Psycho-Babble Medication Thread 679936

Shown: posts 67 to 91 of 107. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs

Posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 11:10:07

In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » bassman, posted by Squiggles on August 29, 2006, at 10:30:05

I'm just saying Ashton's is not a balanced message. I share your distrust of the pharmaceutical companies (I worked in the field for 25 years). I find it somewhat odd that all the benzos used to be the drugs of choice-before they came off patent. Now you can get any benzo you want dirt cheap. Now they are all horrible drugs (my translation: they aren't big money-makers anymore). But if you want Effexor Cymbalta, the new AP's, etc. they are very expensive. And the TCA's were criticized when the SSRI's came along because the TCA’s were "dirty", that is, they hit more than just the serotonin sites-so of course, you want the newer, cleaner SSRI's. Until they went off patent. Now you're told you want Effexor, Cymbalta which are "dirty" like the TCA's were accused of being. I could rant on about Vioxx, etc.-Big Business surely isn’t watching out for our physical and mental health the way it is looking out for its own financial health-and so I think the day of making your own judgment about medications is upon us. Maybe it always was; I really don’t know.

 

Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » bassman

Posted by Squiggles on August 29, 2006, at 11:22:11

In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs, posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 11:10:07

If it is difficult for the professional
pharmacist to ferret out the truth in
this field, you can imagine how difficult
it is for the layman. The only truly
reliable thing the layman has is his or
her own experience with the drug; but
even that becomes a mystery in the fog
of authority and ignorance as any side
effects can be attributed to other causes.

We need more philosophers and logicians
in the field. Think Roche and Glaxo would
be interested in hiring? :-)

Squiggles

 

Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs

Posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 11:22:41

In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » bassman, posted by Squiggles on August 29, 2006, at 10:30:05


Dare I suggest the possibility that the chemists developing drugs and the marketers might not be of same motives?

 

Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs

Posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 12:31:43

In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » bassman, posted by Squiggles on August 29, 2006, at 11:22:11

That's it! Let's start a new field, "Philosophical Pharmaceutical Science". :>} We'd have to have courses like, "PP 101: Why Your Company Shouldn't Make Dangerous Drugs", "PP201: Making Money or Killing People-How to Decide", "PP 301: Why All Moral Ethicists from 12,000 BCE to the Present Were Wrong", "PP 401: Heck, they are Going to Die of Something Anyway", "PP 501: Increasing Market Share by Selling Addictive Drugs", etc.

A person with a degree in PP would, of course demand an unreasonably high salary…

 

Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs

Posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 12:57:18

In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs, posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 11:22:41

Nah; when it comes to the chemists and the other folks that make and screen the drugs. They don't care one way or the other whether a given drug works other than they'd like to be part of a project that yields a drug that is truly helpful to people. That is a wonderful, wonderful feeling. The real problem comes in when the Project Leader for the drug, years after the chemists, et. al. have seen it, spends his time constantly selling what a wonderful drug it is to management. Then, as often happens, the drug turns out to be more toxic or less effective than it was expected to be, but the company has spent $100 million on the drug because Junior said it was super. Now the PL has one of two choices: go into the CEO and say, "the drug we just spent $100 million on, and that I told you was a blockbuster, is a stinker. Let's cut our losses and get rid of it now" OR, "don't believe that last set of data, Boss, you know how [insert favorite excuse here]" Equally, The Boss doesn't want to go in front of the stockholders and say, "you know that drug we said was going to make $4 billion in 2008 and push the stock price through the roof? We gave it to people and they are seeing little purple pigs run around outside the clinic. We take that as a bad sign..."

 

Couldn't agree with you more, Bassman! :o) (nm) » bassman

Posted by Meri-Tuuli on August 29, 2006, at 13:15:29

In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs, posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 12:31:43

 

Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs

Posted by Squiggles on August 29, 2006, at 13:28:35

In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs, posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 12:31:43

> That's it! Let's start a new field, "Philosophical Pharmaceutical Science". :>} We'd have to have courses like, "PP 101: Why Your Company Shouldn't Make Dangerous Drugs", "PP201: Making Money or Killing People-How to Decide", "PP 301: Why All Moral Ethicists from 12,000 BCE to the Present Were Wrong", "PP 401: Heck, they are Going to Die of Something Anyway", "PP 501: Increasing Market Share by Selling Addictive Drugs", etc.
>
> A person with a degree in PP would, of course demand an unreasonably high salary…
>

Hee hee, "The Ministry of Mental Hygiene",
with standards set by BigPharm and applied
by the FDA and other international regulatory health care bodies. Ethicists (logicians,
statisticians, linguists, public health consultants) may contribute to journals edited by The Ministry and supported by grants from The Ministry.


I think we're already there.:=)

Squiggles

 

Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » bassman

Posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 17:35:19

In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs, posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 12:57:18


...it was just an idea! I can't completely believe that they all are thinking on the exact same page, but still-(?) I'm sure there are at least one or two drug developers who have known someone with a mood disorder and have a genuine interest to help out. Just was trying to help contribute to a small postive spin on the matter....lots of "good intentions" go awry, after all. I'm not a fan of "Big Pharmaceutical" either. Something seems "off'.


> Nah; when it comes to the chemists and the other folks that make and screen the drugs. They don't care one way or the other whether a given drug works other than they'd like to be part of a project that yields a drug that is truly helpful to people. That is a wonderful, wonderful feeling. The real problem comes in when the Project Leader for the drug, years after the chemists, et. al. have seen it, spends his time constantly selling what a wonderful drug it is to management. Then, as often happens, the drug turns out to be more toxic or less effective than it was expected to be, but the company has spent $100 million on the drug because Junior said it was super. Now the PL has one of two choices: go into the CEO and say, "the drug we just spent $100 million on, and that I told you was a blockbuster, is a stinker. Let's cut our losses and get rid of it now" OR, "don't believe that last set of data, Boss, you know how [insert favorite excuse here]" Equally, The Boss doesn't want to go in front of the stockholders and say, "you know that drug we said was going to make $4 billion in 2008 and push the stock price through the roof? We gave it to people and they are seeing little purple pigs run around outside the clinic. We take that as a bad sign..."

 

Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » laima

Posted by Squiggles on August 29, 2006, at 17:52:21

In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » bassman, posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 17:35:19

Drug companies are too big, too rich,
too corporate-minded, too removed from
the welfare of the patient, to patronizing
of doctors and health care workers.

I'm afraid of them, but I am also afraid
of not having them as I need the drugs
that they have rightly or wrongly provided.

It's part of the evolution of our present
culture I think -- it reminds me so much
of the movie "Brazil" (apologies to Dr.
Bob for forgetting the double quotes previously).

Squiggles

 

Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » Squiggles

Posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 17:57:12

In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » laima, posted by Squiggles on August 29, 2006, at 17:52:21

It's a shame they are not "nonprofit" organizations.
We'd likely all be much be better off if they were.

> Drug companies are too big, too rich,
> too corporate-minded, too removed from
> the welfare of the patient, to patronizing
> of doctors and health care workers.
>
> I'm afraid of them, but I am also afraid
> of not having them as I need the drugs
> that they have rightly or wrongly provided.
>
> It's part of the evolution of our present
> culture I think -- it reminds me so much
> of the movie "Brazil" (apologies to Dr.
> Bob for forgetting the double quotes previously).
>
> Squiggles

 

Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs

Posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 18:51:00

In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » bassman, posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 17:35:19

Sorry, maybe that wasn't worded right-I meant the scientists aren't going to distort the data; they genuinely WOULD like to help...just about all of them, in my experience. The Big Pharma nonesense just occurs long after the developing chemist is out of the picture-remember, the chemist doesn't know he's synthesizing a psychoactive drug-he finds that out after it has been screened. These days, 100,000 potential drugs might be synthesized a day!

 

Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs

Posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 18:54:33

In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » Squiggles, posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 17:57:12

That's the realm of the true scientist-the guy that wants to develop a drug for one reason: he wants it to work really well, period. But the corporate structure beats the creativity and energy out of the excellent scientist...

 

Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » bassman

Posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 19:16:12

In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs, posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 18:54:33

> That's the realm of the true scientist-the guy that wants to develop a drug for one reason: he wants it to work really well, period. But the corporate structure beats the creativity and energy out of the excellent scientist...

...and that's tragic. But I don't doubt it to be true. That's why I wish pharmaceutical development was exclusively the non-profit territory of only universities and med schools, paid for by govt grants and taxes, perhaps even private donations from philanthropists, for example.

I read a very sad article fairly recently which asserted drugs get developed mostly per problems of "rich" people in "developed countries"-while meanwhile poor and desitute people in places such as parts of Africa and elsewhere die from diseases that no one has any interest in looking for drugs to help cure- thanks to "no profits"-even though they are conditions such as having parasites that seem like they could easily be curable via drug therapy. (Sorry- I can't recall where I read this. NYTimes maybe?.)

And why find a true "cure" anyway, if that would only end your supply of steady customers? Ie, why not keep people "on therapy" indefinately?

It's hard not to feel jaded or cynical, but I'll try.

The pharmacutical industry strikes me as having a very dark side, though I myself and many others depend on it.

 

Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » bassman

Posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 20:39:32

In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs, posted by bassman on August 29, 2006, at 18:51:00


Oh- I might not have been clear- I didn't mean to imply scientists would distort data- though I do think marketers and sales reps often rosey-up, "dumb-down", or oversimplify the facts for the public.

Ie, "depression is a simple chemical imbalance". That is only a "theory" per most doctors I've talked to-maybe true- maybe more likely it's actually a tad more complicated.

> Sorry, maybe that wasn't worded right-I meant the scientists aren't going to distort the data; they genuinely WOULD like to help...just about all of them, in my experience. The Big Pharma nonesense just occurs long after the developing chemist is out of the picture-remember, the chemist doesn't know he's synthesizing a psychoactive drug-he finds that out after it has been screened. These days, 100,000 potential drugs might be synthesized a day!

 

Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » fca

Posted by Phillipa on August 29, 2006, at 21:11:56

In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs, posted by fca on August 28, 2006, at 20:34:39

Yes it does but my thing is that my pdoc had me on valium and I switched on my own. So it made a big difference. Now I have to wean down to the proper dose of valium. No she didn't prescribe K for me an old script I had I was taking. Oh today she said I was a nervous wreck and added xanax. She 's into addictions and has no problem with benzos. She's very old and agrees they have a good track record for no permanent damage to any organs. Just take as prescirbed.. Bad me. Love Phillipa

 

Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » laima

Posted by Meri-Tuuli on August 30, 2006, at 4:41:43

In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs » bassman, posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 19:16:12


> I read a very sad article fairly recently which asserted drugs get developed mostly per problems (Sorry- I cof "rich" people in "developed countries"-while meanwhile poor and desitute people in places such as parts of Africa and elsewhere die from diseases that no one has any interest in looking for drugs to help cure- thanks to "no profits"-even though they are conditions such as having parasites that seem like they could easily be curable via drug therapy.

Oh yes I've read alot of similar stuff. Its like 95% of drug company research money etc goes into drugs for 'rich' countries and then its usually stuff that we don't *really* need like cold remedies and things like that.

Kind regards

Meri

 

Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs

Posted by notfred on August 30, 2006, at 21:24:11

In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs, posted by bassman on August 28, 2006, at 13:19:48

I've never become tolerant of any benzo I've taken except Ativan


Same here, mostly Ativan for over 20 years. I have never had to increase the dose. I became tolerant to the euphoria quite quickly but otherwise 1 mg Ativan is effective today as it
was decades ago. Some days I take none, some days 1 and some days 2.

 

Clonazepam dosing » notfred

Posted by Squiggles on August 31, 2006, at 7:15:52

In reply to Re: Psychopharmacology of addicting drugs, posted by notfred on August 30, 2006, at 21:24:11

> I've never become tolerant of any benzo I've taken except Ativan
>
>
> Same here, mostly Ativan for over 20 years. I have never had to increase the dose. I became tolerant to the euphoria quite quickly but otherwise 1 mg Ativan is effective today as it
> was decades ago. Some days I take none, some days 1 and some days 2.


Well, i'll be darned; i am mystified;i thought at least only clonazepam belonged in an interface
between benzodiazepines and anti-convulsants.

Does anybody know what is going on? Is it
possible that taking the benzo EVERY single
day makes the difference in addiction?

Squiggles

 

Re: Clonazepam dosing » Squiggles

Posted by Phillipa on August 31, 2006, at 18:23:31

In reply to Clonazepam dosing » notfred, posted by Squiggles on August 31, 2006, at 7:15:52

This thread is so long I've forgotten a lot of it but Squiggles did you say you had to up your dose? I thought you were just asking if that's what happens over time. If a person is an abuser he /she will probably want some type of high. I'd think then they'd choose alchohol, cocaine, or another illegal substance? Love Phillipa

 

Re: Clonazepam dosing » Phillipa

Posted by Squiggles on August 31, 2006, at 19:51:37

In reply to Re: Clonazepam dosing » Squiggles, posted by Phillipa on August 31, 2006, at 18:23:31

> This thread is so long I've forgotten a lot of it but Squiggles did you say you had to up your dose? I thought you were just asking if that's what happens over time. If a person is an abuser he /she will probably want some type of high. I'd think then they'd choose alchohol, cocaine, or another illegal substance? Love Phillipa

No! I don't want to raise my dose; the first
time my dr. raised the dose, i put up a fuss;
but he saw something i did not i guess.

No-- my question is why do other benzos
require an increase at shorter intervals,
because of tolerance, and clonazepam does
not? Was there a change in the chemical
structure of clonazepam -- it's just strange
that it is so unique in this sense.

Squiggles

 

Re: Clonazepam dosing » Squiggles

Posted by Phillipa on August 31, 2006, at 20:12:15

In reply to Re: Clonazepam dosing » Phillipa, posted by Squiggles on August 31, 2006, at 19:51:37

Thanks, I think valium is the same? Love Phillipa again.

 

Re: Clonazepam dosing

Posted by notfred on September 1, 2006, at 14:29:09

In reply to Clonazepam dosing » notfred, posted by Squiggles on August 31, 2006, at 7:15:52


>
> Does anybody know what is going on? Is it
> possible that taking the benzo EVERY single
> day makes the difference in addiction?
>
> Squiggles
>


Yes, addiction and dependance are worlds a part; they are no where near the same thing.

Everyone will become dependent to some degree
if they take benzos every day for an extended period. If I take Atavin for maybe a month every day I become dependant, though mild. It is not an issue unless I am stupid and go cold turkey.

Addiction is perhaps the difference between someone who has 2 beers every night and and an
alcoholic.

Addiction always carries serious negative consequences. Despite these serious consequences
the drug/meds use continue and increases.

You might want to do some google searches on this, ie "Addiction vs Dependance" as there is lots of info on what the difference between them.

 

Re: Clonazepam dosing

Posted by bassman on September 1, 2006, at 14:50:12

In reply to Re: Clonazepam dosing, posted by notfred on September 1, 2006, at 14:29:09

Exactly. We all become dependent on benzos in the same sense that a diabetic is dependent on insulin...stop taking them abruptly and you'll be very uncomfortable. Addiction is active drug-seeking behavior. Good idea to search it if unclear about the difference. As I mentioned before, I'm surprised about trouble withdrawing from Klonopin...in fact it is the benzo docs in the US often have a person switch to from other benzos before withdrawing. I find particularly easy to withdraw from...

 

Re: Clonazepam dosing » bassman

Posted by Squiggles on September 1, 2006, at 16:31:47

In reply to Re: Clonazepam dosing, posted by bassman on September 1, 2006, at 14:50:12

The discussion is starting to get circular;
i feel that i am taking up too much time
on this recurring subject. I have my ideas
about the linguistic distinction you make,
and I do not think that your perspective,
possibly shared by social workers, correlates with
biochemistry-- which is where it's at.

So bring on the chemists, if you want
another round. :-)

Squiggles

 

Re: Clonazepam dosing » Squiggles

Posted by Squiggles on September 1, 2006, at 17:11:34

In reply to Re: Clonazepam dosing » bassman, posted by Squiggles on September 1, 2006, at 16:31:47

On second thought, let's put
the whole thing in vitro :-).

Bye

Squiggles


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.