![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 37. Go back in thread:
Posted by Glydin on July 5, 2004, at 17:43:31
In reply to Re: this article scares me » linkadge, posted by gardenergirl on July 5, 2004, at 17:34:19
What I gleam from articles such as this is what the world seems to operate on - Fear. In terms of the content of this article being true, how can one know?
Posted by linkadge on July 5, 2004, at 18:22:40
In reply to Re: this article scares me, posted by Glydin on July 5, 2004, at 17:43:31
Exactly, how can one know ??
My greatest fear is that I am selling out my long term mental health for a quick fix. That I am permanantly damaging the receptors so that in the future it will be next to impossible to feel good.
Linkadge
Posted by Glydin on July 5, 2004, at 18:32:36
In reply to Re: this article scares me, posted by linkadge on July 5, 2004, at 18:22:40
I can understand that concern.
Posted by shadows721 on July 5, 2004, at 19:06:00
In reply to this article scares me, posted by linkadge on July 5, 2004, at 16:51:31
Gees! This article is scary, Linkadge. I don't doubt that there will be an effect from long term use of SSRI's. But, what is the alternative?
I don't think most of us are on a quick fix. We are on it to function. I wouldn't deem that as a quick fix. Also, many of us were suicidal too. There is proof that the rate of suicide has been reduced by the increase in those using antidepressants.
May be I read it took quickly, but there wasn't any mention of the other antidepressants such as the tricylics and MAOI's and brain damage. Most people on SSRI's poop out over years, so we have to change anyway. I do think there is a lot more that isn't said in this article. First, there wasn't any mention of dosage. Secondly, there wasn't a real study of people and their brains for years on medications. Thirdly, there wasn't any mention of the body repairing itself. The body does attempt to repair itself at any stage.
This was a very scary article. I don't know the answer for chronic depression and it seems that scientists don't have it either.
But in the meantime, I think one should take their medications and at the dosage that is effective. The alternative is just not a livable situation.
Posted by Glydin on July 5, 2004, at 19:20:59
In reply to Re: this article scares me, posted by shadows721 on July 5, 2004, at 19:06:00
Truthfully, I don't know who or what to believe anymore in regard to research information. Today's gloom and doom can get replaced with tomorrow's hails of greatness and the opposite findings of what yesterday proclaimed. So, functionality and workability in the immediate is something to consider as sometimes that will be the only thing that does matter.
Posted by KaraS on July 5, 2004, at 20:02:17
In reply to Re: this article scares me, posted by Glydin on July 5, 2004, at 19:20:59
Yikes! That really is a scary article. I wonder what Chemist and Sad Panda will have to say about it. One thing that also occurred to me (in addition to the issues of dosage and the fact that MAOIs and tricyclics weren't mentioned) was the fact that the monkeys may not have been depressed and so the drugs increased the firing neurons to an unsafe pace. If neurons aren't firing rapidly enough in those of us who are depressed, then maybe these meds are just bringing us to the point where everyone else is at????
Posted by Tony C. on July 5, 2004, at 20:12:24
In reply to Re: this article scares me, posted by Glydin on July 5, 2004, at 19:20:59
Scary this is, BUT what is my/our alternative?Vegatative depression and suicidal thoughts and chronic insomnia ? I agree with the one poster, this is not a quick fix, it is to help us live and function. By the way I am 7 year user of SERZONE/NEFAZODONE is that the same thing to my neurons as SSRI's ? Maybe the monkeys were not depressed.
Sincerely - Tony C.
Posted by RetiredYoung on July 5, 2004, at 20:19:16
In reply to Re: MAN THIS IS SCARY BUT .this article scares me, posted by Tony C. on July 5, 2004, at 20:12:24
This article, IMO, borders on scare-mongering/Scientology type of drivel. Their conclusion of "they fry your brain" is unsupportive, they have no controls, they publish no details.
I've read other articles that state that anti-depressants actually help create new cells in the brain.
The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle.
Posted by Emme on July 5, 2004, at 21:04:59
In reply to Re: this article scares me, posted by linkadge on July 5, 2004, at 16:52:13
It sounds like a topic worth considering and studying carefully. But...the article itself is a really really bad piece of writing. It reads like propaganda, so it's hard to tell what's valid and what's not.
Yes,I agree - what were the monkeys' dosages?
How about discussing some brain scans of humans who've been on SSRIs long term?
The article incorrectly says SSRIs "increase the firing of neurons" in one paragraph and then describes serotonin reuptake inhibition further down.
The author grossly oversimplifies/glosses over theories for the etiology of depression.
What exactly are the neurological symtoms people are showing up with after being on SSRIs for so long? It's suggestive and scary, but the article doesn't provide evidence of a cause and effect relationship.
How many people are showing up with neurological symptoms? Give some numbers. What is the estimated fraction of people who take SSRIs long term that exhibit neurologicl symptoms?
He lumps ritalin and provigil together. They don't have the same mechanism of action. (Do they even really know exactly how Provigil works.)
I agree with the comments about him saying nothing about tricyclics and MAOI's. I worry that an article like this might encourage people to jump ship prematurely with their ADs, whether it's an SSRI or not.
Just a few thoughts.
Posted by 1980Monroe on July 5, 2004, at 22:59:15
In reply to Re: this article scares me » linkadge, posted by Emme on July 5, 2004, at 21:04:59
Maybe the author the article is a Scientologist yes frying of the brain sounds like a one of there toxic free programs, thats there main goal is to stop medication, and apply hubbard's dianetics. But still, thats scare's me, i may need to get off dexedrine. I take dexedrine, but now im scared ill regret it in 10 years, my goodness i hope i dont have a panic attack over this.... oh well, i overreact to things so ill be fine.
I wished we could actually test this with someone who has been prescribed a tryi. or MAOI over the past 20 years and see, OH and i need to see people who have been on dexedine for 20 years and see if there damage done for my own sake!!!!
Anyways, well i know that L-Tyrosine may be a good alternative if i am going to get off my medication, but god, my life is CHAOS without dexedrine but i guess i need to cope with it,
I'm going to get an appointment with a hypnotherapist and start a ADD session to help get off medication.
Posted by SLS on July 5, 2004, at 23:10:32
In reply to Re: this article scares me, posted by linkadge on July 5, 2004, at 16:52:13
For what it's worth, Linkadge, I find this article to be absolute garbage. I wish I had the mental energy to pick it apart line by line for you, but I'm afraid I would fry my brain in the process. :-) It's just not worth it. I'll leave that to others. Don't be scared - at least not because of *this* article. I swear to you.
I'm sorry. I know a forum like this deserves a better contribution than this one, but I wouldn't know where to start. Besides, The Simpsons is on TV right now, and it contains plenty more of life's important truths than does this article. Plus it makes me smile, so I'm going to watch it and keep taking my meds.
Emme gave things a good start.
- Scott
Posted by Iansf on July 5, 2004, at 23:18:16
In reply to Re: this article scares me, posted by linkadge on July 5, 2004, at 16:52:13
> http://www.immunesupport.com/library/bulletinarticle.cfm?ID=3618
>
> I don't know what to make of this article
>
> LinkadgeIf you go to the sites of clinics that do brain spectrum studies, you'll find exactly the opposite message: taking appropriate medication actually re-establishes a healthy brain. Google the Amen Clinic for one example of this point of view.
Also think about it in terms of personal experience: when does it seem to you that your brain is most healthy? When you're suffering from depression or mania or whatever your particular problem is, or when you're taking effective medication (and I emphasize effective)? For me, there's no doubt that my brain functions better on medication. I've been taking antidepressants for close to 15 years now, and I certainly don't see any indication of deteriorating brain state. If antidepressants do indeed fry my brain cells, surely there would be some sign of it by now. I think the article is just another attempt at scare-mongering by someone with a particular axe to grind.
Posted by Viridis on July 6, 2004, at 1:00:04
In reply to this article scares me, posted by linkadge on July 5, 2004, at 16:51:31
This seems to contradict recent evidence that severe depression is associated with loss of brain cells (especially in the hippocampus), and that some antidepressants actually seem to stimulate brain cell growth. This may be why so many take weeks to work, even though their effects on neurotransmitter levels/localization begin much more quickly.
I'm not sure what to make of it, but I'd want to know much more about the studies, methodology, doses involved, etc. This just sounds too much like propaganda to me. People certainly have been taking these meds (especially stimulants!) for long enough that if this kind of brain damage were a widespread phenomenon at normal doses, surely we'd be hearing more in the medical journals and mainstream press.
Posted by Tepiaca on July 6, 2004, at 1:41:03
In reply to Re: this article scares me, posted by linkadge on July 5, 2004, at 16:52:13
I can´t deny I got scared when I started reading the article
Nevertheless , I feel relief when I got to read"Cheney strongly urges anyone taking antidepressants or stimulants to read Glenmullen's book, which lists safe alternatives to SSRIs."
I don´t know if this is true but as long there is no approved information on this issue, this
will be a piece of garbage to me too . I think there is someone who wants to increase his sells
It´s amazing how some people can play with the health and life of someone else . This is what most worried me after reading the article
Posted by KaraS on July 6, 2004, at 2:40:44
In reply to Re: this article scares me, posted by Tepiaca on July 6, 2004, at 1:41:03
Excellent points about the brain cell growth in the hippocampus from antidepressants and Dr. Amen's brain scans that prove it! I hadn't even thought of that when I read the article. Of course I was too scared to think straight - but that was the point, wasn't it?
I have read on this site about some people taking NAC which produces glutathion in the brain in order to counteract glutamate/neurotoxicity from stimulants. I've also read about people using selegiline for the purpose of preventing neurotoxicity regardless of whether they were taking any SSRI antidepressants. Perhaps what the author is describing is something that occurs naturally anyway in our brains. But even if it does, the antidepressants must be producing new cell growth at a faster rate than those that are dying, otherwise how else to account for those brain scans?
Posted by Simcha on July 6, 2004, at 2:40:57
In reply to Re: this article scares me, posted by Tepiaca on July 6, 2004, at 1:41:03
OK, now take a look at this article:
http://www.immunesupport.com/library/showarticle.cfm/id/3154This goon is extoling the protective qualties of klonpin and neurontin. He seems to contadict doctors that say that klonopin can disrupt stage 4 sleep. He argues that Klonopin puts the brain in a healing state. He even says that Klonopin is not addictive for anyone ever.
Now, he says all of these things extoling the virtues of Klonopin without presenting any studies, data, or findings that would support his thesis.
So, now maybe I should run back to my pdoc and ask him to dump the SSRIs and give me loads of Klonopin and that might do it? Geez, this guy's a doctor? Methinks man speaks with forked tongue. I'm not buying any of his liver tonic made from snake oil.
Simcha
Posted by gardenergirl on July 6, 2004, at 7:49:14
In reply to Re: this article scares me, posted by Simcha on July 6, 2004, at 2:40:57
It is interesting that something is being sold on this site ("your purchase helps fund research" on the left lower part of the screen). Also, there is no disclosure notification. Perhaps this Dr. is affiliated with certain drug manufacturers. Even if he is not, a professional article would have a disclosure statement even if there is "nothing to disclose".
So, I agree with the ideas expressed that this writer has an agenda and is not presenting a fair and balanced assessment.
Regards,
gg
Posted by Bill LL on July 6, 2004, at 8:39:06
In reply to Re: this article scares me, posted by linkadge on July 5, 2004, at 16:52:13
Dr. Glenmullen's monkey brain pictures are very misleading. Many depresssed humans have a smaller than normal hippocampus (a part of the brain). In human brains, SSRI's have been shown to increase the size of the hippocampus to a normal size in some depressed patients.
In my own humble opinion, the guy is way off base with his speculations which are primarily motivated by his desire for profits from his book sales.
Here are 2 articles I found:
1)
"Research suggests that the drugs protect areas of the brain injured by stress. "SSRIs may protect against damage associated with depression," says Yvette I. Sheline, MD, a professor of psychiatry at the Washington University School of Medicine, in St. Louis, who did some of the research. A Columbia University study suggests that antidepressants may even significantly stimulate the production of new nerve cells in these key regions, which could even further protect the brain from stress."
2)
NMHA News Release April 10, 2000
Contact: Lea Ann Browning McNee
Phone: (703) 837-4783
Cell: (301) 461-9351
“Prozac Backlash” Represents a Step Back in Mental Health TreatmentMental Health Advocates Warn Book May Keep People From Seeking Treatment
ALEXANDRIA, VA (April 10, 2000) The National Mental Health Association today voiced concern over what it called misleading statements in a new book that claims antidepressant medication is over-prescribed and causes serious side effects. The NMHA also expressed concern that the book, Prozac Backlash, could discourage people from seeking treatment.
NMHA's criticism of the book, written by Boston psychiatrist Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., was echoed by two leading psychiatrists, who said that the book's messages were misleading and irresponsible.
"The truth about depression and its treatment is just the opposite of what the book claims," noted Mike Faenza, president and CEO of NMHA. "In fact, clinical depression remains under-diagnosed and under-treated. Although not everyone with depression needs medication, the new generation of depression medication is much safer and more effective than those of the past."
Faenza noted that depression is a very serious health problem for over 19 million Americans, and left untreated can result in years of suffering and even suicide. Only about half of those with the illness seek and receive appropriate treatment, which includes psychotherapy ("talk therapy"), medication or a combination of the two.
Faenza cautioned that the book could have serious consequences if people accept its contents as fact. "Our organization has worked hard over the past decade to raise awareness about depression and the need to get help. We're concerned that people may decide against seeking appropriate treatment for this serious illness after hearing about this book."
A number of leading psychiatric researchers, whose work is cited by the book's author have also been critical of Prozac Backlash. "In cases where Dr. Glenmullen quoted studies published by me, he quotes the work out of context to fit his needs," said Anthony Rothschild, M.D., professor of psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. "This book is misleading, and does a great disservice to people with depression. The very medications that the author claims are overused are, in fact, well studied, closely scrutinized and closely regulated."
"Dr. Glenmullen goes well beyond the published research on the side effects of these newer antidepressant medications, the SSRI's, and into pure speculation," warned Harvey Ruben, MD, MPH, clinical professor at the Department of Psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine. "His messages are an irresponsible deterrent to those seeking help for depression, and border on inflammatory journalism."
The psychiatrists noted that SSRIs and other new medications for depression do have side effects that effect some patients. "This is true for any medication that treats any illness, and patients should always discuss side effects with their doctor," noted Dr. Ruben. "However, it is the overall safety and low incidence of serious side effects with these newer medications that have made them so effective in the treatment of depression."
Both psychiatrists noted that the suffering from depression usually far outweighs the side effects, usually temporary and minimal, of antidepressant medication. They shared the concern of the NMHA that the book's messages could cause people to avoid seeking help for depression, cause those now receiving treatment to discontinue it, or persuade people to use unproven, unregulated treatments including herbal remedies such as St. John's Wort.
"The sad fact is that stigma still surrounds treatment for mental illness," warned Faenza. "And books like this one unfortunately only add to this stigma. The real message about mental illness is one of hope -- that most people can recover with appropriate treatment." In fact, he noted, the U.S. Surgeon General recently released the first-ever Report on Mental Health, which identified mental health and mental illness as a key public health issue, and underscored the effectiveness of mental health treatments and services.
The National Mental Health Association is the country's oldest and largest nonprofit organization addressing all aspects of mental health and mental illness. With more than 340 affiliates nationwide, NMHA works to improve the mental health of all Americans through advocacy, education, research and service.
Posted by TheOutsider on July 6, 2004, at 9:11:31
In reply to Glenmullen is not credible, posted by Bill LL on July 6, 2004, at 8:39:06
Unfortunatly I'm not computer literate enough to post any links.
Nor am I well versed enough in neurochemistry to give a very certain anlysis of his article.There have been a lot of good posts here attacking the tone and conclusion of the article from SLS and others.
What I would like to know though is how reliable his anylisis of the monkeys brains was.It reminds me of similar scare mongering research about MDMA (Ecstacy).
Some people here will remember those pictures "This is your brain on ecstacy". They sound like the kind of 'before and after' pictures of monkeys brains, with large parts of the serotonin system destroyed.But with the MDMA studies it was later shown that the methods used to asses the brain damage caused by MDMA were wildly inacurate, and infact rather than giving a realistic picture of the damage caused by MDMA, they were infact as we say in the UK 'Complete Bollox'
Note: I am not trying to defend MDMA, I'm just wondering how sound Glenmullen's methods are.
Also I'm Dyslexic so apologies for spelling.
Posted by linkadge on July 6, 2004, at 9:39:22
In reply to Glenmullen - How reliable are his methods?, posted by TheOutsider on July 6, 2004, at 9:11:31
What scares me is the fact that this guy did not publish the serotonin receptor corkscrew article, he was just referencing it. What he is saying is somewhat sound. We know that people who use methamphetamine over time show extensive nerotoxicity why couldn't this extend to other stimulants.
I agree that using SSRI's increases neurogenesis, this is because activating the 5ht1a receptor spurs downstream cell devision. But what this new reserch suggests is that the receptors themselves are getting destroyed. I don't think this is impossible to believe. Perhaps it is just the depression but since being on SSRI's my concentration and grades have slowly plummeted. I don't read books anymore cause I cannot understand what I am reading, my brain buzzes etc. These are symptoms that I never had, even when I was depressed.
I am scared because everybody I know who has discontinued an SSRI after using it 5+ years has had to return to it. Everybody I know who has discontinued and SSRI says that they're just not the same. Perhaps corkscrewed receptors is why some degree of poop out happens to almost all SSRI users.
I don't mean to cause panic but I just don't know how to get better.
Linkadge
Posted by harryp on July 6, 2004, at 10:29:41
In reply to Re: this article scares me, posted by linkadge on July 5, 2004, at 16:52:13
Hi!
To be honest, most SSRI research is questionable.
I wouldn't worry too much about this. You simply can't draw those kinds of conclusions responsibly from one study. Furthermore, MAO is ubiquitous in the body (unless you are taking a MAOI) and amine oxidation must occur all the time in the brain. I'm a little suspicious of his claim that oxidation releases toxic compounds that destroy neurons (I think he means free-radicals, which can do damage, but those are a normal product in the body).
It's possible that inhibiting serotonergic reuptake would increase oxidation (by increasing the enzyme substrate) and yield more free radicals than usual--but basically we'd be seeing lots of brain-damaged people at this point if Prozac were as bad as he suggests.
Posted by zeugma on July 6, 2004, at 10:35:10
In reply to Re: Glenmullen - How reliable are his methods?, posted by linkadge on July 6, 2004, at 9:39:22
> What scares me is the fact that this guy did not publish the serotonin receptor corkscrew article, he was just referencing it. What he is saying is somewhat sound. We know that people who use methamphetamine over time show extensive nerotoxicity why couldn't this extend to other stimulants.
>
> I agree that using SSRI's increases neurogenesis, this is because activating the 5ht1a receptor spurs downstream cell devision. But what this new reserch suggests is that the receptors themselves are getting destroyed. I don't think this is impossible to believe. Perhaps it is just the depression but since being on SSRI's my concentration and grades have slowly plummeted. I don't read books anymore cause I cannot understand what I am reading, my brain buzzes etc. These are symptoms that I never had, even when I was depressed.
>
> I am scared because everybody I know who has discontinued an SSRI after using it 5+ years has had to return to it. Everybody I know who has discontinued and SSRI says that they're just not the same. Perhaps corkscrewed receptors is why some degree of poop out happens to almost all SSRI users.
>
> I don't mean to cause panic but I just don't know how to get better.
>
>
>
>
> Linkadge
>i wonder if clomipramine is as prone to poop-out as SSRI's. It has been around since the '50's and I have not heard any reports of it corkscrewing receptors or anything.
Cheney endorses doxepin, a TCA, on the page linked to his article.
I know the 5-HT system is complicated, and there are fewer metabolic pathways for the degradation of 5-HT than there are for NE. I think that the concomitant use of serotonin antagonists (trazodone, mirtazapine, etc.) probably helps preserve the serotonin/dopamine balance, which is a major theme of Glenmullen's book, and this must be a good thing for serotonin receptors. (Glenmullen doesn't mention this, by the way; he is mostly interested in alarmism.) Buspirone is another option, because it is a serotonin modulator (it either lowers or raises 5-HT levels based on the amount of 5-HT in the system, and also increases DA and NE levels).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by SLS on July 6, 2004, at 12:30:57
In reply to Re: Glenmullen - How reliable are his methods?, posted by zeugma on July 6, 2004, at 10:35:10
Hi.
> i wonder if clomipramine is as prone to poop-out as SSRI's. It has been around since the '50's and I have not heard any reports of it corkscrewing receptors or anything.
Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is corkscrewing receptors?Thanks.
- Scott
Posted by zeugma on July 6, 2004, at 12:33:31
In reply to Re: Glenmullen - How reliable are his methods? » zeugma, posted by SLS on July 6, 2004, at 12:30:57
'corkscrewing receptors' seems to be a colloquialism for the end result of exposing the brain to a good roasting.
Posted by Sad Panda on July 7, 2004, at 2:22:02
In reply to Glenmullen is not credible, posted by Bill LL on July 6, 2004, at 8:39:06
> 2)
> NMHA News Release April 10, 2000
> Contact: Lea Ann Browning McNee
> Phone: (703) 837-4783
> Cell: (301) 461-9351
>
> “Prozac Backlash” Represents a Step Back in Mental Health Treatment
>
> Mental Health Advocates Warn Book May Keep People From Seeking Treatment
>
> ALEXANDRIA, VA (April 10, 2000) The National Mental Health Association today voiced concern over what it called misleading statements in a new book that claims antidepressant medication is over-prescribed and causes serious side effects. The NMHA also expressed concern that the book, Prozac Backlash, could discourage people from seeking treatment.
>
> NMHA's criticism of the book, written by Boston psychiatrist Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., was echoed by two leading psychiatrists, who said that the book's messages were misleading and irresponsible.
>
> "The truth about depression and its treatment is just the opposite of what the book claims," noted Mike Faenza, president and CEO of NMHA. "In fact, clinical depression remains under-diagnosed and under-treated. Although not everyone with depression needs medication, the new generation of depression medication is much safer and more effective than those of the past."
>
> Faenza noted that depression is a very serious health problem for over 19 million Americans, and left untreated can result in years of suffering and even suicide. Only about half of those with the illness seek and receive appropriate treatment, which includes psychotherapy ("talk therapy"), medication or a combination of the two.
>
> Faenza cautioned that the book could have serious consequences if people accept its contents as fact. "Our organization has worked hard over the past decade to raise awareness about depression and the need to get help. We're concerned that people may decide against seeking appropriate treatment for this serious illness after hearing about this book."
>
> A number of leading psychiatric researchers, whose work is cited by the book's author have also been critical of Prozac Backlash. "In cases where Dr. Glenmullen quoted studies published by me, he quotes the work out of context to fit his needs," said Anthony Rothschild, M.D., professor of psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. "This book is misleading, and does a great disservice to people with depression. The very medications that the author claims are overused are, in fact, well studied, closely scrutinized and closely regulated."
>
> "Dr. Glenmullen goes well beyond the published research on the side effects of these newer antidepressant medications, the SSRI's, and into pure speculation," warned Harvey Ruben, MD, MPH, clinical professor at the Department of Psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine. "His messages are an irresponsible deterrent to those seeking help for depression, and border on inflammatory journalism."
>
> The psychiatrists noted that SSRIs and other new medications for depression do have side effects that effect some patients. "This is true for any medication that treats any illness, and patients should always discuss side effects with their doctor," noted Dr. Ruben. "However, it is the overall safety and low incidence of serious side effects with these newer medications that have made them so effective in the treatment of depression."
>
> Both psychiatrists noted that the suffering from depression usually far outweighs the side effects, usually temporary and minimal, of antidepressant medication. They shared the concern of the NMHA that the book's messages could cause people to avoid seeking help for depression, cause those now receiving treatment to discontinue it, or persuade people to use unproven, unregulated treatments including herbal remedies such as St. John's Wort.
>
> "The sad fact is that stigma still surrounds treatment for mental illness," warned Faenza. "And books like this one unfortunately only add to this stigma. The real message about mental illness is one of hope -- that most people can recover with appropriate treatment." In fact, he noted, the U.S. Surgeon General recently released the first-ever Report on Mental Health, which identified mental health and mental illness as a key public health issue, and underscored the effectiveness of mental health treatments and services.
>
> The National Mental Health Association is the country's oldest and largest nonprofit organization addressing all aspects of mental health and mental illness. With more than 340 affiliates nationwide, NMHA works to improve the mental health of all Americans through advocacy, education, research and service.
>
>
>
>
>I think that this NMHA News Release is what I believe in. Cheney's opinion on SSRI's just looks like scare mongering without an actual purpose.
Cheers,
Panda.
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.