnecessary and disrespectful -- find another way to make your point, a straightforward way.
> Elizabeth, dear, you have provided much valuable information in your area expertise re. opiate drugs; however, I feel you may be a little too dogmatic in your approach to explain what works for you, therefore, what you believe to be true.
(Don't call me "dear.")
No, I do not assume that what works for me will work for anyone else, and I don't see how you could have gotten that impression. Anyway, the post you're responding to was about safety, not efficacy (and no, my comments on safety issues were not based on my own experience).
When I read your post, I wondered what was going on. You appear to be bothered by something. I would like to believe that it's just a misunderstanding or something, but I can't help feeling like there's something more to it. There are lots of people on this board who are enthusiastic about things that work for them and who regularly offer information about these treatments, recommend them to other people, and sometimes even exaggerate their efficacy. I don't believe I've ever done any of these things except for offering information about opioids when someone asks, and very occasionally suggesting them as an option if someone seems to be truly treatment-resistant (rare), so I'm wondering why you're making this accusation. But even if I did make overstated claims about opioids or something else based on my personal experience, would you honestly believe that I should be singled out? I'm sure you can understand why I'm skeptical here.
> I know from experience that it is not wise to make statements without backing up such statements with data or facts from empirical research and sources.
Sometimes I don't feel it's necessary (and it can be a pain in the *ss) to dig up citations; but I *don't* state opinions as though they were facts (I've already explained this at the very beginning of this post). This is a common thing -- *lots* of posts contain statements of fact that aren't backed up by citations. This is a support group, not a peer-reviewed scientific publication. If somebody asks for a citation, I can find one, but I really don't think I should be expected to provide a citation for every little thing that I say -- especially when you don't seem to be demanding the same of anybody else on the board. Again, your choice to single me out brings your motives into question.
> It is true that "conventional wisdom" doesn't always work all the time, and this is where you shine, my dear, in that you offer contrary, alternative methods and ideas to offset the blindly accepted; however, blanket statements to cover all bases can lead to some serious problems in some people.
(Don't call me "dear.")
I offer *information* (when someone asks for it) about what you call "alternative" options because there aren't many other people here who can answer questions on these subjects. I also answer questions and participate in discussions about subjects like the differences among different drugs of the same class, the process of getting a drug approved in the USA, medications for panic disorder, the effects of psych drugs on sleep architecture, the relative merits of different antidepressants and mood stabilizers in different types of mood and anxiety disosrders, when it's appropriate to use neuroleptics in nonpsychotic disorders, and of course drug interactions. Those are just some recent ones that I can recall. But anyway, it's not like I completely shun or ignore conventional treatments. (What do you mean by "contrary, anyway? I'm certainly not encouraging people to avoid anything that's common or standard.)
Also, I did not and do not make blanket statements. What I've said in this thread is correct to the best of my knowledge. If you'd like to dispute some of the actual content of my post, feel free. I'm not convinced it's worthwhile to criticize the presentation when you have nothing to say about the actual substance. It seems nitpicky, not to mention accusatory.
> I'm not sure what I'm trying to tell you here except maybe to be careful in making statements based on anecdotal knowledge and personal success stories.
And again, I didn't do that at all. I don't do that. I don't *need* to do that. I have plenty of books that I can consult, as well as a decent memory for stuff I've read in the past.
I'm not very sure what you're trying to say either. But I do think you should be more cautious about making accusations. It's something that should not be done lightly -- you could have asked questions that would have cleared up any misunderstanding that you had. That would have been the polite way to go about this. (Not calling me "dear" would also be helpful.)
> I remain a reader and follower of your posts,
Flattered.
-elizabeth
poster:Elizabeth
thread:103187
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020416/msgs/103598.html