![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 71 to 95 of 200. Go back in thread:
Posted by OldSchool on February 7, 2002, at 10:54:38
In reply to Re: Forest Labs gets US conditional approval for Lexa., posted by Bekka H. on February 6, 2002, at 19:15:21
> Old School, those are my sentiments exactly! I've had it with those wimpogenic, fat-causing, impotence causing, sedating, apathy-producing compounds. I have yet to understand how a drug that makes most people fat, impotent, wimpy blobs could be considered an ANTIDEPRESSANT.
The above side effects are the least of my concerns. I could care less an antidepressant makes me gain some weight or causes sexual dysfunction. My beef with the SSRIs is that these drugs simply DO NOT WORK good enough in a percentage of depressed people...approximately 20% to 30% of those with major depression. For me, SSRIs are better than nothing and I take them gladly. The side effect profile to me is rather benign considering the severity of my depression when Im off medication. As I said before, I could give a f*ck about SSRI side effects. My attitude is "suck it up" at least it makes your depression better. At least the SSRIs allow me to sleep and stuff.
But again, Id like to see something better developed. Im not anti-SSRI by any means. I think SSRIs are great meds and work for the majority. Just not for everybody. What about those people? What happens to them? Are they just f*cked for the rest of their life, relegated to a life of disability, maintenance ECT and hanging out on psychobabble, looking for that next "better" drug?
>It's all in the marketing and in paying off the doctors who run the clinical trials to tell the public what it wants to hear. I believe that there MIGHT be a few exceptions, but most of the people I know of who have been on SSRIs are not happy with the results. Quite frankly, I think the SSRIs are quite dangerous in some cases. Patients get so apathetic on them that they stop caring that they don't care; consequently, they are unlikely to report some of these adverse effects to their doctors. And I think a lot of doctors like the SSRIs because their patients get so wimpy and complacent on them that they don't bother their shrinks as much. They stop complaining about things they should be complaining about, and their docs can spend more time thinking about golf or the stock market.
>
> I'd also like to know why these scientists can't come up with an effective drug that doesn't cause weight gain. And, if they did produce such a drug (for example, a Remeron-type medicine WITHOUT the Remeron weight gain), I'll bet the FDA wouldn't even approve it. They'd be too afraid that, like amineptine, it might make people feel too good (Oh my Lord, what a concept!), and they'd ban it for eternity.Weight gain is not a concern of mine. When youve been to the bottom of the pit...super duper severe clinical depression and your sleep locks up on you and you lose 20 or 30 lbs without even trying...you get to a point where you could care less about weight gain from drugs.
Id like to see some antidepressants developed SPECIFICALLY for that 20% to 30% of depressives who do not adequately respond to SSRIs, Effexor or tricyclics. Side effects for me is a nonissue...as long as it activates good consistently for long periods without poop out, restores my cognition, sleeping and ability to work would be satisfactory to me.
Old School
Posted by spike4848 on February 8, 2002, at 0:30:47
In reply to Re: Forest Labs gets US conditional approval for Lexa., posted by OldSchool on February 7, 2002, at 10:54:38
>My beef with the SSRIs is that these drugs simply DO NOT WORK good enough in a percentage of depressed people...approximately 20% to 30% of those with major depression.> Old School
Once again .... I totally agree with Old School. And if you press the pdocs hard enough, they will admit that the SSRIs are pretty weak antidepressants compared to the TCAs/MAOIs. They will tell you that the quality response to SSRIs is moderate at best .... the patients are still impaired. SSRIs are basically mindless to prescribe for the pdocs .... dosing is easy, little risk of OD, fewer drug interactions and lots of perks from the drug representative (dinner, gifts, etc). And the drug studies are designed by idiots .... they say a patient whose symptoms decrease by 50% is a responder to a medication. Take my symptoms and decrease them by 50% and I just can make it out of bed. I don't call that a response.
Donald Klein .... one of the Godfathers of psychiatry from Columbia ..... is currently making a HUGE beef with todays drug trials and drug companies. He is breaking the silence amongst the pdoc and pushing for better drug trials. Trials with stricter definitions of response and including patients with moderate to severe depression. He is calling to revamp the whole system ..... he admits that there are still up to 30-50% of patients with no response or inadequate response to medications. Finally a pdoc with some guts!
So giving the world the isomer of Celexa just doesn't cut it for me and so many millions of patients with severe depression ...... give us a potent med to knock the crap out of the this depression.
Spike
Posted by spike4848 on February 8, 2002, at 1:22:54
In reply to Re: Forest Labs gets US conditional approval for Lexa., posted by OldSchool on February 7, 2002, at 10:54:38
>Are they just f*cked for the rest of their life, relegated to a life of disability, maintenance ECT and hanging out on psychobabble, looking for that next "better" drug?My feelings exactly .... I was reading the New York magazine. It was the "Singles" issue. It talked about how the average individual in NYC had 3 sexual partners per year. It also talk about the frequency of dating, blah, blah. And here I am reading psychobabble and pubmed every night trying to figure a way out of this hell .... everyone else is choosing whom they should have sex with! This sucks.
Spike
Posted by BobS. on February 8, 2002, at 6:53:20
In reply to Screw Lexa! » OldSchool, posted by spike4848 on February 8, 2002, at 0:30:47
Spike,
Where's is the article, or whatever, from Klein? Thanks,
BobS.
>
> >My beef with the SSRIs is that these drugs simply DO NOT WORK good enough in a percentage of depressed people...approximately 20% to 30% of those with major depression.
>
> > Old School
>
> Once again .... I totally agree with Old School. And if you press the pdocs hard enough, they will admit that the SSRIs are pretty weak antidepressants compared to the TCAs/MAOIs. They will tell you that the quality response to SSRIs is moderate at best .... the patients are still impaired. SSRIs are basically mindless to prescribe for the pdocs .... dosing is easy, little risk of OD, fewer drug interactions and lots of perks from the drug representative (dinner, gifts, etc). And the drug studies are designed by idiots .... they say a patient whose symptoms decrease by 50% is a responder to a medication. Take my symptoms and decrease them by 50% and I just can make it out of bed. I don't call that a response.
>
> Donald Klein .... one of the Godfathers of psychiatry from Columbia ..... is currently making a HUGE beef with todays drug trials and drug companies. He is breaking the silence amongst the pdoc and pushing for better drug trials. Trials with stricter definitions of response and including patients with moderate to severe depression. He is calling to revamp the whole system ..... he admits that there are still up to 30-50% of patients with no response or inadequate response to medications. Finally a pdoc with some guts!
>
> So giving the world the isomer of Celexa just doesn't cut it for me and so many millions of patients with severe depression ...... give us a potent med to knock the crap out of the this depression.
>
> Spike
Posted by Bekka H. on February 8, 2002, at 20:43:53
In reply to Re: Forest Labs gets US conditional approval for Lexa., posted by OldSchool on February 7, 2002, at 10:54:38
OK, Old School, I'm glad that you have found some relief from SSRIs, but I have not, and I know many others who have not. I understand that you are willing to put up with some side effects if the med alleviates some of the ways in which your depression manifests itself. For me, the most prominent adverse effects of SSRIs are the drug-induced apathy, severe prostration, and lack of motivation. Those symptoms do not represent alleviation of my depression; if anything, they indicate that my depression has been exacerbated.
Posted by OldSchool on February 8, 2002, at 20:52:01
In reply to Re: Forest Labs gets US conditional approval for Lexa., posted by Bekka H. on February 8, 2002, at 20:43:53
> OK, Old School, I'm glad that you have found some relief from SSRIs, but I have not, and I know many others who have not. I understand that you are willing to put up with some side effects if the med alleviates some of the ways in which your depression manifests itself. For me, the most prominent adverse effects of SSRIs are the drug-induced apathy, severe prostration, and lack of motivation. Those symptoms do not represent alleviation of my depression; if anything, they indicate that my depression has been exacerbated.
Ever tried Wellbutrin? Thats a drug that shouldnt cause apathy. What about psychostimulants like Ritalin?
Old School
Posted by cisco on February 8, 2002, at 22:07:34
In reply to Re: Forest Labs gets US conditional approval for Lexa., posted by OldSchool on February 7, 2002, at 10:54:38
Dear Old School:
I have to agree with you. As far as I am concerned, ALL anti-depressants are basically crude compounds, whose side-effects occassionaly relieve the depression of a statistically insignificant minority. While the majority suffer the main effects of these 'Drugs' that can only be described as neurotoxins.
God help the Pharmaceutical Co. that develops anything that actually makes you 'feel good'. It will be Scheduled and restricted along side the rest of the known compounds that have any useful
psycho-active component.We are living in the new 'Dark Ages'. Welcome back to the USSA.
Cisco
Posted by 3 Beer Effect on February 8, 2002, at 22:42:36
In reply to I am in Psychobabble, everyone else having sex!, posted by spike4848 on February 8, 2002, at 1:22:54
>I know, I haven't gotten laid in 2 years & that b*tch was fat (good thing I was wasted drunk at the time)! Of course I live in Texas where you practically have to marry a girl to have sex with her. But, still, I need to start living life, having fun, & stop reading so much of psychopharmacology- all these psychiatric drugs look great on paper but turn out to be crapola in real life. Maybe instead of buying a bunch of expensive psychiatric drugs for next month I should just buy a $500 hooker!
> >Are they just f*cked for the rest of their life, relegated to a life of disability, maintenance ECT and hanging out on psychobabble, looking for that next "better" drug?
>
> My feelings exactly .... I was reading the New York magazine. It was the "Singles" issue. It talked about how the average individual in NYC had 3 sexual partners per year. It also talk about the frequency of dating, blah, blah. And here I am reading psychobabble and pubmed every night trying to figure a way out of this hell .... everyone else is choosing whom they should have sex with! This sucks.
>
> Spike
Posted by Bekka H. on February 8, 2002, at 23:48:10
In reply to I know, I haven't got laid in 2 years!, posted by 3 Beer Effect on February 8, 2002, at 22:42:36
> >I know, I haven't gotten laid in 2 years & that b*tch was fat (good thing I was wasted drunk at the time)! Of course I live in Texas where you practically have to marry a girl to have sex with her. But, still, I need to start living life, having fun, & stop reading so much of psychopharmacology- all these psychiatric drugs look great on paper but turn out to be crapola in real life. Maybe instead of buying a bunch of expensive psychiatric drugs for next month I should just buy a $500 hooker!
>
************************************************Well, if that's what you decide to do, just don't forget the condoms.
Posted by Cecilia on February 9, 2002, at 1:14:57
In reply to I know, I haven't got laid in 2 years!, posted by 3 Beer Effect on February 8, 2002, at 22:42:36
> I don`t think your problem in finding sex partners is due to your depression, it`s due to your attitude towards women. Cecilia
Posted by jane d on February 9, 2002, at 13:52:54
In reply to Re: Attitude to Women-3 Beer Effect, posted by Cecilia on February 9, 2002, at 1:14:57
Thanks. I wanted to say much the same thing but ended up having to delete what I wrote.
Posted by Mr. Scott on February 9, 2002, at 14:40:17
In reply to I know, I haven't got laid in 2 years!, posted by 3 Beer Effect on February 8, 2002, at 22:42:36
You're in 'the club' after 1 month which puts you in 24 times over!!
Surely you can conceal your madness enough to get laid.
I suggest you get busy. According to evolutionary theory anyways if you don't use something for a while it disappears. Like limbs becoming fins on the Whale which supposedly once lived on Earth.
Regards,
Scott
Posted by IsoM on February 9, 2002, at 14:47:24
In reply to Thanks for responding » Cecilia, posted by jane d on February 9, 2002, at 13:52:54
No wonder it seems like men & women can come from different worlds. Women generally equate sex with love, warmth, & a relationship. And many men generally equate it with recreation & release of tension.
I agree with the women's viewpoint. If you really want good sex, men, you need to form a strong bond. Good sex without love is just an illusion. A great physical feeling at the time, but doesn't last beyond the act.
Posted by bob on February 9, 2002, at 15:18:04
In reply to Some Men's Attitude Towards Women, posted by IsoM on February 9, 2002, at 14:47:24
IsoM:
Are you male or female?
Posted by christophrejmc on February 9, 2002, at 15:34:05
In reply to Some Men's Attitude Towards Women, posted by IsoM on February 9, 2002, at 14:47:24
> No wonder it seems like men & women can come from different worlds. Women generally equate sex with love, warmth, & a relationship. And many men generally equate it with recreation & release of tension.
>
> I agree with the women's viewpoint. If you really want good sex, men, you need to form a strong bond. Good sex without love is just an illusion. A great physical feeling at the time, but doesn't last beyond the act.
Hmm, I must have bad luck. I've had both sex without love and love without sex (neither my decision) but never the two together. Perhaps it's just typical teenager stuff, but I haven't met anyone who's wanted both, male or female.I think both types of relationships can be fulfilling/unfulfilling for both partners; the key is not to mislead the other person.
Posted by bob on February 9, 2002, at 15:35:57
In reply to Two years is pathetic 3 beers!! » 3 Beer Effect, posted by Mr. Scott on February 9, 2002, at 14:40:17
Scott:
Are you kidding, or being serious? How would you suggest that someone "get busy" if they are taking say... an MAOI or Tricyclic? Even most SSRIs and Effexor impair sex quite significantly at robust therapeutic doses.
For me, there was always almost a direct relationship between how sexual I felt, and how depressed I was becoming. Any drug that was effective in taking away depression, took away at the very least, my ability to have sex. Some took away both the desire and the ability. Either is unacceptable. If you have a strong desire, but cannot perform, than what good is it? It becomes a trap of frustration.
Posted by OldSchool on February 9, 2002, at 15:36:47
In reply to Some Men's Attitude Towards Women, posted by IsoM on February 9, 2002, at 14:47:24
> No wonder it seems like men & women can come from different worlds. Women generally equate sex with love, warmth, & a relationship. And many men generally equate it with recreation & release of tension.
LOL Thats basically what sex is from the male point of view. Recreation and a release of tension AKA "getting off." Men like to get off and roll over and fall asleep. Not very romantic, but in reality its how most men are.
>
> I agree with the women's viewpoint. If you really want good sex, men, you need to form a strong bond. Good sex without love is just an illusion. A great physical feeling at the time, but doesn't last beyond the act.LOL I could make a reply but Im going to hold off cause I dont want to be blocked. Id also like to say that I havent had a good sex drive in four years and its dropped off even more in the last year. Id love to be able to have "animal lust" feelings again. Ditch the romance stuff...Id just like to feel horny again for a change.
Old School
Posted by Geezer on February 9, 2002, at 16:02:18
In reply to Re: Two years is pathetic 3 beers!! » Mr. Scott, posted by bob on February 9, 2002, at 15:35:57
I can feel a "Redirect" coming.
Posted by IsoM on February 9, 2002, at 16:32:55
In reply to Re: Some Men's Attitude Towards Women » IsoM, posted by bob on February 9, 2002, at 15:18:04
> IsoM:
>
> Are you male or female?My user name throws many off which is why I chose it - non-gender names seem to be more accepted by both sides & rarely get the flakey types trying to contact me (I don't mean any one on thse forums, but the seriously flakey).
So, did you guess right? Female.
I grew up with only brothers, played at school with mostly boys, hung out at university with mostly guys, & had nothing but sons. I've gained a fairly good insight into the male mind from friends & others.
Posted by IsoM on February 9, 2002, at 16:36:16
In reply to Re: Some Men's Attitude Towards Women, posted by christophrejmc on February 9, 2002, at 15:34:05
> > "...Hmm, I must have bad luck. I've had both sex without love and love without sex (neither my decision) but never the two together. Perhaps it's just typical teenager stuff, but I haven't met anyone who's wanted both, male or female.
>
> I think both types of relationships can be fulfilling/unfulfilling for both partners; the key is not to mislead the other person."My opinion only but sex without love can leave you feeling empty. Love without sex sounds purely frustrating!
Posted by spike4848 on February 9, 2002, at 17:31:13
In reply to Re: Some Men's Attitude Towards Women » christophrejmc, posted by IsoM on February 9, 2002, at 16:36:16
I just got out of a year relationship with a woman I loved .... sex was beautiful, passionate and I loved talking with her all night afterward! We never slept. Nardil made thing difficult ... if not impossible at times.
Spike
Posted by bob on February 9, 2002, at 17:32:22
In reply to Re: Some Men's Attitude Towards Women » bob, posted by IsoM on February 9, 2002, at 16:32:55
I always assumed you were a male on this board, until you just posted your view of what good sex is. It made me highly suspicious that you may actually be female. It is very hard for females to separate the sex act from emotional attachment etc. For males, it is not hard at all. Sex for sex's sake is very common in males. Sex may indeed be more fulfilling with care and love involved, but males simply don't need it to be horny.
Posted by spike4848 on February 9, 2002, at 17:40:09
In reply to Re: Some Men's Attitude Towards Women » IsoM, posted by bob on February 9, 2002, at 15:18:04
Posted by bob on February 9, 2002, at 17:53:03
In reply to Re: Some Men's Attitude Towards Women » IsoM, posted by bob on February 9, 2002, at 17:32:22
IsoM may very well be a "Lady". I don't contend otherwise.
BTW, IsoM.... have you actually had trouble in the past with advances from male members on boards like this one?
Posted by Reneeb on February 9, 2002, at 18:14:18
In reply to Re: Attitude to Women-3 Beer Effect, posted by Cecilia on February 9, 2002, at 1:14:57
>
>Wow, this is disappointing. I thought we were here to support not degrade each other!!!!
Renee
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.