![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 69. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by ralphrost on March 10, 2007, at 9:29:03
Well, this is one more book about antidepressants harm. As the reviewer I always believed they were harming me in many ways, based on my history. For me, psychotropics are a big lie that should be exterminated. Maybe they should be used in 1% of the cases, and I mean really screwed up people.
I never felt the same after using them, and I've never felt so suicidal and hopeless now that I lost many aspects of my self through medication. I'm I supposed to recover that using more medication? Therapy? In the sense of treatment, that's where my cure pointed to: suicide.
I saw too many people getting weird and f*cked up after taking antidepressants, so I really think our medicine is fooling us. Not to mention about babble fellows including me, all crazy thinking about medication all the time and not having any sort of life. You take the pill and are never able to give up on them. So they're not addictive and harmful?
Sorry for posting something not really supposed to help anyone (maybe those considering taking anything might think twice), but I think psychiatric drugs are a big mistake for most of us.
Why did Peter Kramer get so famous, instead of the guy who wrote the book below?
--------------------------------------------------
Book Review
The Anti-Depressant Fact Book
What Your Doctor Won't Tell You
About Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, and Luvox
Perseus Publishing - Cambridge, Massachusetts
copyright 2001, paperback
by Peter R. Breggin, M.D.reviewed by
Douglas A. SmithI thoroughly enjoyed reading this book because it says so clearly and convincingly what I have believed for a long time about the myth of biologically caused depression and about so-called antidepressant drugs and so-called electroconvulsive "therapy" (ECT).
Of the idea of biologically caused depression, the author, psychiatrist Peter Breggin, says "It is a mistake to view depressed feelings or even severely depressed feelings as a 'disease'" (p. 14) and "There is still no reason to define grief, dejection, or melancholia as a 'disease' simply because it is severe or lasting" (p. 19). He says "...in psychiatry, none of the problems are proven to originate in the brain" (p. 169) and that "Depression is never defined by an objective physical finding, such as a blood test or brain scan. ... Attempts have also been made to find physical markers for depression, the equivalent of lab tests that indicate liver disease or a recent heart attack. Despite decades of research, thousands of research studies, and hundreds of millions of dollars in expense, no marker for depression has been found" (pp. 18 & 22).
Of the theory behind the so-called SSRI or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor "antidepressants" Dr. Breggin says "In reality, science does not have the ability to measure the levels of any biochemical in the tiny spaces between nerve cells (the synapses) in the brain of a human being. All the talk about biochemical imbalances is sheer speculation aimed at promoting psychiatric drugs. ... science has almost no understanding of how the widespread serotonin system functions in the brain. Basically, we don't know what it does." (pp. 21 & 42).
Of drugs used to "treat" this nonexistent disease called depression he says "The term 'antidepressant' should always be thought of with quotation marks around it because there is little or no reason to believe that these drugs target depression or depressed feelings" (p. 14). He says "Impairing our emotional awareness and our intellectual acuity with psychoactive drugs such as SSRI antidepressants [including Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft] tends to impede the process of overcoming depression" (p. 26). About the foolishness of the beliefs of most people about psychiatric drugs he says:Overall, we're a rather sophisticated citizenry with a fairly high index of suspicion about the products we buy and the corporations that influence our lives. But something happens to us when we are dealing with companies that make prescription medicines. Perhaps it's the aura of FDA approval. Perhaps it's the passage of these drugs through the trusted hands of our physicians. Perhaps it's the cleverness of the ad campaigns. Perhaps we just can't believe that anyone would sell poison as if it were a miracle cure. [p. 2]
That's right: He said "poison." Psychiatric drugs are poisons. In a chapter titled "Damaging the Brain with SSRI Antidepressants," Dr. Breggin says "the evidence is piling up that SSRIs cause permanent brain damage" (p. 38). Let's stop concealing or minimizing this truth as we do when we call psychiatric drugs "medications" or say they are merely "ineffective" or "harmful" or even "neurotoxic." Lawyers trying to defend us from outpatient commitment laws (as they are called in the USA) or laws authorizing "community treatment orders" (CTOs) (as such laws are called in Canada) should stop accepting the terminology of those advocating forced psychiatric drugging. Lawyers trying to defend us from forced psychiatric drugging should not go into court and say the so-called patient should not be ordered "to take his medication." Because psychiatric drugs are poisons, and because most that are administered by force cause permanent brain damage, lawyers representing people threatened with forced psychiatric drugging should tell it like it is and say, "Judge, the question presented for your decision today is whether my client should be ordered to swallow poison - poison that is known to cause permanent brain damage." Letting advocates of forced psychiatric treatment get away with calling brain-damaging poisons "medications" is hurting our cause. It has been said: Whoever controls the language controls the perceived reality of those who have it. Let's not let the advocates of forced psychiatric "treatment" and those who would persuade gullible people to take harmful drugs win because they use deceptive semantics.
In the Introduction Dr. Breggin reveals why pharmaceutical companies would do something as evil as hoodwink people into believing poisons are in fact miracle cures. He says: "In the previous year [1999], Prozac had generated more than one-quarter of the company's [Eli Lilly & Company's] $10 billion in revenue" and that "Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil are among the top-selling drugs in the United States, with total sales exceeding $4 billion per year" (p. 1). We apparently can't expect pharmaceutical companies to bypass enormous profits just because the drugs they sell are hurting people.
Throughout this book Dr. Breggin points an accusing finger at the USA's Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is given the responsibility of keeping harmful drugs off the market in the USA. After reviewing how the FDA had to accept misleading, manipulated data to approve SSRI antidepressants as safe and effective, and after reviewing the harm done by these drugs, he says "If the FDA had been more responsible, these continuing tragedies could have been avoided. ... When I began my review of FDA documents as a medical expert in product liability suits against Eli Lilly and Co., I was shocked and disillusioned by what I found. Until that time, I had not fully confronted the willingness of the FDA to protect drug companies, even at the cost of human life." (pp. 78-79). He says "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has forsaken its watchdog role. Instead, FDA officials climb like puppies into the laps of drug company executives who might some day hire them at enormous salaries" (p. 181).
One of the reasons I like this book is in it Dr. Breggin is as bold as he has been in any of his previous books when describing the pseudoscience called biological psychiatry and the harm done by its so-called treatments. For example, speaking of psychiatric drugs he says -- "If a drug has an effect on the brain, it is harming the brain. Science has not found or synthesized any psychoactive substances that improve normal brain function. Instead, all of them impair brain function. ... antidepressants are typically prescribed in doses that cause a wide variety of adverse effects in most patients and significantly harm a great many people" (p. 168).
- "FDA approval by no means indicates that a drug is truly effective. ... the combined efforts of the drug company and the FDA could not come up with even one good study that unequivocally supported the value of Prozac in comparison to placebo" (p. 151).
- "Overall, the results suggest that placebo is actually much better than an antidepressant" (p. 145).
- "If anything, as I've already indicated, antidepressants worsen severe depression and suicidal tendencies" (p. 170).
- "Nothing reinforces depression more than having your brain befuddled by psychiatric drugs, unless it is having your mind befuddled by false ideas about the biological or genetic origin of your suffering" (p. 189).
- "Lithium, for example, is a toxic element that suppresses over-all brain function..." (p. 125)
- "There are so many potential hazards involved in taking SSRIs that no physician is capable of remembering all of them and no patient can be adequately informed about the dangers without spending days or weeks reviewing the subject in a medical library" (p. 107).
Of electroconvulsive "therapy" (ECT) he says -- "Damaging the brain to impair brain function lies at the heart of all the physical treatments in psychiatry. Shock and lobotomy are merely the most egregious examples" (p. 155, italics in original).
- He deplores "the willingness of psychiatry to defend its treatments no matter how obviously damaging to the brain" (ibid).
- "In my clinical and forensic experience, patients and their families are never told the truth about how dangerous shock is; otherwise they would not consent to it. Shock advocates tend to tell patients that memory loss is temporary and surrounds the treatment time only, when in reality the memory loss can wipe out years of educational and career knowledge. ... Nurses, teachers, and other professionals may never again be able to function in their jobs. Like head injury patients from other causes, such as automobile accidents and lighting strikes, general mental function is often impaired for the rest of their lives. Advocates [of ECT] ignore this by chalking it up to the patient's 'mental illness.'" (pp. 160-161).
- "Electroshock treatment causes brain damage and, in my clinical experience, can cause lasting depression" (p. 141). This of course is in contrast to psychiatry's claim that by some unknown means ECT relieves depression.
- "The question is not 'Does shock treatment cause brain dysfunction and damage?' A series of shocks to the head sufficient to cause convulsions will always produce brain dysfunction and damage. The real question is 'How completely can a person recover from shock?'" (p. 162).
- Advocates of shock claim that newer methods make it safer. ... Instead, it's more dangerous. ... modified ECT requires the use of higher amounts of electrical charge than were used in the early animal experiments that showed brain damage and cell death" (p. 163).
- "In my clinical experience, the brain damage [caused by electroconvulsive therapy, or ECT] makes people feel more hopeless and resentful, and hence more suicidal" (p. 164).
- "Several state legislatures have passed laws banning shock treatment for children. It's now time to ban it for adults a well" (p. 165).
Posted by linkadge on March 10, 2007, at 10:24:49
In reply to Psychotropics harm *trigger*, posted by ralphrost on March 10, 2007, at 9:29:03
I agree with you. Antidepressants have ruined portions of my life.
Had I not taken these medications I might have some sort of sexual funtion. My capacity for reward after stopping these drugs is nonexistant.
Antidepressants permanantly rewire the brain.
Linkadge
Posted by Quintal on March 10, 2007, at 11:15:15
In reply to Psychotropics harm *trigger*, posted by ralphrost on March 10, 2007, at 9:29:03
>"Nothing reinforces depression more than having your brain befuddled by psychiatric drugs, unless it is having your mind befuddled by false ideas about the biological or genetic origin of your suffering"
Well I agree with that. It's something I'm struggling with on tianeptine. I feel like I'm in a fog - in some ways it's calming and soothing, in others it's disturbing, like I'm losing touch with myself and what really matters to me. I'm sure I've lost some points off my IQ since starting it. I can't honestly say it's a 'mood brightener'. I'm not happy or well.
I imagine this will likely turn out to have some connections with Scientologist organizations or whatever that will be helpful for the pro-psychiatry factions to discredit it.
Q
Posted by notfred on March 10, 2007, at 11:39:09
In reply to Psychotropics harm *trigger*, posted by ralphrost on March 10, 2007, at 9:29:03
As a "Promoters of Questionable Methods":
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/index.html
And generally:
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/NegativeBR/breggin.html
He is also a professional witness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Breggin#Expert_witness
"Some judges have questioned Breggin's credibility in some cases where he was called as an expert witness. For example, a Maryland judge in a medical malpractice case in 1995 said, "I believe that his bias in this case is blinding. . . he was mistaken in a lot of the factual basis for which he expressed his opinion". In that same year a Virginia judge excluded Breggin's testimony stating, "This court finds that the evidence of Peter Breggin, as a purported expert, fails nearly all particulars under the standard set forth in Daubert and its progeny. . . Simply put, the Court believes that Dr. Breggin's opinions do not rise to the level of an opinion based on 'good science'"."
Posted by linkadge on March 10, 2007, at 11:44:54
In reply to Peter R. Breggin is well covered on Quackwatch, posted by notfred on March 10, 2007, at 11:39:09
Posted by notfred on March 10, 2007, at 11:54:47
In reply to Even quacks can make valid points (nm), posted by linkadge on March 10, 2007, at 11:44:54
For example, a Maryland judge in a medical malpractice case in 1995 said, "I believe that his bias in this case is blinding. . . he was mistaken in a lot of the factual basis for which he expressed his opinion". In that same year a Virginia judge excluded Breggin's testimony stating, "This court finds that the evidence of Peter Breggin, as a purported expert, fails nearly all particulars under the standard set forth in Daubert and its progeny. . .
Simply put, the Court believes that Dr. Breggin's opinions do not rise to the level of an opinion based on 'good science'"."
Posted by Phillipa on March 10, 2007, at 12:01:17
In reply to 'Dr. Breggin's opinions not based on good science', posted by notfred on March 10, 2007, at 11:54:47
Here we are again where is the scientific proof only feelings. Love Phillipa
Posted by notfred on March 10, 2007, at 12:05:49
In reply to Re: 'Dr. Breggin's opinions not based on good science' » notfred, posted by Phillipa on March 10, 2007, at 12:01:17
> Here we are again where is the scientific proof only feelings. Love Phillipa
That is a quote from judge, from a
case where breggin was a profesional witness.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 10, 2007, at 12:19:36
In reply to Psychotropics harm *trigger*, posted by ralphrost on March 10, 2007, at 9:29:03
> Not to mention about babble fellows including me, all crazy thinking about medication all the time and not having any sort of life.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be directed to Psycho-Babble Administration and should of course be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions, and he may choose a different action. If you wish, you can appeal this decision to him.
Thanks,
deputy gg
Posted by linkadge on March 10, 2007, at 12:39:13
In reply to Please be civil » ralphrost, posted by gardenergirl on March 10, 2007, at 12:19:36
But this judges comment would only really apply to the testimony in the particular case.
I agree that not all that Breggin says is valid, but if everything he said was a lie then he wouldn't have gained the notoriety that he has.
Clearly, he needs to work with certain truths about the potential dangers of psychiatric medicines.
Linkadge
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on March 10, 2007, at 12:47:04
In reply to Re: Please be civil, posted by linkadge on March 10, 2007, at 12:39:13
We need to have balance - we can't only have the pro-drug lobby and big pharma companies. Its good to have people question these things. And, like Link says, even anti-mainstream thinkers can have good, evidence based points. And aren't they then often proved right after some years (usually when they're dead?).
Isn't there some backlash against Zyprexa brewing up at the mo?
kind regards
Meri
Posted by notfred on March 10, 2007, at 12:52:45
In reply to Re: Please be civil, posted by Meri-Tuuli on March 10, 2007, at 12:47:04
> We need to have balance - we can't only have the pro-drug lobby and big pharma companies.
beggin is not about balance, he is in it for the $$.
Multiple judges have called his testimony into question.
Posted by linkadge on March 10, 2007, at 13:02:50
In reply to Re: Please be civil, posted by notfred on March 10, 2007, at 12:52:45
>beggin is not about balance, he is in it for the >$$.
>Multiple judges have called his testimony into >question.But its not as if everything he says is a lie. When he points out the possability that SSRI's can cause dysfiguring seemingly permanant dyskenesia's he is not wrong. I am living proof that this is a possability.
Its like Meri said, we need ballance. Some use the fact that Breggin is over the top as reason to discredit all possable negative consequences of psychiatric drugs.
Linkadge
Posted by madeline on March 10, 2007, at 13:07:57
In reply to Re: Please be civil, posted by linkadge on March 10, 2007, at 13:02:50
And I am living proof that these drugs can work.
Posted by Joe Bloe on March 10, 2007, at 13:15:18
In reply to Re: Please be civil, posted by Meri-Tuuli on March 10, 2007, at 12:47:04
Why are we assuming that there is no bias in the judge, or that the very court and the legal system does not have biases of there very own? A quick look at 200 years of jurisprudence in the US should make it clear that judges are subject to the ideological whims of their time. Plessy V Ferguson anyone - separate but equal?Every structure has guiding principles - theories, methodologies - which accept certain ideas and practices as norms and discard others.
At the same time, Breggin seems to overstate his case in order to make his point, as Linkadge alluded to.
Posted by ralphrost on March 10, 2007, at 13:26:08
In reply to 'Dr. Breggin's opinions not based on good science', posted by notfred on March 10, 2007, at 11:54:47
Good science? What about science when you watch yourself suffer the consequences of antidepressants?
Antidepressants are not good science, they don't even know how they work (or don't work)...
> For example, a Maryland judge in a medical malpractice case in 1995 said, "I believe that his bias in this case is blinding. . . he was mistaken in a lot of the factual basis for which he expressed his opinion". In that same year a Virginia judge excluded Breggin's testimony stating, "This court finds that the evidence of Peter Breggin, as a purported expert, fails nearly all particulars under the standard set forth in Daubert and its progeny. . .
>
>
> Simply put, the Court believes that Dr. Breggin's opinions do not rise to the level of an opinion based on 'good science'"."
Posted by linkadge on March 10, 2007, at 13:29:02
In reply to Re: Please be civil » linkadge, posted by madeline on March 10, 2007, at 13:07:57
I'm not saying they don't help some people, I'm just agreeing that they can really hurt some people.
Linkadge
Posted by ralphrost on March 10, 2007, at 13:30:07
In reply to Please be civil » ralphrost, posted by gardenergirl on March 10, 2007, at 12:19:36
I'm sorry, not an appropriate comment.
> > Not to mention about babble fellows including me, all crazy thinking about medication all the time and not having any sort of life.
>
> Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues should be directed to Psycho-Babble Administration and should of course be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions, and he may choose a different action. If you wish, you can appeal this decision to him.
>
> Thanks,
> deputy gg
>
Posted by Quintal on March 10, 2007, at 14:30:00
In reply to Peter R. Breggin is well covered on Quackwatch, posted by notfred on March 10, 2007, at 11:39:09
__________________________________________________
Critical reviews of Quackwatch include an evaluation that was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration — a journal that represents unconventional views. Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D., professor emeritus of Chemistry & Biochemistry,[28] author of Malignant Medical Myths,[29] a critic of mainstream medicine and an outspoken proponent of low-carbohydrate diets,[30][31] evaluated eight Quackwatch articles and concluded that the articles were "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo..." and "...it is very probable that many of the 2,300,000 visitors to the website have been misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity."[32]
Elmer M. Cranton, MD, author of Textbook on EDTA Chelation Therapy, rebuked criticism by Quackwatch of the chelation therapy that he supports by accusing the organization of having a "mission of attacking alternative and emerging medical therapies in favor of the existing medical monopoly."[33] Ray Sahelian, MD, an advocate of nutritional medicine, accused Quackwatch of failing to point out "scams or inaccurate promotion and marketing practices by the pharmaceutical industry", even while praising Barrett for having done "good research on many of the people involved in the alternative health industry, and has pointed out several instances of inaccuracies and scams."[34][35][36] Peter Chowka, an investigative journalist and former adviser to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, remarked that Barrett "...seems to be putting down trying to be objective."[37]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackwatch
__________________________________________________As I said in my introductory post, there will always be some organisation that has criticised an author of such controversial work, and those organisations themselves will receive criticism. That doesn't invalidate the entire body of their work by any means. The most balanced and credible critic of modern psychiatric drug use I've found so far is Prof. Heather Ashton.
>" Psychiatric drugs are poisons. In a chapter titled "Damaging the Brain with SSRI Antidepressants,"
I don't need Quackwatch to tell me this author may be biased.
Q
Posted by Ken Blades on March 10, 2007, at 14:50:38
In reply to Peter R. Breggin is well covered on Quackwatch, posted by notfred on March 10, 2007, at 11:39:09
This guy pooh-poohs everything...he must be
a Scientologist or has some emotional issue.
Posted by crabwalk on March 10, 2007, at 15:02:09
In reply to Re: Please be civil » madeline, posted by linkadge on March 10, 2007, at 13:29:02
> I'm not saying they don't help some people, I'm just agreeing that they can really hurt some people.
>
> LinkadgeIn my view the issue with ad's comes down to this argument. The stats show that a good number of people do well on them. They also show adverse reactions. What they don't show is the severity or perseverance of these reactions -- there is pretty much no such measurement of long-term effects of these drugs.
So two questions arise...One is how often are people pretty much screwed over (meaning severely reducing quality of life, I'm one of them at this point) by these drugs? It's probably a relatively small number because the number of people taking ad's is astronomical, but assuredly the suffering and loss of these people is devastating and is not at all mollified by the fact that others are lucky enough to escape such suffering.
This then leads to the second question, which is how many people does it take to get screwed over before the whole practice of prescribing these drugs becomes unjustifiable? This is a moral issue, like asking is it right to steal bread to feed your starving family, i.e. there's no easy answer. However, the bioethical foundation of health care was laid down in the 20th century expressly says that no suffering is justifiable in the name of a statistical majority. Of course, the flip side is if we deprive people of drugs that may help them, how do we measure their suffering?
I've struggled with this issue for years now, since I realized that prozac had done what Linkadge has described -- caused possibly permanent anhedonia. I think the people this happens to automatically point the finger at psychiatry as a practice and some go as far as to say it's thoroughly evil. As a sufferer, I've definitely felt the same things at times, but unfortunately I think the issue is more complicated. While there are definitely some victims of malpractice and ignorance in the name of convenience or even profit, I think the majority of damage done by ad's is a combination of bad luck and selective ignorance. The luck part is obviously uncontrollable, the ignorance part oppositely, and inexcusably, so. So, I think the FDA and doctors have seriously dropped the ball in evaluating long-term safety of ad's. This has created a general perception that they are almost infallible, and it will take a long time for anyone to go against this. When people realize the subtle yet devastating dangers of ad's, a paradigm shift will occur, and those moral questions will be at the heart of it, I hope. I also hope it will happen in my lifetime, but I'm not sure that it will.
Wow, that was long. I'd appreciate any feedback...
Posted by flmm on March 10, 2007, at 16:10:10
In reply to the real issue » linkadge, posted by crabwalk on March 10, 2007, at 15:02:09
Oh great, this subject again! How about this,drugs are all we have. clearly people have mental disorders. Drugs can only treat symptoms. Either take them or don't, but I personally believe I function better with them! I do not think there is any evidence they "Rewire" your brain. There is a definate "withdrawal, adjustment, whatever you want to call it, when you stop taking these meds! Maybe "certain" people forgot what massive anxiety or depression felt like while on meds hence, the feeling of being worse off them. Whatever, it is not a perfect world. Just get off the couch and try to improve your life!
Posted by linkadge on March 10, 2007, at 16:21:13
In reply to the real issue » linkadge, posted by crabwalk on March 10, 2007, at 15:02:09
>So two questions arise...One is how often are >people pretty much screwed over (meaning >severely reducing quality of life, I'm one of >them at this point) by these drugs? It's >probably a relatively small number because the >number of people taking ad's is astronomical,
Well, thats the thing. The use of the TCA's was not this widespread. So, we really don't have any idea yet on how the SSRI's are affecting people long term. They havn't been out long enough.
People need to come off the drugs in order to know how they have been affected.
>I've struggled with this issue for years now, >since I realized that prozac had done what >Linkadge has described -- caused possibly >permanent anhedonia.
>As a sufferer, I've definitely felt the same >things at times, but unfortunately I think the >issue is more complicated.
I never said psychiatry was evil. There is a difference between people and drugs. People often have good intentions, while drugs cannot have intentions. We simply don't know the long term implications of what we are doing. Its a world of bandwagons and subsequent mass panic.
In hindsight I don't really see the point of taking the drugs. I mean, if I wanted a quick fix, I would have taken illegal drugs. They were not a long term solution for me. This may not be the case for everybody, but I can only know how to deal with myself.
>While there are definitely some victims of >malpractice and ignorance in the name of >convenience or even profit, I think the majority >of damage done by ad's is a combination of bad >luck and selective ignorance. The luck part is >obviously uncontrollable, the ignorance part >oppositely, and inexcusably, so.
Clearly there needs to be constant reassesment of a drugs benifits and drawbacks. Unfortunatley, doctors are unwilling to make that assessment untill a new (better) class of drugs comes along. I am sure that once a new class of drugs is established, the public view on SSRI's will be quickly and easily shifted.
>So, I think the FDA and doctors have seriously >dropped the ball in evaluating long-term safety >of ad's.
Thats the problem. Once they're out, and used so widespread, there is a problem. You can't just go around revealing the dangers of these meds. Afterall nobody wants to panic about their anti-panic meds, or get depressed about their depression pills.
So, its a double whammy. The fact that the patient population would be so sensitive to such negative data gives more reason for experts to keep it behind closed doors. They think they are acting in the patient's best interest, I suppose.
>This has created a general perception that they >are almost infallible, and it will take a long >time for anyone to go against this. When people >realize the subtle yet devastating dangers of >ad's, a paradigm shift will occur, and those >moral questions will be at the heart of it, I >hope. I also hope it will happen in my lifetime, >but I'm not sure that it will.
This is it. People have worked so hard to establish the efficacy of the drugs, that it cannot be reversed over night.Its all about giving people hope. If people believe in drugs, then they have hope. Thats why most of us are here, we are looking for hope. Faith in a pill is powerful. Its the kind of thing people would like to belive in because it is whatever you want it to be.
Linkadge
Posted by notfred on March 10, 2007, at 16:55:14
In reply to Quackwatch itself has received criticism.........., posted by Quintal on March 10, 2007, at 14:30:00
Quackwatch has been mentioned in the media, reviews and various journals, as well as receiving several awards and honors.[13][14] In 1998, Quackwatch was recognized by the Journal of the American Medical Association as one of nine "select sites that provide reliable health information and resources."[15] It was also listed as one of three medical sites of U.S. News & World Report's "Best of the Web" in 1999:[16]
Posted by flmm on March 10, 2007, at 16:55:59
In reply to Re: the real issue, posted by linkadge on March 10, 2007, at 16:21:13
Maybe you are looking for cures in the wrong places........
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.