Guest guest Posted April 9, 2000 Report Share Posted April 9, 2000 Thank you for passing this information on....Kristi At 10:15 AM 4/8/00 -0400, you wrote: >I am resending this post due to previous formatting problems. This >information is important and might be very useful for some people. Please >share. El has done some very fine work in exploring the area of mental and >physical health and the Kundalini phenomena. She can be contacted at the >address given below. > >Harsha > >Fri, 7 Apr 2000 21:26:16 EDT > ckress >Antidepressant expose' > >I've just finished reading "Prozac Backlash" by Joseph Glenmullen, M.D. -- >an >expose' of the booming antidepressant industry which currently is raking in >more than $4 billion a year from the American sales of Prozac, Zoloft and >Paxil alone. The book focuses on these and other SSRI drugs (Luvox, Celexa) >as well as Wellbutrin, Effexor, Serzone and Remeron. > >There is no current way of measuring serotonin levels in the brain, and even >if there were, the prevailing concept of a brain "chemical imbalance" which >is supposed to be corrected by SSRI or other drugs is pure speculation which >has never been scientifically proven. The author compares it to saying that >someone whose headache has been relieved by aspirin has an aspirin >deficiency. He says, "The truth of the matter is: No one has anything but >the vaguest idea of the chemical effects of these drugs on the living human >brain." > >The pharmaceutical industry is engaging in every bit as much a >profit-driven, >damn-the-health-consequences cover-up as the tobacco companies. They use >their political clout and $$$ to suppress research results and censor >mainstream media coverage of the facts so even most doctors are in the dark >about the real nature of the drugs they are prescribing by the ton. > >At the turn of century, Glenmullen says that medicine promoted then-legal >cocaine elixirs for everything from depression to shyness. These were >followed by prescription amphetamines, barbiturates, narcotics and >tranquilizers, "all hailed as miracle cures" in their day until their >dangerous side effects became widely evident. Each of these drugs was >initially "aggressively marketed with claims that they are revolutionary >breakthroughs, remarkable scientific advances over their predecessors." > >Modern drug advocates and pharmaceutical companies insist that SSRIs are >non-addictive -- the same thing which was said about cocaine and >amphetamines >when they were prescription antidepressants. Cocaine resembles the Prozac >group in that it is primarily a reuptake inhibitor. According to the >author, >cocaine, amphetamines, diet pills (like Redux), the illegal drug Ecstasy, >and >the SSRI's and other antidepressant group are all related because they >target >brain cells and boost the levels of neurotransmitters. Redux, which was >taken off the market after numerous deaths, is closely related to Prozac and >the other SSRI's: they all elevate serotonin. Redux was promoted as a >weight >loss drug, since high brain levels of serotonin are known to reduce >appetite. > (This same effect has been found in all the SSRI antidepressants, although >long term use strangely has the opposite effect of causing weight gain!) > >Glenmullen says "the term 'antidepressant' is virtually meaningless and >seriously misleading." These drugs are nothing more than prescription >stimulants. By current protocols used by drug manufacturers, the author >says >that almost any stimulating drug would pass as an antidepressant, including >caffeine pills and nicotine. Patients who are former amphetamine or cocaine >addicts have reported that the effects of their SSRI antidepressant >medication feels like "mild versions" of street drugs. (In fact, the most >popular illegal use of these prescription drugs is snorting or intravenously >shooting up powdered quantities of Prozac or Wellbutrin.) > >The author quotes another doctor/author, Lester Grinspoon, whose 1975 book >"The Speed Culture" seems prophetic. Wrote Grinspoon, "Drug companies will >probably continue to produce increasingly sophisticated and disguised >amphetamines, and these 'new' drugs undoubtedly will be greeted with initial >enthusiasm by the medical establishment until it is recognized that any drug >with amphetamine-like central nervous system stimulating properties almost >invariably is just as toxic, potentially addictive, and therapeutically >limited as Benzedrine or Dexedrine. Only the medical jargon describing the >alleged 'diseases' has become more sophisticated." > >The required FDA clinical tests for antidepressants can be as short as 4 >weeks, although typically the studies last 6-8 weeks... yet many drug side >effects do not show up until much longer, especially for drugs used >continuously for months or years! Once a drug has been FDA approved, only >about 1% of serious side effects are ever reported and even then, the FDA >only has a staff of 5 doctors and 1 epidemiologist to review the more than >3,000 drugs already on the market. > >The author says that in addition to common SSRI side effects such as feeling >nervous, jittery, having trouble sleeping, mental fuzziness, memory loss, >etc., there are potentially serious long term effects. These include >extreme >withdrawal syndromes (which effect up to 50% of patients); sexual >dysfunction >(effecting 60% of patients); neurological disorders and brain damage; and >suicidal and violent behavior reactions. > >There has been concern that the emotional blunting and apathy reported by >some patients on SSRIs may be the result of damage to their frontal lobes - >a >chemical lobotomy. Neuroleptic drugs which have a similar effect on brain >chemistry have long been suspected of causing cognitive deficits and >impairment of intellectual functioning. Studies of monkey brains after 4 >days of exposure to Redux showed widespread destruction of the branches of >serotonin cells. There is a concern that SSRI type drugs may increase the >incidence of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's. > >Cocaine and amphetamines boost all three of the brain's "feel good" >neurotransmitters: serotonin, adrenaline and dopamine. (Nicotine also >increases dopamine brain levels.) SSRI's only increase the serotonin. But >raising brain levels of serotonin DECREASES dopamine levels. Many of the >adverse effects of the SSRIs are direct results of the drop in dopamine. >The >most serious of these are similar to Parkinson's disease, which is also a >result of brain dopamine deficiencies. The same kind of drug induced >neurotoxic effects has been long known with the major antipsychotic drugs as >"tardive dyskinesia." The patient develops tics, muscle spasms, and >abnormal, repetitive movements of the mouth, tongue, jaw and sometimes >jerking movements of the limbs. These "tics" can lead to swinging or >flailing of the arms, twisting or writhing of the hands, and other >uncontrollable bodily movements. This can be a seriously disabling >condition >and may become worse after medication is discontinued. In about half the >cases, the tics and strange movements slowly disappear after stopping the >drugs; in the rest, the damage is permanent. In severe cases, there is loss >of motor control as well as agitation and muscle spasms. > >(For those with active Kundalini, the tardive dsykinesia symptoms of brain >damage can resemble kriyas which occur during meditation or during sleep. >According to Glenmullen, td symptoms usually disappear during sleep -- the >opposite of kriyas. And Peter Breggin says that td is worse when the >patient >tries to perform physical tasks, while kriyas usually do not cause >interference with normal activities, like trying to walk or pick up >objects.) > >Some of the well known withdrawal symptoms from nicotine are the result of >a >sudden plummet in dopamine: extreme irritation, rage attacks, anxiety, >feeling generally spastic, memory lapses and mental fuzziness, etc. These >are also known side effects of SSRIs. Wellbutrin (also known as Zyban) is >one of the few antidepressants which help smokers quit because it isn't a >SSRI; instead, it raises brain levels of dopamine. Dopamine is a mental and >sexual stimulant. Historically, drugs that raise dopamine tend to be more >stimulating and more addicting than drugs than only raise adrenaline or >serotonin. Ritalin falls into this category (given to children!). While >all >the antidepressants are known to have withdrawal effects, Wellbutrin has >proven to be one of the most difficult from which to wean patients! > >Glenmullen backs up his information in the "Notes" section at the end of his >book: 35 pages of references to research published in scientific and medical >journals. If anyone is interested in more info on this subject, I recommend >Peter Breggin's book, "Toxic Psychiatry." There is additional info in an >article about the dangers of these kinds of medications in Shared >Transformation (back issue #9) which is still available on our site at >http://members.aol.com/ckress/newslet.html > >El > > >// > > > > >------ >LOW RATE, NO WAIT! >Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates >as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. >Learn more at: >http://click./1/937/5/_/520931/_/955203320/ >------ > >// > >All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. > >To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at > www., and select the User Center link from the menu bar > on the left. This menu will also let you change your subscription > between digest and normal mode. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2000 Report Share Posted April 9, 2000 On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 21:54:51 -0700 Kristie Shelloner <orleans writes: > Thank you for passing this information on....Kristi > > At 10:15 AM 4/8/00 -0400, you wrote: > >I am resending this post due to previous formatting problems. This > >information is important and might be very useful for some people. > Please > >share. El has done some very fine work in exploring the area of > mental and > >physical health and the Kundalini phenomena. She can be contacted > at the > >address given below. > > > >Harsha > > > >Fri, 7 Apr 2000 21:26:16 EDT > > ckress > >Antidepressant expose' > > > >I've just finished reading "Prozac Backlash" by Joseph Glenmullen, > M.D. -- > >an > >expose' of the booming antidepressant industry which currently is > raking in > >more than $4 billion a year from the American sales of Prozac, > Zoloft and > >Paxil alone. The book focuses on these and other SSRI drugs > (Luvox, Celexa) > >as well as Wellbutrin, Effexor, Serzone and Remeron. > > > >There is no current way of measuring serotonin levels in the brain, > and even > >if there were, the prevailing concept of a brain "chemical > imbalance" which > >is supposed to be corrected by SSRI or other drugs is pure > speculation which > >has never been scientifically proven. Except that SSRIs work where nothing else has even come close to working. Lots of pharmaceuticals work without having been "scientifically proven," including such standbys as aspirin. > The author compares it to saying that > >someone whose headache has been relieved by aspirin has an aspirin > >deficiency. This is a bad analogy from a fool with an medical degree. If SSRIs actualy contained seratonin (the aspirin analogue in question) it would make sense, as it is it's just woefully imprecise, hyperbolic prose. > He says, "The truth of the matter is: No one has anything but > >the vaguest idea of the chemical effects of these drugs on the > living human brain." Except that long clinical experience has shown great effectiveness with only minor side effects. I agree that the theoretical underpinnings of this success comprise educated guesswork and don't doubt that the drugs themselves are overprescibed, however. > > > >The pharmaceutical industry is engaging in every bit as much a > >profit-driven, > >damn-the-health-consequences cover-up as the tobacco companies. More hyperbole. The drug companies are *certainly* "profit-driven," but nothing even approaching the (admittedly flawed) FDA approval process was ever applied to tobacco. Does the author cite any widespread and significant health deficits to SSRI use in the treatment of actual clinical depression? > They use > >their political clout and $$$ to suppress research results and > censor > >mainstream media coverage of the facts so even most doctors are in > the dark > >about the real nature of the drugs they are prescribing by the ton. This requires much more than a ringing declaration to be credible. The patent system makes chemically synthesized, "invented" drugs immensely profitable and both naturally occurring substances and non-drug treatments much less so. This is the real problem -- herbal and outright non-medical approaches are getting the short end of the capitalist stick. > > > >At the turn of century, Glenmullen says that medicine promoted > then-legal > >cocaine elixirs for everything from depression to shyness. These > were > >followed by prescription amphetamines, barbiturates, narcotics and > >tranquilizers, "all hailed as miracle cures" in their day until > their > >dangerous side effects became widely evident. Each of these drugs > was > >initially "aggressively marketed with claims that they are > revolutionary > >breakthroughs, remarkable scientific advances over their > predecessors." The thing is, all the dangers of all the cited substances became well-known fairly soon after their introduction into the marketplace. If there actually are serious side effects to SSRIs, they too will show up soon or be seen for the hyperbolic scare tactics they may well be. > > > >Modern drug advocates and pharmaceutical companies insist that > SSRIs are > >non-addictive -- the same thing which was said about cocaine and > >amphetamines > >when they were prescription antidepressants. Cocaine resembles the > Prozac > >group in that it is primarily a reuptake inhibitor. According to > the > >author, > >cocaine, amphetamines, diet pills (like Redux), the illegal drug > Ecstasy, > >and > >the SSRI's and other antidepressant group are all related because > they > >target > >brain cells and boost the levels of neurotransmitters. Redux, > which was > >taken off the market after numerous deaths, is closely related to > Prozac and >the other SSRI's: they all elevate serotonin. Wait a minute, didn't you write previously that there is no way to measure seratonin and therefore we really don't know the actual brain chemistry behind the efficacy of SSRIs? The author can't have it both ways and seems to be fear mongering from both sides of the fence! > Redux was promoted as a weight > >loss drug, since high brain levels of serotonin are known to reduce > >appetite. > > (This same effect has been found in all the SSRI antidepressants, > although > >long term use strangely has the opposite effect of causing weight > gain!) Some SSRIs increase appetite, but there is no clear evidence that this is related to seratonin levels, since other SSRIs do not have this effect. > > > >Glenmullen says "the term 'antidepressant' is virtually meaningless > and >seriously misleading." These drugs are nothing more than > prescription > >stimulants. That's apparently the treatment that serious clinical depression requires -- the nut to crack is how to provide what amounts to stimulation in a way that closely replicates the functioning of a so-called normal, non-depressive person. SSRIs are an attempt to accomplish that and there is no serious contention that they approach that goal much more closely than any other extant remedy. > By current protocols used by drug manufacturers, the author says > >that almost any stimulating drug would pass as an antidepressant, > including > >caffeine pills and nicotine. Sure, but SSRIs' effects are much closer to the goal of creating the "normal," undepressed perceptual state -- the patient is not "hopped up" so much as "cleared up" perceptually. > >Patients who are former amphetamine or cocaine > >addicts have reported that the effects of their SSRI antidepressant > >medication feels like "mild versions" of street drugs. (In fact, > the most > >popular illegal use of these prescription drugs is snorting or > intravenously > >shooting up powdered quantities of Prozac or Wellbutrin.) More hyperbole. There is no evidence of a substantial street market for SSRIs. > > > >The author quotes another doctor/author, Lester Grinspoon, whose > 1975 book > >"The Speed Culture" seems prophetic. Wrote Grinspoon, "Drug > companies will > >probably continue to produce increasingly sophisticated and > disguised > >amphetamines, and these 'new' drugs undoubtedly will be greeted > with initial > >enthusiasm by the medical establishment until it is recognized that > any drug > >with amphetamine-like central nervous system stimulating properties > >almost invariably is just as toxic, potentially addictive, and > therapeutically > >limited as Benzedrine or Dexedrine. Only the medical jargon > describing the alleged 'diseases' has become more sophisticated." SSRIs *obviously* work via an entirely different mechanism than amphetamines and do not introduce an artificial chemical stimulant into the brain, they (supposedly) alter the levels of an already extant, naturally produced brain chemical. *Nobody* has amphetamine in their bodies naturally, *everyone* has seratonin naturally. Once again, the hyperbolic author has proferred a very bad analogy. > > > >The required FDA clinical tests for antidepressants can be as short > as 4 > >weeks, although typically the studies last 6-8 weeks... yet many > drug side > >effects do not show up until much longer, especially for drugs used > >continuously for months or years! Once a drug has been FDA > approved, only > >about 1% of serious side effects are ever reported and even then, > the FDA > >only has a staff of 5 doctors and 1 epidemiologist to review the > more than 3,000 drugs already on the market. The shortcomings of the FDA are whole other topic. > > > >The author says that in addition to common SSRI side effects such > as feeling > >nervous, jittery, having trouble sleeping, mental fuzziness, memory > loss, > >etc., there are potentially serious long term effects. These > include > >extreme withdrawal syndromes (which effect up to 50% of patients); How does one separate so- called "extreme withdrawal syndromes" from the reoccurence of depression itself in the absence of the SSRI's effect? > >sexual dysfunction > >(effecting 60% of patients); Newer SSRI's don't have this effect at all -- and, for someone with serious depression, it's often a more than acceptable tradeoff to be less randy if the depression is alleviated. > neurological disorders and brain > damage; and suicidal and violent behavior reactions. There is no evidence of any of this being directly attributable to SSRI use as prescribed that I'm aware of -- does the author provide anything beyond the vague and/or anecdotal to support this assertion? > > > >There has been concern that the emotional blunting and apathy > reported by > >some patients on SSRIs may be the result of damage to their frontal > lobes - a chemical lobotomy. A concern, but is there any evidence? This is even vaguer than the previous assertions! > Neuroleptic drugs which have a similar effect on brain > >chemistry have long been suspected of causing cognitive deficits > and > >impairment of intellectual functioning. Studies of monkey brains > after 4 > >days of exposure to Redux showed widespread destruction of the > branches of > >serotonin cells. There is a concern that SSRI type drugs may > increase the > >incidence of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's. Who exactly is concerned? > > > >Cocaine and amphetamines boost all three of the brain's "feel good" > >neurotransmitters: serotonin, adrenaline and dopamine. (Nicotine > also > >increases dopamine brain levels.) SSRI's only increase the > serotonin. But > >raising brain levels of serotonin DECREASES dopamine levels. Many > of the > >adverse effects of the SSRIs are direct results of the drop in > dopamine. More speculation. [snip] What concerns me much more than the shortcomings of modern drugs is the "more organic than thou" attitude that pervades many so-called "spiritual" and "New Age" circles. Properly diagnosed clinical depression, despite the denials of psychotherapy diehards, is more often than not completely intractable without medical intervention. Having seen a close relative suffer *tremendously* from pre- SSRI therapies involving ineffective talk therapy, amphetamines with near- psychotic side effects, and finally a course of electroshock that alleviated the depression at an immense perceptual cost to the patient, I for one an glad that SSRIs are available! http://come.to/realization http://www.atman.net/realization http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm ______________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2000 Report Share Posted April 9, 2000 Kristie Shelloner wrote: > Thank you for passing this information on....Kristi Thanks Kristi. Given below is a letter from Tim Gerchmez worth reading. He echoes what Linda said earlier about our being flexible in our thinking and views. Love Harsha > > Dear Harsha, > > That was a very interesting letter, and should be a sign to all that drugs > are no panacea. However, the SSRI antidepressants can be temporarily > helpful to those who are deeply depressed or suffering from panic disorder, > and are not responding to conventional treatments. To regard them as a > "panacea" is dangerous - but to regard them as dangerous and to be avoided > may also be unwise. > > As in all "anti-chemical rants" I've read, there is some misinformation > contained in the post. I won't go into it, because I don't care enough. > There is much truth mixed with some exaggeration and misinformation. > Likewise in the "anti-Nutrasweet" literature. > > These medications (SSRI Antidepressants) are not panaceas, not miracles, > and not permanent cures for anything. They are tools, more or less > effective depending on the body they are administered to. In the hands of > the wise, they can be of benefit. In the hands of the foolish, they can be > destructive. > > Someone with acute, chronic, severe depression who is considering suicide > might be helped by these drugs, and such letters may scare such a person > away from trying. But on the other hand, those with mild depressions are > also being freely prescribed the SSRI's these days, probably to no good > effect. A sense of balance is needed. > > Above all, I think the thing to remember is never to view the doctor or > psychiatrist as a God, and to participate in your own treatment. If your > doctor will not work with you closely in trying out and/or managing and > maintaining a medication, then abandon that doctor and find a new one. The > full participation and consent of the patient is crucial. Educate yourself > thoroughly before trying a chemical that may be harmful! Weigh the > potential risks and potential benefits. > > All drugs have potential for great harm and for great help. Tremendous > wisdom, compassion and intelligence is necessary in deciding whether or not > to use a prescription drug. There are no panaceas and no simple answers in > this area. > > Hari OM, > > Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2000 Report Share Posted April 9, 2000 On Sun, 9 Apr 2000 14:49:53 EDT Rainbolily writes: > In a message dated 04/09/2000 1:14:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > editor writes: > > << > > neurological disorders and brain > > damage; and suicidal and violent behavior reactions. > > There is no evidence of > any of this being directly > attributable to SSRI use as > prescribed that I'm aware > of -- does the author > provide anything beyond > the vague and/or > anecdotal to support this > assertion? >> > > This is hitting mainstream press rather rapidly and the next > time i run across an article, I will post it. Anecdotal, by the > way is the only *evidence* that anyone on either side of > this debate has. The drugs are as speculative as the > *diagnosis*, no matter what the prescription on either side > may be. > The key point is that depressive folks (and I'm not talking about mildly "blue" here) have very few options -- talk therapy is still touted but honest practitioners admit it seldom works at all, and previous drugs are much worse in terms of side effects than even the early SSRIs. http://come.to/realization http://www.atman.net/realization http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm ______________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2000 Report Share Posted April 9, 2000 In a message dated 04/09/2000 1:14:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, editor writes: << More hyperbole. The drug companies are *certainly* "profit-driven," but nothing even approaching the (admittedly flawed) FDA approval process was ever applied to tobacco. Does the author cite any widespread and significant health deficits to SSRI use in the treatment of actual clinical depression? >> Bruce, you've put your finger exactly on the problem. There is no funding available for discovering health deficits. Mike, do you think your colleagues on the medical faculty are going to take their precious access to grant funding and prove against the grantors? Thank you very much for your warm support Dharma, Jan and Glo, especially :-). Jan, I took the same path as you, my own independent study, which had me deep into university work in the 8th grade, when people can only speak 300 words a minute and one is reading many times that level, school is a boredom that is extremely painful, unless one is allowed to go on, at one's own pace. I am very much for the support of deep research into neurochemistry. It would be difficult for anyone to do this without Ph.D.s in both neurochemistry and electrical engineering as the brain is working on very delicate electrical impulses, as you who are physicians, may know. One of the issues would be that a physician is only required to have one course lasting one semester in biochemistry. I am also very supportive of appropriate medication. But the issue is that this is a ballet, an exceptionally finely tuned instrument, one requiring deep concern, gentleness, patience and usually far more counseling than is currently provided. One example, my son is exceptionally intuitive. The day of the shooting at Littleton, when I picked him up from kindergarten, he was bouncing off the wall. Neither his teacher, nor I, knew of the shootings yet, nor could we account for his outrageous behavior that day. Nicolas climbed into the car and cried with tears in his eyes, "Mom, why are children shooting each other?" Additionally, he was physically bouncing around the car, almost out of control. I asked the teacher, "what is he talking about?" She had no idea and was completely exasperrated, ready to send him to time out for the entire day. It wasn't until I arrived home, fed him, tried to calm him, turned on the computer and just about passed out seeing the news. Nicolas had picked up what none of us knew yet. Your average physician or psychiatrist would have had him on wellbutrin or another antipsychotic. Instead what he needed was very deep conversation, empathy, understanding and yogic exercises that I do with him about floating in water, and healing the energy in his heart chakra when he feels such deep wounds. If I went and told his teachers they would think I was nuts. His physician and the therapist I've brought him to, both understand. I am sure there are many children who are born intuitive. Perhaps, almost all children are born intuitive. But it is shut down by "white lies" and secrets that adults think children cannot handle the truth, or they are denied the truth, or they are not sufficiently paid attention to and ignored. I guess the only path is that each one of us becomes as aware as possible and so encourages the collective consciousness in awareness. Dharma, thank you very much for Campbell's material, I loved it and am currently reading "Mythic Astrology" by Ariel Guttman, the astrologer who began the work on locational astrology with Jim Lewis, before his death. Ariel does miss the Sumerian roots, which is unfortunate, because this is where East meets West. For example, Neptune, was originally Nu, (in the Taurean Age) a Sumerian Goddess - with ties to Eastern Goddess - of the Ocean before she was transformed into a male God in the ages of Aries and Pisces. Love*LIght*Laughter, Annette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2000 Report Share Posted April 9, 2000 In a message dated 04/09/2000 1:14:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, editor writes: << > neurological disorders and brain > damage; and suicidal and violent behavior reactions. There is no evidence of any of this being directly attributable to SSRI use as prescribed that I'm aware of -- does the author provide anything beyond the vague and/or anecdotal to support this assertion? >> This is hitting mainstream press rather rapidly and the next time i run across an article, I will post it. Anecdotal, by the way is the only *evidence* that anyone on either side of this debate has. The drugs are as speculative as the *diagnosis*, no matter what the prescription on either side may be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2000 Report Share Posted April 9, 2000 In a message dated 04/09/2000 3:05:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, editor writes: << The key point is that depressive folks (and I'm not talking about mildly "blue" here) have very few options -- talk therapy is still touted but honest practitioners admit it seldom works at all, and previous drugs are much worse in terms of side effects than even the early SSRIs. >> Bruce, you made some very valid points, later in your email which I hadn't read yet, such as herbal remedies, and other remedies which have no support for funding or research. The problem with the side effects is that it takes years for them to show up. For example, Qualudes, like alcohol, eliminate the natural barriers to violence in the brain. So, over time, barbituate addicts show an increased level of violent activity. This is beginning to show in antidepressant drugs, and unfortunately, the only truly valid research is happening *live* with real humans as the test subjects, as I'm sure you know. I am sure that everyone is working diligently to find methodology which can uncover valid scientific conclusions without using human beings as guinea pigs, or perhaps they are not? And, this is where I think we should really stand. Asking the pharmaceutical companies to find other avenues for research, other than providing *free* samples to phsycians, through their extremely well paid sales force. Unfortunately, the analogy that comes to mind is "would you like some candy, my pretty?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2000 Report Share Posted April 9, 2000 Dear Harsha: SSRI's have been a mixed blessing in my life. At one point, taking them, lifted a depression that I did not even realize I suffered from. I just thought living that way was normal! They opened a window for me to see what life could be like. But, I did not like the side effects...While I did not miss the depression or anxiety, I did miss the capacity for tenderness and empathy....which seemed to diminish along with the suffering.I also couldn't afford to be dependent on medication that is expensive. So, for a number of reasons I decided to look at other ways to "find" that "normalcy" and maintain it in my life. What you believe you make true for yourself....and I found a number of ACIM principles valuable in addressing the source and cause of some existential despair, for lack of a better phrase, that I protected for dear life. I'm happy to say, that meditation and changing my mind about a number of ideas that I had about life and being seems to have left that window permanently open for me. I am grateful to SSRI's for showing me that view and I am glad that I was able to move into the vista without them. Good information in the post neverhteless. Love, Kristi At 08:44 AM 4/9/00 -0400, you wrote: >Kristie Shelloner wrote: > >> Thank you for passing this information on....Kristi > >Thanks Kristi. Given below is a letter from Tim Gerchmez worth reading. He echoes what Linda said earlier about our being flexible in our thinking and views. > >Love >Harsha > >> >> Dear Harsha, >> >> That was a very interesting letter, and should be a sign to all that drugs >> are no panacea. However, the SSRI antidepressants can be temporarily >> helpful to those who are deeply depressed or suffering from panic disorder, >> and are not responding to conventional treatments. To regard them as a >> "panacea" is dangerous - but to regard them as dangerous and to be avoided >> may also be unwise. >> >> As in all "anti-chemical rants" I've read, there is some misinformation >> contained in the post. I won't go into it, because I don't care enough. >> There is much truth mixed with some exaggeration and misinformation. >> Likewise in the "anti-Nutrasweet" literature. >> >> These medications (SSRI Antidepressants) are not panaceas, not miracles, >> and not permanent cures for anything. They are tools, more or less >> effective depending on the body they are administered to. In the hands of >> the wise, they can be of benefit. In the hands of the foolish, they can be >> destructive. >> >> Someone with acute, chronic, severe depression who is considering suicide >> might be helped by these drugs, and such letters may scare such a person >> away from trying. But on the other hand, those with mild depressions are >> also being freely prescribed the SSRI's these days, probably to no good >> effect. A sense of balance is needed. >> >> Above all, I think the thing to remember is never to view the doctor or >> psychiatrist as a God, and to participate in your own treatment. If your >> doctor will not work with you closely in trying out and/or managing and >> maintaining a medication, then abandon that doctor and find a new one. The >> full participation and consent of the patient is crucial. Educate yourself >> thoroughly before trying a chemical that may be harmful! Weigh the >> potential risks and potential benefits. >> >> All drugs have potential for great harm and for great help. Tremendous >> wisdom, compassion and intelligence is necessary in deciding whether or not >> to use a prescription drug. There are no panaceas and no simple answers in >> this area. >> >> Hari OM, >> >> Tim > > >------ >GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 2.9% >Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! >http://click./1/936/5/_/520931/_/955284266/ >------ > >// > >All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. > >To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at > www., and select the User Center link from the menu bar > on the left. This menu will also let you change your subscription > between digest and normal mode. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2000 Report Share Posted April 9, 2000 Annette writes: >Mike, do you think your colleagues on the medical faculty >are going to take their precious access to grant funding and >prove against the grantors? For the most part, the researchers (principle investigators of studies) that I have worked with have been straightforward, honest people who seem very committed to *science.* While I do not doubt that (consciously or unconsciously) they do have some bias toward the medication marketed by the company funding their research, I do not believe that the researchers that I know are the type of people who would falsify data or overlook side effects or negative outcomes solely for the purpose of making a buck (or even keeping their research funding going). Of course, I could be naive or a poor judge of character, but these are not observations about me that others have made and then shared with me (and I am blessed with friends who don't hesitate to point out my many other shortcomings). Also, I have only dealt on a personal level with researchers from two medical schools, so I can't generalize. However, given my experiences I think it unlikely that serious problems with SSRI's have been repressed on a widespread scale. but thanks for asking- Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.