Posted by laima on August 15, 2006, at 17:48:14
In reply to Re: Optimistic part/ Possible Trigger(?), posted by linkadge on August 15, 2006, at 16:42:46
Yes- and you know they still are prescribing amphetamines for resistant depression occasionally. It's not easy--sometimes there's a choice of being in hell or trying a drug-using a drug, to relieve that, but which might cause other issues later. When prozac first came out I recall so many people saying things like, "I don't care if it turns out that they find this shaves 20 years off my life, at least I have one now!". Now it turns out even prozac wasn't a "cure"; one ends up constantly trying to catch up...but of course sometimes the alternative isn't so good either. I mean- the amphetamines, prozac- all of them- have prevented millions of suicides and re-jump-started lives, I am certain. What compassionate person would deny a someone with debilitating panic attacks or agoraphobia a benzodiazapine, or advise a person who feels uttterly washed out or even contemplating suicide to avoid antidepressants? I think the pros and cons of drugs can be very complex, and people's circumstances vary. And drugs can often work much faster and dramatically than nutritional approaches, and they can be the very boost to induce necessary lifestyle changes...I think one definate problem is that the drugs are developed "for profit", they are very expensive to develop, and the companies obviously then want to sell as many of them as possible in order to make their ventures "worthwhile". I wonder, for a drastic example, which company would be motivated to develop a "cure" that a person could take and be done with? The marketing people don't exactly do a good job of spelling out the complexities, seriousness, and risks of the substances they are peddeling. I suspect this results in over-prescription or inappropriate prescription. I rather wish the industry was not for profit, funded by grants, say. However, I guess we are lucky to at least have the options we do have and try not to dwell on this.
> Marketing and testing aside, it really comes down to the fact that a drug appears to be helpfull today, but theres no guarentee a drug will be helpfull tomorrow.
>
> Its all about the test of time. Only time can demonstrate what a drug is really doing.
>
> A drug can be approved with only very basic testing IMO, it only need to be shown effective for over so many months.
>
> I see prozac as a longer acting cocaine. So tollerance doesn't build overnight, but it still builds.
>
> We just havn't had the drugs around for long enough to know.
>
> When a drug makes you feel good, its very easy to slip into thinking that it is doing something good for you.
>
> You can take amphetamines and feel great, but that doesn't mean some very nasty thing aren't happening below the surface. Cocaine asside, we were still routinely prescribing amphetamines for depression 50 years ago.
>
>
> Linkadge
>
>
>
>
>
poster:laima
thread:675829
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060810/msgs/676797.html