Posted by Karen Moore on February 4, 2004, at 15:51:11
In reply to Re: Doxepin v Mirtazapine » scott-d-o, posted by Sad Panda on February 4, 2004, at 3:01:37
OK. I've been watching you guys debate this for quite some time now. Reminds me of the arguments I've had with my psychiatrist sister (though yours have been slightly more civil, I think...) It's interesting to watch how two people with different cognitive styles can interprete the same data set and end up on two radically different roads (to enlightenment or befuddlement?!)=?
I will say that philosophically, when discussing meds I think it is important not to take that final step to generalization and judgement as to whether or not one drug is better than another. Though 90% of the time that generalization may be true, all too often there is a subgroup of individuals who fit into the 10% and do better with the "inferior" drug. Since I usually find myself in the 0.05% subgroup I've had to always research "how things work" and dismiss "which one works better". This certainly increases the level of complexity necessary for the given problem, but that's just nature of the beast.Thanks, your discussions prompted me to finally order the newest edition of my fave pharmacology book at amazon. When it gets here I'll start popping some reminyl and see if I can get some of that concentration/intellect back...
chrs,
KMP.S. re: Scott << "da antagonism: bad for people with parkinson's, good for schizophrenics. The whole point of pharmacology is to correct imbalances and/or dysfunctions in these neurological systems, which occur in different forms for different people..."
Point well taken. Different drugs, different applications, different successes and problems. For that matter, one person's unbearable side-effect is another's panacea...
poster:Karen Moore
thread:306217
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040204/msgs/309403.html