![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 111 to 135 of 297. Go back in thread:
Posted by TylerJ on March 2, 2006, at 13:14:41
In reply to Re: Opinions » TylerJ, posted by linkadge on March 2, 2006, at 8:21:43
> Perhaps most people *you know* are not the average, but most people *in general*, are the average :)
>
> LinkadgeIf you don't mind me asking, what is your diagnosis and what are you taking for it? I know we disagree a lot...but I still wish you the very best!
Tyler
Posted by linkadge on March 2, 2006, at 14:19:00
In reply to Re: Opinions » linkadge, posted by TylerJ on March 2, 2006, at 13:14:41
My original diagnosis was MDD. I have recurrent depressive episodes and a lot of anxiety inbetween.
SSRI's provided some help, but overall made the situation worse.I've tried, all the SSRI's, effexor, remeron, trazodone, clomipramine, doxepin, parnate, 4 difft AP's, lithium, depakote, tegretol, trileptal, ritalin, dexedrine, and probably a dozen others I can't think of.
In hindsight, parnate probably had the most punch to it, so I wish you the best on it.Linkadge
Posted by wildcard11 on March 2, 2006, at 14:28:00
In reply to Re: Opinions, posted by linkadge on March 2, 2006, at 14:19:00
we have very similar dx's but i've been on diff. meds. than those you listed. prozac,buspar,zanax,zoloft,trazadone,lexapro,wellbutrin,effexor,klonopin and rx'd seroquel(for nightmares) but won't take it...and more i cannot recall either. have you had CBT or other types of therapy w/ the meds.? i know that the combo worked for me, not the med or therapy alone.
Posted by TylerJ on March 2, 2006, at 15:05:24
In reply to Re: Opinions, posted by linkadge on March 2, 2006, at 14:19:00
> My original diagnosis was MDD. I have recurrent depressive episodes and a lot of anxiety inbetween.
>
>
> SSRI's provided some help, but overall made the situation worse.
>
> I've tried, all the SSRI's, effexor, remeron, trazodone, clomipramine, doxepin, parnate, 4 difft AP's, lithium, depakote, tegretol, trileptal, ritalin, dexedrine, and probably a dozen others I can't think of.
>
>
> In hindsight, parnate probably had the most punch to it, so I wish you the best on it.
>
> Linkadge
Are you considering trying the "Patch"? Or are you feeling ok now?Tyler
Posted by TylerJ on March 2, 2006, at 15:13:25
In reply to Re: Opinions » linkadge, posted by wildcard11 on March 2, 2006, at 14:28:00
Thanks for the e-mail ... it brought a smile to my face. :) It's nice to meet someone who is smart ( you ) and has good common sense as well. Take care, hope you're doing Great!
Ty
Posted by Chairman_MAO on March 2, 2006, at 15:45:56
In reply to Re: Yes » FredPotter, posted by linkadge on March 1, 2006, at 15:31:54
I agree with you re: placebo effect/poop out.
Reminds me of how studies on buspirone found that those who had previously used a benzodiazepine for anxiety did not respond to Buspar. The investigators did all sorts of stupid theorizing about this, but it is obvious that what that shows is that once someone knows what a real anxiolytic drug is like, they do not readily respond to placebos.
I see no reason why it should be otherwise for SSRIs vs. MAOIs/stimulants/opioids/etc. The notion that you have x y and z psychoneurlogical abnormality simply because you respond to a drug with an effect on a particular neurotransmitter subsystem is question-begging of the highest order.
The rich and privileged use the drugs of abuse as antidepressants, especially opioids. It is just that the physicians actually acknowledge their emotional pain as PAIN, their fatigue as fatigue, and so forth. Psychiatry is usually a very simple language game. What else does "I am anxious" mean within the context of the psychiatrist's office than "I want an anxiolytic". "I cannot sleep" == " I want a sleeping pill." The best psychiatrists are honest about this and use their medical knowledge to help their patients choose the most safe and effective drugs that suit their needs. Anyone that tells me that antipsychotics should be tried for anxiety (and psychotic states can be conceived of as the result of extraordinarly severe anxiety/neuroses) before opioids (or benzos, but opioids are often easier to discontinue) is compromising their own freedom and dignity by believing as such.
Posted by Chairman_MAO on March 2, 2006, at 16:12:44
In reply to Re: Opinions » wildcard11, posted by TylerJ on March 1, 2006, at 20:50:37
Most people are average. That is the definition of "average". There is something called the "Lake Wobegon Effect" (I cant spell it) which is the phenomenon of a majority of people believing they're all above average at something, e.g. whether they are a poor, average, or above-average driver.
Now, if what you mean is that most people that you know are not what society defines "normal" behavior as, e.g. not too much but not too little of anything, then yes, I agree with you. The average number of children per family can be a decimal, not just an integer. This makes sense, and yet there is no such thing as an actual FAMILY with 2.7 children. It is not that most people are not average, but that "average" is metaphysical.
Posted by wildcard11 on March 2, 2006, at 16:14:31
In reply to Re: Yes » linkadge, posted by Chairman_MAO on March 2, 2006, at 15:45:56
***The rich and privileged use the drugs of abuse as antidepressants, especially opioids.
***Anyone that tells me that anti psychotics should be tried for anxiety (and psychotic states can be conceived of as the result of extraordinary severe anxiety/neuroses) before opioids (or benzos, but opioids are often easier to discontinue) is compromising their own freedom and dignity by believing as such.
>>wow, that's quite a harsh assumption...who are you to say that anyone is 'compromising their own freedom and dignity'? and why does 'rich and privileged' play a role? just asking...
Posted by Chairman_MAO on March 2, 2006, at 17:18:32
In reply to whoa » Chairman_MAO, posted by wildcard11 on March 2, 2006, at 16:14:31
I would that, if one is going to bother to take a drug for psychological purposes, one would want to take the most effective and least toxic drug there is. Opioid drugs have a safety record of thousands of years; death by overdose without concomitant use of CNS depressants is rare, even among IV heroin users. They are not teratologic in any way, and they certainly cannot cause tardive dyskineisa or neuroleptic malignant syndrome (not to mention dysphoria, lack of vitality, etc)! They do have adverse effects, but virtually all of them can be treated (testosterone supplementation, diet adjustment for constipation, stimulants for sedation, etc). The worst thing the proagandists say about them is that they are addictive, which is irrelevant because addiction is a behavior. It is the property of a person, not a drug.
Of course I believe that one is free to prefer haloperidol to morphine if they so choose, but I have yet to meet such a person. If a dopamine blocker is all that works, of course it makes sense to use it. We are all supposed to have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Quite often the doses of dopamine blocking drugs necessary to completely suppress the disorder leave the patient barely able to live life. If you have ever taken an antipsychotic drug in sufficient doses, you probably know that they can be like wearing a mental straightjacket. The effect of those drugs is strikingly similar to the effect of lobotomy. Many people who otherwise could live rich, fulfilling lives if properly medicated are denied access to opioids/stimulants/etc because of pharmacological calvinism. Have you ever tried to do heavy academic work while on an antipsychotic drug?
What I meant by my "Rich and privileged" statement is more specifically that they can afford a doctor who is not afraid of prescribing controlled substances in appropriate doses if need be. These doctors often cost a lot not because they are unscrupulous drug dispensers, but because it is only worth putting their licenses on the line for huge sums of money. The more they make, the better lawyers they can hire in the event some government idiot sanctions them for properly treating pain (money also allows them to be peers with those in power). I believe the main reason we have suicide in this country is that too many doctors do not treat pain properly!
You may think that I am off my rocker, but the brute fact is that opioid drugs ARE antipsychotic/antimanic/antipanic/antidepressant. I have spoken to many schizophrenics and others with psychotic disorders who told me that opioids completely stopped the voices/hallucinations.
In addition to opioids, high-potency benzodiazepines are also effective antipsychotics in many cases. barbiturates were freely prescribed for mania years ago. Opioids were routinely prescribed for depression, as were amphetamine. Do you really think that those drugs didn't work and that the so-called "modern" psych drugs, by contrast, are vastly more effective? Come on.
NOTE: opioids, etc. are by no means a panacea. Most people find them unpleasant to take, just as most people find antidepressants unpleasant to take. Most people find an intravenous shot of morphine dysphoric, overly sedating, and nauseating. When people LIKE them it is because they are KILLING PAIN. The notion of a non-abusable mood elevator, anxiolytic, or potent analgesic is absurd. MAOIs can often produce a better high than many typical drugs of abuse; the only reason they are on the uncontrolled market is because of all of the untoward side effects you have to tolerate.
Is it not perverse to want to use a drug with a higher toxicity when one has a lower toxicity? Assuming this is a chronic condition, the notion that dependence has to be avoided is absurd.
Posted by wildcard11 on March 2, 2006, at 17:39:53
In reply to Re: whoa » wildcard11, posted by Chairman_MAO on March 2, 2006, at 17:18:32
Okay, but that is still your opinion, correct? my point is that there is NO basic yes or no answer to this thread PERIOD! i am sure that where you have gotten your information there is information that contradicts what you are saying. there is still way too much info. needed about how and why certain meds. work for one and not another so therefore to say A is wrong in comparison to B is inaccurate. there are many theories to this. the initial question was simply asking of personal experiences, not a battle of A vs B or X vs Y. just my input and nothing more. take care...
Posted by sdb on March 2, 2006, at 17:45:17
In reply to Re: whoa » Chairman_MAO, posted by wildcard11 on March 2, 2006, at 17:39:53
What I don't understand is that SSRI's are working only up to four weeks later whereas bad symptoms can be increased first. Is it true? Any explanation and personal experience?
~sdb
Posted by SLS on March 2, 2006, at 18:00:41
In reply to The Truth Do SSRI's and SSNRI's Work For Anyone?, posted by Phillipa on February 27, 2006, at 13:12:49
> Was talking to a Medical Resident. He said the SSRI's and SNRI's are all hype. They may work for a few but not for the majority. Please some good experiences I'm fed up. Thanks Phillipa/ Jan
Lively thread.
SSRIs and SNRIs work.
- Scott
Posted by Chairman_MAO on March 2, 2006, at 18:48:51
In reply to Re: The Truth Do SSRI's and SSNRI's Work For Anyone? » Phillipa, posted by SLS on March 2, 2006, at 18:00:41
Of course they work. They block SE and NE uptake. If that's the effect you're looking for, they will do the job.
For myself and many people, the untoward effects outnumber the positive effects. It is hard to say that they "work" if I am sexually dysfunctional, cannot concentrate, cannot cry, feel apathetic, feel extremely compelled to abuse drugs (I have heard quite a few people say that they compulsively used alcohol for the first time on SSRIs...I even read a magazine column whose author related that experience), and on top of that notice only the slightest improvement in social phobia and an actual worsening of general anxiety. And so many people have reported similar things that I cannot come to any other conclusion other than emotional blunting _IS_ the primary psychological effect of SSRIs.
Those that feel genuinely WELL for a long period of time while taking them seem to be the exception to the norm.
Did you ever experience relief from SSRIs? I do not recall hearing you ever mention it either way, but I'm sure you have and I forgot.
Posted by linkadge on March 2, 2006, at 19:12:19
In reply to Re: Opinions » linkadge, posted by wildcard11 on March 2, 2006, at 14:28:00
Yeah, I'm suprised they havn't offered me ECT. Probably cause I'm only 23.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on March 2, 2006, at 19:15:07
In reply to Re: Opinions » linkadge, posted by TylerJ on March 2, 2006, at 15:05:24
I have been using a herb called Fo-ti, which is one of the strongest herbal MAO-B inhibitors available. I would like to try the patch to see if it has a similar effect. (since fo-ti has estrogenic effects and I don't want to take it too long)
Although, I am in canada. I don't know if I'd have the have the courage to bring it up to my doctor.
Linkadge
Posted by Phillipa on March 2, 2006, at 19:16:02
In reply to Re: The Truth Do SSRI's and SSNRI's Work For Anyon » SLS, posted by Chairman_MAO on March 2, 2006, at 18:48:51
I have a few theories on this subject. Number l. a person starts one of these meds and after the side effects disappear they are so relieved that they really feel the same as they did before starting the med but now that feeling is superior to the one while starting on the med. Number 2. The first time you take one of thes meds they change the amount of the serotonin or norepephenephrine your brain needs to funtion. So if you stay on the med it will work but if you stop and try it again your chemistry is changed and they no longer work.Number 3 if you stay on them long enough years in most cases they stop working as your brain has adjusted to the higher levels of the chemicals. Number 4 Some peoples life circumstances change for the better so consequently they feel better. And as far as alchohol is concerned can anyone explain to me why 6 beers a night with .5 of xanax I funtioned phenominally and was happy? Just want to know. No right or wrong. Seriously I think constantly about why and what is wrong with me each and every day. Thanks Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on March 2, 2006, at 19:23:33
In reply to Re: Opinions » TylerJ, posted by linkadge on March 2, 2006, at 19:15:07
PS Number l is kind of hard to understand. To clarify. you feel bad. You take a med. You feel worse because of so called start up effects. You either give up on the med or continue and they go away. You stay on the med for an individual amt of time. But if you quit it because of side effects you are so relieved ehey are gone your baseline of when you decided to try a med is superior to how you felt on the med so you are so relieved you instantly feel better. or you have stayed on the med to which you have accoustomed your brain to for long enought to have forgotten how bad you felt and you are again functioning well you gradually stop and feel better. Is this a better explanation? Love Phillipa
Posted by linkadge on March 2, 2006, at 19:26:52
In reply to Re: Yes » linkadge, posted by Chairman_MAO on March 2, 2006, at 15:45:56
Thats the thing. Psychiatry will try to frame the diagnosis around whatever drugs are acceptable to be using at the time.
Even the idea that anxiety disorders could never happen independantly of depressive disorders was based on the fact that the antidepressants helped both for *some* people.
There is quite a difference between what psychiatrists *wanted* an antidepressant to be and what they actually are.
For instance, doctors wanted/claim that AD's are nonaddictive. On the contrary, they produce strong dependance, and they sometimes require ever inreasing doses to achieve a similar effect. So if we can be lied to in that sence, why must we accept claims of their efficacy without question?
There is an attitude in psychiary that because psychiatrists see the "broader picture" that they feel justified in telling the patients white lies. But time has revealed over and over again, that psychiatry often doesn't see the "broader picture"
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on March 2, 2006, at 19:31:25
In reply to whoa » Chairman_MAO, posted by wildcard11 on March 2, 2006, at 16:14:31
>who are you to say that anyone is 'compromising >their own freedom and dignity'?
Antipsychotics do not heal the brain. They don't heal schitsophrenia and they certainly don't heal anxiety disorders. We want to make people better, not blanket their illness and kickstart the development of a new one, ie TD.
Linkadge
Posted by Phillipa on March 2, 2006, at 19:34:00
In reply to Re: Yes, posted by linkadge on March 2, 2006, at 19:26:52
Link on an added note. I have too neighbors both in late 60's. Their Son committed suicid hence they both takd zoloft. I asked her yesterday if she thoutht it worked. She said somethings but I think I will go back into theraphy. Oh and they both got the zoloft from a family doctor not a pdoc. And she said to me we all put on a face in public. No one knows what goes on behind closed doors. Just wanted to add that. Love Phillipa ps my next door neighbor teaches third grade takes lexapro and up to 6mg of xanax a day and she said all the teachers are always borrowing xanax from her. So what does this say about our society?
Posted by wildcard11 on March 2, 2006, at 19:38:34
In reply to Re: whoa, posted by linkadge on March 2, 2006, at 19:31:25
okay, but they can *help* the pain that people are in. what other alternatives do you suggest?
Posted by wildcard11 on March 2, 2006, at 19:46:50
In reply to Re: Yes, posted by linkadge on March 2, 2006, at 19:26:52
but not everyone can be grouped in that category. i have never dealt w/ addiction to any A/D. the meds. can and do work for some. we are talking about the meds. and i know from personal experience that they indeed *helped* pull me out of a suicidal depression. there is not a perfect answer or solution but they have helped many. we are talking about a field that has come a long way but still has much further to go. it's not just black or white, there is a HUGE grey area...
Posted by linkadge on March 2, 2006, at 20:01:17
In reply to Re: The Truth Do SSRI's and SSNRI's Work For Anyon » SLS, posted by Chairman_MAO on March 2, 2006, at 18:48:51
What is relief from depression? Its a return to who you once were.
I remember enjoying playing the piano. How could I ever be me again if there was no joy in that?
SSRI's make my motion so stiff that I could hardly play, much less enjoy it.I took SSRI's for 7 years, and had insomnia the whole 7 years. Thats not restoration.
I abruptly lost interest in sex, and presuing relationships at perhaps the most critical period of my development.
My grades dropped and I lost the ability to concentrate.
The list goes on. I'm not saying they didn't send my brain chemicals on a majic carpet ride, but did they actually help the core problem?
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on March 2, 2006, at 20:07:22
In reply to Re: Opinions, posted by Phillipa on March 2, 2006, at 19:23:33
No, I know what you're saying about point 1.
Ever watch a really freaky movie that scared the hell out of you, and when it was over you felt so much better. Like you were relieved just to be alive etc. For SSRI's it was the same with me. I took them for a month, and I remember being so scared out of my mind that when it all tamed down I was so relieved.Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on March 2, 2006, at 20:11:04
In reply to Re: Yes » linkadge, posted by Phillipa on March 2, 2006, at 19:34:00
Thats it. Sometimes you just think that peoples lives are so rosey because they are taking drug such and such. But oftentimes it isn't all that clear cut.
We all want to be like the pople on the drug commericals right? Pop this pill and be smiles all day long. Doesn't always happen that way.
Linkadge
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.