Posted by musky on April 13, 2006, at 3:06:24
In reply to Re: remeron withdrawal » musky, posted by SLS on March 31, 2006, at 9:05:56
>Hello Scott:
Hmmm we obviously are at different ends of the spectrum here on our views about treatment for dperesssion, etc.
But if you see what is going on in the general population , more and more people are freaking out that are on meds than not..this is very concerning to me.
Im not saying dont let there be any choice. but Im saying that the patient should be allowed to have more of a say in whether they want to try the drug.. NOT the doctor telling them to take a drug and then going from med to med.. I cant see how doing this is helping the patient emotionally
yes you may find one that works, but at what cost to the patient??? They usually have to go through hell first and many weeks of symptoms, withdrawls, etc. before finally being numbed out on whatever the final drug is.
Patients should be allowed to have a more active role in their treatment plan . After all they know their body better than anyone,, they live in it 24/7.
Drugs are not the only way to treat MDD, etc. there are other just as effective and safer ways. Just because something is called alternative , doesnt mean it doesnt work... and just because there isnt published data out there doesnt mean it doesnt work,
Pharmaceuticals is a multi billion dollar industry and they have the money to fund these research trials.
> > >
> 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.
>> The logic is that if the drug worked ,, then it would be a one time thing and then you would be off ...much like a round of antibiotics.. the fact that people are still depressed on it shows that it didnt work. and when they do try to get off they suffer w/d.. how can that be so helpful??
>
> > 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.
yes this is true,, however the fact that they felt better after taking the a/d then stopped could very well have been that they would have recovered anyways on their own..
>
> > 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.No not different at all.. whether the drug blocks before or after a synapse,, the final result is the same,, the receptor in the end is shut down because their is overload by the drug in the system, that is what i mean by it all affects the same thing.. the receptor
>
> > 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.No , not generallizing a whole population, but reading so many articles out there, it seems to me that this is the majority of cases , not minority. I have yet to meet someone that is feeling just great on this.
> Most antidepressants suck with regard to side effects, I agree. Too bad, but it's the best we've got at the moment.
that doesnt justify to keep giving it out so commonly.. i think it needs to be used very conservatively , if at all.
>
> > 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.Exactly my point.. which is why they need to stop practicing the one size fits all drug theory. The physician's desk manual only lists what they think is the effective dose,, this may indeed be alot lower that what is in the manual.. and they are generalizing their findings on a very small number of patients.. they neglect to take into account that specific persons age, gender, wt, metabolism.
>
> Scientists really don't know how these drugs work and are not fully convinced that they have elucidated every property of each drug.Again, my point of what worries me... Until they know for sure, they must not prescribe so readily.. we are really being the guinea pigs here.
>
> > 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.of course not,, the receptor though is a huge part in cell signalling.. there are many cascades of events that happen seperate of the receptor ,like you state, but the receptor plays a big role, .. knock out the receptor and you have serious trouble.. You may be effecting things downstream but you are messing up other signalling events as well, this is what is not good.
>
> 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.
Exactly.. they also affect other systems in a negative way, such as the fat metabolism in the liver for example with Remeron.. how can this possibly be a good thing??? And it is very common having weight gain on remeron. Also it affects blood cell production.. not good either.. and do they even have data showing where else this drug goes then if it affects other regions in 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.All these drugs are in one family or another.Each family still affects the serontonin or norepinephrine in the brain. SSRI, SNRI, for example.
>
> > 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.Yet they still give out the drug, not knowing and not following patients long term.
>
> > 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.pretty close to it I would say... Next time you look at a clinical trial ,, find out who the funders were.. yu will be surprised..
>
> > there is enormous payback to market these so called wonder drugs..
>
> That's capitalism.Call it what you wish... its still true.
>
> > 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.This I agree with you... but we keep going around in circles.. instead of making progress. Which leads me to believe we are looking at this the wrong way. we are looking at treating the problem AFTER it happens not looking at ways to PREVENT it in the first place.
>
> > 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.
Ya, but it worked...
>
> > 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.
yes I understand there are risks.. but why take them if you dont have to???
>
> 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.That doesnt mean we have to use it so freely and still have the problem at hand.. have we wiped out depression?? no,.. even after ALL these drugs.. one can develop all the drugs they want.. we still have the problem.. and we will continue to have it until we change our tactics..
>
> > Obviously some of the data from clincial trials is being released..
>
> Hey! The system almost works! I guess not all scientists are liars.Ya only the rich ones are liars..ha,ha
>
> > 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.I think we are over analyzing this affective disorder thing..
>
> > 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?Of course not.. im simply stating that these people who truly say have an organic disease shall we say should have the choice to take or not take, but should be given more choice than just meds... about other treatment options..so that they are not locked into one method of treatment .. especially if side effects are worse than the disorder itself.
>
> > 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.For what reason??? again as I stated earlier we keep looking at the same way to try to get to an endpoint. For example if you saw that a bridge was out to cross a river, would you keep trying over and over and over to use the broken bridge ,or would you stop and try ANOTHER route?
the very fact that we have been spilling out these drugs for years and have not come any closer to effectively treating depression, anxiety etc. proves only one thing... need to find another way...
>
> > 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.could you give an example ?? I myself have been succesful with cognitive therapy.. I suggest you reasearch some of Dr. David Burns books on this issue... Very well respected pshchiatrist.. not a drug pusher. Just for one example
>
> 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.Yes this is true, and these very same people who are in such a state are the ones at most risk of just being drugged and numbed and tossed aside and just treated like a puppet. I just hope that they will find a way that helps them and all we can do is support, guide,,
>
> 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.
>
Well I must totally disagree. The very reason that this message board is so full of posts just like mine is showing that people are finally speaking out on these drugs... and its not only the message board , people are writing , books , on TV, etc. with very similar experiences as we have here... Until those doctors take the drug themselves they cannot claim what is best for the patient.. They may be the experts in their field, but they are not in that persons body,nor are they experiencing that persons symptoms..> 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.
>Yes Of course we have mental illness, but drugs are not the only approach here. the very fact that scientists do not yet understand enough is reason enough to test more in the lab in vitro, before so hastily pushing clinical trials through to test on people... Again we are simply treating the symptoms , NOT the cause... and we are wasting far too much time develping yet more and more drugs instead of spending more time on preventative measures.
I think alot of our mental illnesses can be prevented Before they happen not after.. and that doesnt include developing newer drugs.. how many times have we said that before??
No scientist will only skew results to get their paper published first.. statistics can be presented such that it looks good on paper..
No maybe not all scientist are liars.. just the drug companies.. its business... thats the reality of it..
I encourage everyone out there to hang in there and stay in touch with pscho babble ... you have to make your own decisions what works for you.Your body will tell you what is healthy for it or not.. think twice before taking any med. prescription or not,, educate yourself and trust your gut instinct... We were given this gift for a reason...
Good luck scott,
thanks for the Debate!!!!
Musky
>
> - Scott
poster:musky
thread:618809
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/wdrawl/20060412/msgs/632490.html