Posted by SLS on March 31, 2006, at 9:05:56
In reply to Re: remeron withdrawal, posted by musky on March 31, 2006, at 0:55:36
Hi Musky.
> Im sorry but I disagree... If antidepressants did work,,, we wouldnt have so many people on them
I fail to see the logic here. That's like saying if sex felt so good, we wouldn't have so many people doing it.
> and so many people trying to get off with horrendous side effects and withdrawls.
Again, I fail to see how the desire to discontinue an antidepressant is a de facto demonstration of its lack of effectiveness. There are many reasons why people discontinue antidepressants. Many attempt to discontinue precisely because they did work, and that they maintained a remission for an extended period of time. Of course, many must discontinue one failed antidepressant to move on to another. The fact is that the great majority of people do not intend to remain on an antidepressant for the rest of their lives for a variety of reasons.
> As for the Remeron yes I too have done my research and each drug may block at a different site(either before or after the synapse).
This is a far different pronouncement than the one you issued in your previous post.
> and yes remeron is a dual action which worries me more as my experience has not been good at all with this drug as far as side effects.
I think it is a mistake to generalize unto an entire population one's own experience with these drugs.
Most antidepressants suck with regard to side effects, I agree. Too bad, but it's the best we've got at the moment.
> What meant to say in my earlier post was this , but meaning that the end result is still the same.I wish this were true. I wish the end result was that everyone always responded to a single antidepressant. Unfortunately, things don't work that way. This is at least indicative that each drug results in producing a different biological state that varies from individual to individual and drug to drug.
Scientists really don't know how these drugs work and are not fully convinced that they have elucidated every property of each drug.
> The drug blocks the receptors then eventually the body responds by shutting down its receptors and then evetually these receptors are not made anymore..
Is that all the body does? I think there are cascades of events beyond the immediate receptor that are important to the therapeutic effects of these drugs.
One must consider not only what these drugs do, but where they do it. Not all drugs exert their properties in the same regions of the brain.
> A receptor on a cell is simply a protein which is now affected bythe drug.
That is rather simple, I agree. However, since different drugs affect different receptors, they are obviously not all the same. They do not all result in the same changes in membrane sensitivity.
> This to me makes it very clear why we need to do more research into the neurorecptors and how they operate on a more detailed level..
Research needs to extend well beyond the level of the synaptic neurotransmitter receptor. Much of it already does.
> I think that original studies with these drugs , which if you have done your research as you say,, show that the drug companies fund the research.
Not 100%, I assure you.
> there is enormous payback to market these so called wonder drugs..
That's capitalism.
> What puzzles me is everyone seems to be taking them.. and if it truly is a biological disorder or whatever then we as a human race are definitely in trouble.
Bingo. We certainly are in trouble. At a rate of approximately 10%, depression alone accounts for a huge loss in the productivity of an economy and a burden on the public support system, whether it be capitalism or socialism. We do indeed need more and better treatments.
> If you look back years ago, when antidepressants didnt exist.. your suicide rates were lower..
Reporting practices. Differences in psychosocial stress. Old news. New world.
> And how come now on all the package inserts there is distinct warnings about the risk of these drugs??
Because there are risks. Also because each treatment-emergent event must be reported, whether there is a cause-and-effect relationship or an unrelated coincidence.
Why should we expect psychotropic drugs to be free of risks, anyway. How many non-psychotropic drugs are free of risks? That's a double standard. We have what we have.
> Obviously some of the data from clincial trials is being released..
Hey! The system almost works! I guess not all scientists are liars.
> When you talk about biological affective disorder, I dont see how so many have this..
Scientists continue to elucidate the genetic and epigenetic contributions to affective disorders in order to understand why this fact of epidemiology exists.
> it seems everyone has some sort of disorder.. we tend to over diagnose what is probably normal response to our environment..
Perhaps. I don't know what the rate of misdiagnosis is. Where does this leave those who really do suffer from a brain disorder? What difference does it make to them what the rate is? Should we deny them access to medications that will help them? I don't get it?
> and as far as responding to one antidepressant or another, it also has been shown that in order to get a drug approved, one only has to have about a 30% improvement rate..(just a little better than placebo response)..
There is so much to take into consideration when interpreting the statistics of effectiveness. The rate is significantly higher than 30%, by the way. 30% seems to be the placebo response rate. Still, the rate of effectiveness of any one antidepressant is disappointingly low. I guess that means we should discontinue the sale of all of them? No. What it means is that we should encourage the production of more and better drugs.
> Cognitivie therapy achieves a much higher response rate to depression that drug therapy and this has been documented.
That's quite a remarkable statement to make. It is in opposition to everything I have yet encountered.
Listen, I can see that we are not going to reach a consensus here. You have written quite a long post - too long for my impoverished brain to attend to. I'll leave the rest for others to research independently. Like you, I encourage others to do their own research whenever possible. It is unfortunate that depression can so debilitate one such that they can barely read, learn, and remember. Sometimes they have no better choice than to listen to their doctors and visit message boards like this one.
I strongly encourage others to not look at Psycho-Babble as a definitive source of information. First of all, the majority of us are not professionals in the study of mental illness and its treatment. Secondly, the population here seems to be skewed towards people whom have had difficulties with the treatment of their mental illness. It is not representative of the general population. Sorry, but I can't provide statistics at this point in time.
The bottom line is that mental illnesses do exist. Many of them have a biological component. Drugs effectively treat a large number of sufferers, regardless of etiology. The drugs used do not have a 100% success rate and can produce side effects. Many of these drugs produce a syndrome of withdrawal symptoms upon discontinuation. Scientists do not yet understand enough to design more effective drugs. Drug companies do sponsor some, but not all, of the research into the drugs they produce. Not all scientists are liars.
- Scott
poster:SLS
thread:618809
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/wdrawl/20060228/msgs/627032.html