![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 23 of 23. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by BJlass on January 1, 2004, at 12:22:25
I've read two books that say SSRI's can cause neurotoxicity in brain cells; one book written by a Harvard psychiatrist Joseph Glenmullen, M.D. is "Prozac Backlash," the other is: "Talking Back to Prozac," by Peter R. Breggin, M.D. They also wonder if people can become physically dependent FOR LIFE on these drugs. Good books that your M.D. WON'T RECOMMEND!
Posted by JonW on January 1, 2004, at 12:33:18
In reply to Two books your M.D. does NOT want you to read! , posted by BJlass on January 1, 2004, at 12:22:25
> I've read two books that say SSRI's can cause neurotoxicity in brain cells; one book written by a Harvard psychiatrist Joseph Glenmullen, M.D. is "Prozac Backlash," the other is: "Talking Back to Prozac," by Peter R. Breggin, M.D. They also wonder if people can become physically dependent FOR LIFE on these drugs. Good books that your M.D. WON'T RECOMMEND!
Well, I'm not an M.D., and I wouldn't recommend any book by Peter Breggin...
Jon :)
Posted by linkadge on January 1, 2004, at 14:15:31
In reply to Re: Two books your M.D. does NOT want you to read! , posted by JonW on January 1, 2004, at 12:33:18
The studies that are referenced in these books regarding neurotoxicity use prozac in rats at 100 times the maximum human dose. I think this speaks for itself.
I beleive there are hundreds of contrary studies that show SSRI's can indeed be neuroprotective. Prozac has been shown many times to be protective to rat hippocampal neurons during times extreme HPA axis activity such as in depression.
Linkadge
Posted by SickyVicky on January 1, 2004, at 14:50:47
In reply to Two books your M.D. does NOT want you to read! , posted by BJlass on January 1, 2004, at 12:22:25
After suffering from depression for so long...I'll take my chances. When I started taking meds years ago, I decided then that I would rather shave 10 years off my life than live in misery for 80 or 90.
Posted by jms600 on January 1, 2004, at 15:02:43
In reply to Two books your M.D. does NOT want you to read! , posted by BJlass on January 1, 2004, at 12:22:25
I agree with Vicky. Antidepressants have (most of the time) been a real help to me. I don't know how I would have coped without them.
I suppose the vast majority of people don't like taking drugs due to their side effects, toxicity etc. However If there is nothing else to help you, and you are desperate, you've got no choice.....
Posted by Utopia on January 1, 2004, at 17:51:01
In reply to Re: Two books your M.D. does NOT want you to read! , posted by jms600 on January 1, 2004, at 15:02:43
...at the sensationalists like Glenmullen who, if indeed a Harvard psych., should understand the ramifications of such publicity. A good example would be people who have been recently diagnosed with depression and are still on the fence.When reading such a book they would probably opt not to get treated and eventually become part of the obituaries column.
Even some people who due to brilliant marketing by health companies, waste valuable time (understandibly) trying herbal, homeopathic or just general home remedies.
The companies have nothing to lose as they are innocuous substances (sometimes!) but with a unipolar or bipolar a few weeks could mean suicide or driving wrecklessly at 150 mph and killing yourself, because of the overestimation of oneself.
Most people want to try the "natural way" first. Taking drugs to survive, substance abuse, no longer doing it by yourself etc etc are the thoughts that are in the forefront of their immaginations.
What follows is not an extreme example of cultural/sect bashing. It just highlights pretty well how sometimes good intentions can have dire consequences.
Scientologists are the first to tell you that you must wash all those drugs/toxins out of your system (using their system, of course, which costs an arm and a leg). Have they claimed responsability for any suicides which might have been motivated by one of their slick salespeople selling pseudo-science? I don't think so. Causing a person to give up their meds so as to try a relatively unsupervised wash-out system system is lunacy, and could cause that person to eventually take their life. But then it will be said...it was that individual's choice to make the changes, why must they be held responsable? What a crock.
Anybody who has got caught in a true cycle of refractory depression will know the desperateness of taking something that will work.
It's an extreme irresponsability to interfere with people's lives using sensationalism, but you see... for every suicide/death due to sensationalism, there is 500 people that will swear that it works.
Aaah... all for that green back - life has no value except your own, of course(ironically the very saviours of the ill - the pharmaceutical companies - are driven by the same motivation - the dollar!)
Posted by linkadge on January 1, 2004, at 19:31:59
In reply to I am amazed..., posted by Utopia on January 1, 2004, at 17:51:01
The real problem is that the people who take these medications for bad hair days are not the ones who are going to get upset at books such as these. The ones who perhaps don't need the medication are not going to be bothered by the books.
The people who are going to be bothered, perhaps enough to cause them to discontinue their medication, are the ones who really do infact need the medication. The last thing you need is a recovering paranoid schitzophenic to make a decision without the healthy perspective that full tretment can bring. This guy is really just cashing in on the fear he knows can be so easily mustered.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on January 1, 2004, at 19:36:00
In reply to I am amazed..., posted by Utopia on January 1, 2004, at 17:51:01
Sorry to blather, but
You can really tell this guy is after the money because notice how he has to write a new sensationalist book about every new controversial medication out there.
If he was really sincere, then he would sum up all the pros and cons of various medications into one book instead of targetting each individual audience for additional publicity.
Linkadge
Posted by zeugma on January 1, 2004, at 19:58:09
In reply to The real problem cont.., posted by linkadge on January 1, 2004, at 19:36:00
My impression of Glenmullen's book is that he's a serious researcher, possibly he overstates the dangers of SSRI's and certainly can't be taken as the 'last word' on psychoactive substances, but is at least knowledgeable about (SOME) aspects of the medications he's talking about.
This is what I've gleaned from reading parts of his book (I don't own it, have little desire to at this point).
As for Peter Breggin: The man is just uninformed and has no credibility at all. He insists repeatedly that patients are made worse by psychotropic treatment, in ALL cases. this includes depressives, schizophrenics, bipolars, etc. He pushes instead an idea he calls "psychospiritual development" or some such. The danger is that he is playing up to society's fears about using drugs to treat illnesses, and so a lot of people consider him a credible voice regarding the pitfalls of these drugs.
A more balanced critic of psychotropic drugs (which i take glenmullen to be, at least on a partial reading) would know something about the actual properties and effects of the drugs themselves, rather than ignorantly pandering to his audience's prejudices.
Posted by Simcha on January 1, 2004, at 20:24:25
In reply to Re: The real problem cont.., posted by zeugma on January 1, 2004, at 19:58:09
All I have to say that the only solution to this misinformation is for those of us who have been helped by psychotropic medications to speak VERY publically about how well these meds have worked for US.
Yes, they all have risks. Life is a risk. Life with untreated Major Depressive Disorder was not worth living for me. Now I have a life worth living. This is because of meds and good talk therapy.
I go to grad school and I'm studying to be a therapist. I go to a graduate school for holistic studies. Whenever a professor or a student bashes these medications wholesale I SPEAK UP VERY LOUDLY. I'm known for being somewhat of a gadfly in my classes.
I have found that alternative treatments help along side medications. I would never give up my meds now unless there was something that truly was better.
What bothers me about these "holistic" people, including myself sometimes, is that holism means that we treat the ENTIRE person. This includes the chemical processes in the body. To deny that the body and its chemistry has a part to play in the mental illness puzzle is to turn our backs on the foundations of holism.
Simcha
Posted by Viridis on January 1, 2004, at 20:27:02
In reply to Re: The real problem cont.., posted by zeugma on January 1, 2004, at 19:58:09
I suspect that one could choose nearly any medication (or class of medications) and make a sensational case for their danger. Aspirin? Can cause bleeding, ulcers, etc. Antibiotics? Many people are allergic to some; they can really mess up your gut bacterial flora and I even took one recently for a dental problem that has a "black box" warning of a rare fatal syndrome. Cholesterol-lowering drugs? Some have been known to cause liver failure. Anti-malarials? Some can cause severe psychological reactions in susceptible individuals. Antihistamines? Can cause elevated blood pressure and heart problems in some people.
And so on. All sorts of drugs have rare side effects that are potentially dangerous, yet that doesn't justify abandoning them.
I can't tolerate SSRIs or other antidepressants I've tried, yet others I know have had their lives turned around by Prozac, Paxil, Effexor, etc. To reject them outright seems ridiculous, especially given recent evidence that some of these meds actually stimulate regrowth of neurons.
Of course, patients should be informed and careful, but my impression is that these authors are just cashing in on people's fears, which tend to be especially pronounced when it comes to psychiatric drugs.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 2, 2004, at 1:17:48
In reply to Two books your M.D. does NOT want you to read! , posted by BJlass on January 1, 2004, at 12:22:25
> I've read two books that say SSRI's can cause neurotoxicity in brain cells; one book written by a Harvard psychiatrist Joseph Glenmullen, M.D. is "Prozac Backlash," the other is: "Talking Back to Prozac," by Peter R. Breggin, M.D.
I'd just like to plug the double double quotes feature at this site:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#amazon
The first time anyone refers to a book without using this option, I post this to try to make sure he or she at least knows about it. It's just an option, though, and doesn't *have* to be used. If people *choose* not to use it, I'd be interested why not, but I'd like that redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7717.html
Thanks!
Bob
Posted by Ilene on January 2, 2004, at 11:39:40
In reply to Re: The real problem cont.. The Solution..., posted by Simcha on January 1, 2004, at 20:24:25
> All I have to say that the only solution to this misinformation is for those of us who have been helped by psychotropic medications to speak VERY publically about how well these meds have worked for US.
>
> Yes, they all have risks. Life is a risk. Life with untreated Major Depressive Disorder was not worth living for me. Now I have a life worth living. This is because of meds and good talk therapy.
>
> I go to grad school and I'm studying to be a therapist. I go to a graduate school for holistic studies. Whenever a professor or a student bashes these medications wholesale I SPEAK UP VERY LOUDLY. I'm known for being somewhat of a gadfly in my classes.
>
> I have found that alternative treatments help along side medications. I would never give up my meds now unless there was something that truly was better.
>
> What bothers me about these "holistic" people, including myself sometimes, is that holism means that we treat the ENTIRE person. This includes the chemical processes in the body. To deny that the body and its chemistry has a part to play in the mental illness puzzle is to turn our backs on the foundations of holism.
>
> Simcha
Good for you. I wish there were more people like you.Ilene
Posted by nicky847 on January 2, 2004, at 11:57:48
In reply to Re: The real problem cont.., posted by zeugma on January 1, 2004, at 19:58:09
Even if it is true that anti-depressant meds have negative long term effects...they also have positive long term effects...what about people with anxiety disorder whom the med helps who as a result may have hypertension problems relieved? Constantly living with panic attacks and the high blood pressure it can cause is very hard on the kidneys and the heart...
And what about those who turn to alcohol or other drugs to self-medicate? A/D's offer relief from their symptoms in a far less destructive way..
> My impression of Glenmullen's book is that he's a serious researcher, possibly he overstates the dangers of SSRI's and certainly can't be taken as the 'last word' on psychoactive substances, but is at least knowledgeable about (SOME) aspects of the medications he's talking about.
>
> This is what I've gleaned from reading parts of his book (I don't own it, have little desire to at this point).
>
> As for Peter Breggin: The man is just uninformed and has no credibility at all. He insists repeatedly that patients are made worse by psychotropic treatment, in ALL cases. this includes depressives, schizophrenics, bipolars, etc. He pushes instead an idea he calls "psychospiritual development" or some such. The danger is that he is playing up to society's fears about using drugs to treat illnesses, and so a lot of people consider him a credible voice regarding the pitfalls of these drugs.
>
> A more balanced critic of psychotropic drugs (which i take glenmullen to be, at least on a partial reading) would know something about the actual properties and effects of the drugs themselves, rather than ignorantly pandering to his audience's prejudices.
Posted by zeugma on January 2, 2004, at 12:53:04
In reply to Re: The real problem cont.., posted by nicky847 on January 2, 2004, at 11:57:48
> Even if it is true that anti-depressant meds have negative long term effects...they also have positive long term effects...what about people with anxiety disorder whom the med helps who as a result may have hypertension problems relieved? Constantly living with panic attacks and the high blood pressure it can cause is very hard on the kidneys and the heart...
>
> And what about those who turn to alcohol or other drugs to self-medicate? A/D's offer relief from their symptoms in a far less destructive way..
>I recently spoke to someone about the use of psychotropic drugs, and he told me he was a disciple of Thomas Szasz, who apparently is a major influence on Peter Breggin and is a major player in the "anti=psychiatry" camp. He told me with a straight face that mental illnesses have nothing to do with the brain. I don't know what to say to this, except that when such a great difference in world view opens up, the conversation is over. No doubt Szasz and Breggin find my conviction that mental illnesses have causes in central nervous system abnormalities equally hard to account for.
AD's are far better than turning to alcohol to manage one's psychiatric problems. And untreated illnesses only worsen the damage to already compromised systems. That is why boards like this are so important, so people who have actually lived through their illnesses can get past the judgments of those who know little about mental illness or the brain. I wish a forum like this had existed when I was younger: I might have saved myself years of depression by learning from the experiences of others with these devastating conditions.
> > My impression of Glenmullen's book is that he's a serious researcher, possibly he overstates the dangers of SSRI's and certainly can't be taken as the 'last word' on psychoactive substances, but is at least knowledgeable about (SOME) aspects of the medications he's talking about.
> >
> > This is what I've gleaned from reading parts of his book (I don't own it, have little desire to at this point).
> >
> > As for Peter Breggin: The man is just uninformed and has no credibility at all. He insists repeatedly that patients are made worse by psychotropic treatment, in ALL cases. this includes depressives, schizophrenics, bipolars, etc. He pushes instead an idea he calls "psychospiritual development" or some such. The danger is that he is playing up to society's fears about using drugs to treat illnesses, and so a lot of people consider him a credible voice regarding the pitfalls of these drugs.
> >
> > A more balanced critic of psychotropic drugs (which i take glenmullen to be, at least on a partial reading) would know something about the actual properties and effects of the drugs themselves, rather than ignorantly pandering to his audience's prejudices.
>
>
Posted by linkadge on January 2, 2004, at 13:10:27
In reply to Re: The real problem cont.., posted by zeugma on January 2, 2004, at 12:53:04
There are a certain group of people out there who have experienced depression that responds to their own will power. THese people who have helped themselves feel that because they conquered depression through thought that anybody can do it. I would argue that people such as these are either not depressed at all, or are chronically depressed and fight drugs as a way of asserting their controll over their situation.
Linkadge
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 2, 2004, at 13:40:03
In reply to Re: The real problem cont.., posted by zeugma on January 2, 2004, at 12:53:04
> I recently spoke to someone about the use of psychotropic drugs, and he told me he was a disciple of Thomas Szasz, who apparently is a major influence on Peter Breggin and is a major player in the "anti=psychiatry" camp. He told me with a straight face that mental illnesses have nothing to do with the brain. I don't know what to say to this, except that when such a great difference in world view opens up, the conversation is over. No doubt Szasz and Breggin find my conviction that mental illnesses have causes in central nervous system abnormalities equally hard to account for.
Oh, you said the magic word, Szasz. No single theorist has so influenced psychiatric care, since the time of Freud.
Szasz's classic paper, "The Myth of Mental Illness", is a fascinating read. See:
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Szasz/myth.htm
Szasz is a gifted writer, but he is a sophist. He cleverly redefines words as he goes, until you think he has defined mental illness *in your own concepts*, as a social construct, but he does not. Still, many are left solely with his conclusions, failing to examine the sophistry that got them there in the first place.
There are many more of Szasz's writings at:
http://www.szasz.com/szaszwri.html
....if you are so inclined to explore the man more fully.
If Szasz's central thesis was correct, that "deviant" behaviour, that mental illness was a social construct, it could not be seen to respond so well to a drug, an herb, even so much as a nutrient. But it does.
I can only conclude that Szasz himself has never experienced that of which he speaks; his is a philosophy of petitio principii, "begging the question", where one must already adhere to the premise itself in order to arrive at the conclusion which supposedly proves the premise. Preaching to the choir. A circular argument. But Szasz wears no clothes.....
Lar
Posted by zeugma on January 2, 2004, at 14:33:05
In reply to Re: The real problem....Szasz » zeugma, posted by Larry Hoover on January 2, 2004, at 13:40:03
So long as there are no objective, physico-chemical observations shown to be causally related to depression and schizophrenia, the claim that they are brain diseases is unsubstantiated. In the absence of such evidence, psychiatrists rest their claim that these major mental diseases are brain diseases largely on the contention that drugs keep the disease processes "under control." The absurdity of this claim lies in its own consequences.
Diabetes is kept under control by insulin. When patients stop taking their medication, the disease process flares up and kills them. Lupus is kept under control by steroids. When patients stop taking their medication, the disease process flares up and kills them.
This is not what happens when patients with serious mental diseases stop taking their medication. Depression is kept under control by antidepressants. When patients stop taking their medication, the disease process flares up, but the disease does not kill them. They kill themselves, an act psychiatrists attribute to their so-called mental illness. Schizophrenia is kept under control by anti-psychotic drugs. When patients stop taking their medication, the disease process flares up, but the disease does not kill them. They kill someone else, an act psychiatrists attribute to their supposed illness.......................................................................................................
These are Szasz' own words from one of his papers published at the website linked to above. Besides the flaw in reasoning evident here (does every disease KILL its victim?), and the truly appalling implication that psychotics= murderers (HOW did this man ever get to be considered a "patient advocate"?) one needs to note that apparently he would prefer to have people kill themselves, or others, rather than concede that medications might help those to whom they are prescribed (but it appears from this that he DOES find them efficacious- talk about reasoning in circles!). I can only find irrationality combined with a willingness to sacrifice lives for the sake of a (utterly false) principle expressed in these words of his.
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 2, 2004, at 15:26:11
In reply to Re: The real problem....Szasz, posted by zeugma on January 2, 2004, at 14:33:05
> So long as there are no objective, physico-chemical observations shown to be causally related to depression and schizophrenia, the claim that they are brain diseases is unsubstantiated. In the absence of such evidence, psychiatrists rest their claim that these major mental diseases are brain diseases largely on the contention that drugs keep the disease processes "under control." The absurdity of this claim lies in its own consequences.
>
>
> Diabetes is kept under control by insulin. When patients stop taking their medication, the disease process flares up and kills them. Lupus is kept under control by steroids. When patients stop taking their medication, the disease process flares up and kills them.
>
>
> This is not what happens when patients with serious mental diseases stop taking their medication. Depression is kept under control by antidepressants. When patients stop taking their medication, the disease process flares up, but the disease does not kill them. They kill themselves, an act psychiatrists attribute to their so-called mental illness. Schizophrenia is kept under control by anti-psychotic drugs. When patients stop taking their medication, the disease process flares up, but the disease does not kill them. They kill someone else, an act psychiatrists attribute to their supposed illness
>
> .......................................................................................................
> These are Szasz' own words from one of his papers published at the website linked to above. Besides the flaw in reasoning evident here (does every disease KILL its victim?), and the truly appalling implication that psychotics= murderers (HOW did this man ever get to be considered a "patient advocate"?) one needs to note that apparently he would prefer to have people kill themselves, or others, rather than concede that medications might help those to whom they are prescribed (but it appears from this that he DOES find them efficacious- talk about reasoning in circles!). I can only find irrationality combined with a willingness to sacrifice lives for the sake of a (utterly false) principle expressed in these words of his.
Thanks for the analysis....I didn't want to point out the type of flaws in his rationalization specifically....far better they be found by a little thinking.Szasz' writings are the best example of sophistry I've ever come across.
Here's another Szasz quotation:
"Finally, the widespread psychiatric opinion that only a mentally ill person would commit homicide illustrates the use of a legal concept as a norm of mental health."I think very very few people would concur with that statement.
Lar
Posted by JonW on January 2, 2004, at 20:31:36
In reply to Re: The real problem cont.., posted by linkadge on January 2, 2004, at 13:10:27
> There are a certain group of people out there who have experienced depression that responds to their own will power. THese people who have helped themselves feel that because they conquered depression through thought that anybody can do it. I would argue that people such as these are either not depressed at all, or are chronically depressed and fight drugs as a way of asserting their controll over their situation.
I don't think it's as black and white as mind or body, and I don't think the treatment a person responds to should determine the severity of their illness. I agree, it is inappropriate to criticize someone for choosing a different path than your own.
Jon :)
Posted by ocdforyears on January 3, 2004, at 10:19:40
In reply to Re: The real problem cont.. » linkadge, posted by JonW on January 2, 2004, at 20:31:36
Hey gang,
I'm new to these boards,and there are some smart, and informed, people here, and I appreciate it. My thoughts on the med issue:
I have ocd. I've had it since I was a child. I had major depression in my twenties. Lots of it. Do I believe my diseases are caused by the 'chemical imbalance' I hear about on ssri tv commercials? Yes and no.
Certainly, my symptoms flare up when I am wounded emotionally, when I suffer loss or am angry and can't express it. Does releasing emotion help my depression/anxiety? Yes. Though I admit the ocd is the most tenacious problem of all. I had suicidal feelings for several years, but hard work in therapy brought me to a place where I haven't felt like killing myself, really, in a decade. I'm pretty proud of that.
But I still have ocd, pretty bad, and some lingering depression. I really do think it's a product of my childhood environment, and early trauma. And even further victimizations and wounds I experienced as an adult (I had to quit seeing two therapists who were helping me because they became sexually involved with clients; the second of the two, whom I saw for over four years, got involved with my wife who was also his client. Yeah, stuff like that takes its toll. It has to be worked out safely in therapy).
And I did all this without meds for the most part (xanax helped my obessions a lot in my early twenties; but talk about brain fog). But now I'm trying ssri's for my ocd. Would I have taken these meds if I had known about them when I had major depression? Heck yes. And I hope they help me now with my ocd. But I see them as one part of my recovery: I exercise, I do therapy, cognitive and feeling based, I try to draw closer to people around me (very scary) and I'm trying ssri meds to help my obsessions.
To believe the med is the final answer for anxiety or depressin (and I can't comment on other illnesses) may not be the best position, though for some people the med is probably the only way out. But to see the med as part of a treatment plan for serious, life-destroying problems like depression and ocd...that just makes sense to me.
And I echo what someone said earlier: all drugs have side effects. I know I've used alcohol for anxiety...works great, in the short term. But it's no way to medicate ocd for me in the long haul. And sure, aspirin, antibiotics, everything does something. My cell phone and computer are probably bad for me. I know the sun causes cancer. I haven't seen anything yet which proves these meds are damaging; and I sure know my ocd affects my parenting, my relationship with my second wife (a lot) and my ability to enjoy my life. Why not feel better?
My hope is that if I find a med that works (and I may not find one among those currently out; the first two had too many side effects) that I won't take it my whole life; that I'll get stronger in my therapy and be able to go off. But what would be the crime of taking meds forvever? If I have to, I will. Life is short. OCD is very tough to kick.
Finally, I do find it curious that the old tricyclics affected different transmitters than the new ones, and yet both help depression. Probably these meds affect the brain at some deep level and that keeps us from sinking too deep into anxiety, depression, or ocd. They may not know how they work in my lifetime. But they help somehow. No shame in that.
Here's to living.
Those who criticize us who suffer have not suffered like us.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 4, 2004, at 1:38:32
In reply to Re: The real problem cont.., posted by linkadge on January 2, 2004, at 13:10:27
> There are a certain group of people out there who have experienced depression that responds to their own will power... I would argue that people such as these are either not depressed at all, or are chronically depressed and fight drugs as a way of asserting their controll over their situation.
Please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down, thanks.
Bob
Posted by cubbybear on January 4, 2004, at 1:53:29
In reply to meds and healing, posted by ocdforyears on January 3, 2004, at 10:19:40
Jumping into the discussion late now, after a long weekend. . i'd like to put my 2 cents in about that book, "Prozac Backlash" by Glenmullen.
Last year I read it and thought rather highly of it until I realized how simplistic or unrealistic Glenmullen can be, while pushing for "talk therapy", rather than AD drug therapy.
I suffered for nearly 15 years with severe anxiety and/or depression up until '84 and could have been helped as early as 1970 by MAO Parnate (which came onto the scene in the 60s, I believe). Yet, I was somehow misdirected into seeing a psychologist, who could not prescribe drugs, rather than a psychiatrist. I stayed with this guy, who helped me attain a number of eye-opening insights, but it did nothing to help me attack the agonizing mental states as a "chemical imbalance"--an idea which I now fully subscribe to. Having been taking Parnate for about 20 years (and assuming I will be on it till my dying day), I can only make the strongest possible case for AD drug therapy (although I do have great reservations about the SSRIs meds).
Glenmullen's emphasis on utilizing only talk therapy for the majority of depressed patients is archaic, if not dangerous. Not only that, I was rather put off by his total failure to mention MAOI drugs in the book. Why are they omitted? These meds have meant the end of suffering for millions of people. When I tried to raise this question with him via his website, I found that the site was constructed to forestall such criticism, and I never received a reply from the E-mail I sent. That really bugs me.In my mind, "Prozac Backlash" is a good book, but it's definitely not the final word on the subject.
This is the end of the 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.