Anti-Depressants May Do More Harm Than Good

[Left Leanings]

Look at this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2134863/Anti-depressants-harm-good.html

I am at least critical of, if not anti-, psychiatry.

A team from McMaster University, have been assessing the impact of anti-depressants on a person's whole body. Health problems can lead to premature death, and the formation of blood clots.

It has long been maintained also, that these drugs can induce suicidal thoughts in some patients.

From my own reading, I have learned that since the advent of anti-depressant medications in America in the 1950s, the recovery rate from depressive illness, has been 70 per cent. But American textbooks of psychiatry predating the meds, indicates the spontaneous rate of recovery from depression was between 70 to 80 per cent.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

It´s not that simple.
There are a lot of different medication out there, not just becuse the pharma- industry seeks profits. Different persons respond differently to each drug/medication, as well as depression and other mental illnesses having different variations and scales. Anti-depressives have saved a lot of lives and they have certainly made my own better. But of course, all drugs/medication have some negative side effects. I don´t consider drugs to be the best treatment for mental health problems, but it´s a convienient/efficient way for the (underfunded psychiatric health) system to deal with people in that way.

[Left Leanings]

Fair comment.

But how do you explain the disparities in recovery rates?

Fact is, most peeps when they take psychiatric medications, undergo other changes in their lives. Such as: being given the 'sick role', where they take time off work; having psychological therapy ('talking treatments); associating with other people in the same circumstances as thmselves, realizing they are not alone. The very fact that their issues are being addressed, and that they are facing up to it, with the help of others, can go a long, long way to alieviating the symptoms of depression.

There is still no chemical test to indentify a biochemical cause to depression. Yet chemical treatments are applied. No doctor would diagnose diabetes and prescribe insulin, without taking a blood test first.

I think there needs to be much less emphasis on the medical model for addressing 'depressive illness', and more regard paid to the social model. Depression, I contend, is emotional sadness, which quite understandably arises out of social, economic and interpersonal difficulties. But these have been medicalized.

If you feel the drugs help, then take them by all means. But be aware of the other half of the story. Because the balance of power lies with the medical model and pharmaceutical industry, not the social model, in the current medical climate.

[dodger]

In days gone by, ma treated 2 sets of people like demi-gods. Teachers and Doctors. Their word was holy scripture. Strange then they regarded psychiatrists as little more than Quack medicine pedlars. Might have been the army 'trick cyclists'. At the end of the day treatment that does not empower the patient is of little benefit. It defeats the object. We must look to the individual see what works for him. At the end of the day we must be guardians of our own mental health, whatever symptom we exhibit and root causes. Best practice would include all manner of therapies and palliatives. My brother never gives up on people, there are many more like him. Though I fear that will slowly go down the pan if PPP gains more ground. Faced with a choice of moving on a patient to more independent lives versus loss of income for that client. What choice would a doctor or accountant make. Think we both can make a stab at that.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

@ Left leanings.
I agree with you for the most part. The problem is that that in today´s world most people don´t have the option of proper therapy and medication is really the only viable option. They are generally supposed to balance the chemicals in one´s brain, and the right medication can do so. I´m no fan of anti- depressives, but I don´t see a proper alternative solution within capitalism, because the psychiatric/mental health care systems will always be underfunded and neglected.

[Left Leanings]

In days gone by, ma treated 2 sets of people like demi-gods. Teachers and Doctors. Their word was holy scripture. Strange then they regarded psychiatrists as little more than Quack medicine pedlars. Might have been the army 'trick cyclists'. At the end of the day treatment that does not empower the patient is of little benefit. It defeats the object. We must look to the individual see what works for him. At the end of the day we must be guardians of our own mental health, whatever symptom we exhibit and root causes. Best practice would include all manner of therapies and palliatives. My brother never gives up on people, there are many more like him. Though I fear that will slowly go down the pan if PPP gains more ground. Faced with a choice of moving on a patient to more independent lives versus loss of income for that client. What choice would a doctor or accountant make. Think we both can make a stab at that.

'Root causes' is a very good choice of words, Dodger. In psychotic illness, the traditional view of psychiatry is that halluncinations and delusions, are caused by biochemical imbalances (despite no chemical diagnostic test to indicate this, or consistently reliable chemical treatment), and the content should be disregarded.

However, pioneering research by psyciatrists such as Maurius Romme, suggests that the content is most important, and that the delusion or hallucinations, will usually give an indication as to the nature of their distress, and cause of their problems.

Romme, incidentally, did a radio show, in which he invited people who 'hear voices' (what a psychiatrist refers to as an 'auditory hallucination') to phone in. He was amazed to find that LOTS of people hear voices as a matter of routine - and that they are not troubled by them, or can at least cope with them. And many of these people had NEVER been under a psychiatrist, or consulted ANY form of medical practitioner about their 'voices'.

Also, psychologists who work with mental patients who hear voices, can, by exploring the patient's life history and experiences, get them to control, or even abolish halluncinations, without recourse to medication.

How do I know? I am one such person.


@ Left leanings.
I agree with you for the most part. The problem is that that in today´s world most people don´t have the option of proper therapy and medication is really the only viable option. They are generally supposed to balance the chemicals in one´s brain, and the right medication can do so. I´m no fan of anti- depressives, but I don´t see a proper alternative solution within capitalism, because the psychiatric/mental health care systems will always be underfunded and neglected.

Defo, comrade.

It's interesting that in the developing world, especially in rural areas, where there is a greater sense of co-operation and community, and a togetherness, there is LESS incidence of severe mental illness. And that were it occurs, the recovery rate is TWICE as high as in the developed West - and this with our psychiatric infrastructure, and (highly lucrative) pharmaceutical industry.

I firmly believe that most mental illnes, is emotional distress arising out of acute economic, social and interpersonal difficulties, that have been medicalized.

Abolish capital, and we may not need to fund psychiatric care quite so much. Cos chances are, a workers democracy and the juster, better and more co-operative world it will bring into existence, will abolish the very cause of much acute psychiatric distress.

[The Jay]

Look at this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2134863/Anti-depressants-harm-good.html

I am at least critical of, if not anti-, psychiatry.

A team from McMaster University, have been assessing the impact of anti-depressants on a person's whole body. Health problems can lead to premature death, and the formation of blood clots.

It has long been maintained also, that these drugs can induce suicidal thoughts in some patients.

From my own reading, I have learned that since the advent of anti-depressant medications in America in the 1950s, the recovery rate from depressive illness, has been 70 per cent. But American textbooks of psychiatry predating the meds, indicates the spontaneous rate of recovery from depression was between 70 to 80 per cent.

I get a little miffed at this stuff so I apologize if I sound harsh.

Those side-effects are not secret or 'recently uncovered'. They are known trade-offs to being depressed and are worth the risk for most people. To start criticizing known science from an article in The Daily Mail, an organization that I have never heard anything good about, is quite infuriating. To me this racket of anti-psychiatry is the same as the anti-climate change one.

To make such claims one would expect solid facts and sources that someone could debunk, instead of a "newspaper" article, especially a tabloid. Newspapers constantly get the science wrong, and I do not exaggerate. The number of journalists with any scientific background is minuscule. I would not be so quick to trust outside of scientific journals and reviews for information like that.

As for your claim of spontaneous recovery rates. I don't see the sources but am critical of their methodology, theory, and overall conclusions. Psychiatry had made great strides in the last 50 years and is much better at detection. It is becoming a 'harder' science with every passing data point collected.

Again, please ignore the harshness if it did appear so.

[Goblin]

Scientology bullshit! Anti-Depressants saves lives.

[Left Leanings]

I get a little miffed at this stuff so I apologize if I sound harsh.

Those side-effects are not secret or 'recently uncovered'. They are known trade-offs to being depressed and are worth the risk for most people. To start criticizing known science from an article in The Daily Mail, an organization that I have never heard anything good about, is quite infuriating. To me this racket of anti-psychiatry is the same as the anti-climate change one.

To make such claims one would expect solid facts and sources that someone could debunk, instead of a "newspaper" article, especially a tabloid. Newspapers constantly get the science wrong, and I do not exaggerate. The number of journalists with any scientific background is minuscule. I would not be so quick to trust outside of scientific journals and reviews for information like that.

As for your claim of spontaneous recovery rates. I don't see the sources but am critical of their methodology, theory, and overall conclusions. Psychiatry had made great strides in the last 50 years and is much better at detection. It is becoming a 'harder' science with every passing data point collected.

Again, please ignore the harshness if it did appear so.

No, it doesn't sound harsh, and there is no need to apologize.

I am aware of the limitations of the Daily Mail, and I am, shall we say, not exactly its number one fan. It's a rabid, right-wing rag. It calls itself an 'up-market' tabloid. Is there really any such thing, I wonder? lol

But the story was contained in the Daily Mail, and that's why I cited the link. And I do not claim that the side effects are hidden. I have picked up lots and lots of psychiatric prescriptions over the years. They packets of meds always contain a 'data sheet', and all the possible (and reported) side-effects are listed.

I have made many posts on here, in various threads, on the issue of psychiatric medicine, and the medical versus the social model. Have you caught sight of them? If not, you could take a look. Your choice.

And the criticisms of psychiatric medicine comes not simply from the Daily Mail, or other newspapers, but from research carried out extensivley by sociologists, psychologists, and indeed, by psychiatrists themselves.

Here are some recommendations, in which much of the research is detailed:

Peter Breggin, Toxic Psychiatry.

Thomas Szasz, The Myth of Mental Illness

Erving Goffman, Asylums

M. Boyle, Schizophrenia: A Scientific Delusion?

D. Healy, The Creation of Psychopharmacology

Peter Breggin and M. Stern, Psychosocial Approaches to the Deeply Disturbed Person

Some peeps here talk of their own experiences with medication. I have LOTS of experience of psych meds and mental health symptomatology. I talk from my own lived experience, both medicated and unmedicated.

If people are happy to take medications, then so be it. It's their choice. But in a climate where the approach to mental distress is dominated by the medical model, I seek to redress the imbalance my posting from a position critical of psychiatry, and in favour of the social model.

It's in the spirit of debate, after all.

[The Jay]

Ok, thanks for not being offended. I'll check out those other posts and authors.

Cheers

[Left Leanings]

Scientology bullshit! Anti-Depressants saves lives.

They take them as well.

[Left Leanings]

Ok, thanks for not being offended. I'll check out those other posts and authors.

Cheers

Not a problem, comarde. I am a voice-hearer of twenty years standing. I have had a variety of psychiatric labels applied to me at various times, by different psychiatrists (odd, for a 'science'), and have had many 'scientific' chemical treatments applied (with piss poor results).

On the meds, I became 20 stones in weight. I had my 'symptoms', but before being medicated, I was going about my daily business. When I was medicated, I became housebound, cos they provoked the most dreadful anxiety in me. The symptoms persisted, and always have done. Now I am meds free and living a life again.

Please also comrade, do some research on the work of the Dutch psychiatrist, Marius Romme. And also the psychiatrist, R. D Laing. These are anti-psychiatry psychiatrists, if you like lol.

[stuartgrill]

Read this interesting article regarding depression disorder.
http://www.raymeds.net/blog/depression-a-miserable-health-condition.html

[GanjaFallout]

Hello comrades i tend to agree that anti-depressants are not ideal and this psychiatry to be somewhat flimsy in diagnosis if my issues
i show signs of many anxiety disorders and never had the right treatment so far
i do find that discussing my issues with professionals and with people going through the same issues can be of great help which helped get me out of the position i am in until not long ago and things got a lot worse i currently have great difficulty going outside, being in public places or around strangers
even sleeping is troublesome as i feel overwhelmingly vulnerable but with all these issues i feel i have no choice but to try anti-depressants especially as i am not getting support from my government, they just seem to add to my stress
I've tried anti-depressants before and found they made things worse but i hope this time it will be different
i do feel if i look back at the cause of my issues i am overwhelmed by so many factors, most i have no control over, such as the society in which i exist, i just thought i'd add my experience
i don't particularly like anti-depressants but its hopefully a way i can tackle my problems till i can fix the real issues in my life then perhaps maybe i will no longer need them

[Prisma]

Look at this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2134863/Anti-depressants-harm-good.html

I am at least critical of, if not anti-, psychiatry.

It's fair that you posted your position, it helps me frame my response a bit.

Whilst I understand that facets of the history of psychiatry (psychology) are filled with some questionable theories, aspects of Freud, Bowlby, well really a lot of early twentieth century stuff (even beyond, to the classification of homosexuality and so forth) it doesn't negate the concept or practice, the rubbish gets thrown out (for the most part), least of all progress in other areas such as neuro biology or chemistry.

As for your source, it's telling this is from the daily mail - which is not really a font of world-class medical literature, I suspect the only reason they posted the story is because it is has a controversial claim - 'medication makes you sicker!'

If you look at some of the findings quoted in the article:


The researchers, whose study was published in the online journal Frontiers in Psychology, found that anti-depressants had negative health effects on all processes normally regulated by serotonin.
This included a higher risk of developmental problems in infants, problems with sexual function, digestive problems and abnormal bleeding and stroke in the elderly.This is the extent of the research findings from McMaster university as far as I can tell and they're not exactly startling.

The first half of the paragraph pertains to the prescription of anti-depressants to the elderly, the demographic closest to 'premature death' than any population group, prone to blood clots (for a variety of reasons) etc. and more prone to health complications than conceivably any group, other than perhaps infants - which as it turns out are the other group the article talks about!!!

Why anyone would think its safe or even medically reasonable to prescribe an anti-depressant to an infant I'm not sure.

In conclusion, I don't think these findings really add anything to the (reasonable) debate around anti-depressant medication, but I am not surprised because it is from the Daily Mail.

As for your comments,



A team from McMaster University, have been assessing the impact of anti-depressants on a person's whole body. Health problems can lead to premature death, and the formation of blood clots. For the elderly.

When giving medication to the elderly you have to be very careful in any circumstance, I'm sure any competent doctor would choose carefully when choosing an anti-depressant, with knowledge of the patients medical history and the pharmacology of the drug.




It has long been maintained also, that these drugs can induce suicidal thoughts in some patients.

So does some acne medication, so does *insert medication* An astronomical proportion medications have *potentially* horrible side effects, including suicidal ideation. That doesn't make them 'bad for you' - it just makes the role of the doctor important.

You shouldn't be prescribing yourself, but a competent doctor should be able to pick an appropriate medication with a knowledge of your health and medical history. Moreoever, a part of the medical process also involves a check-in; wherein you report negative or any, side effects to your doctor a short-time after you start taking a script (if it is to be anything but a short course).

Clearly if you start to feel worse you should try something else.

That said, the invention of anti-depressants have literally saved millions of lives, and restored the happiness of an equal number. Human genetics are varied so of course it won't work for or with everyone, that is a fairly reasonable risk to take though considering the testing, fail-safes, and competency of the professionals involved.



From my own reading, I have learned that since the advent of anti-depressant medications in America in the 1950s, the recovery rate from depressive illness, has been 70 per cent. But American textbooks of psychiatry predating the meds, indicates the spontaneous rate of recovery from depression was between 70 to 80 per cent.

Could you provide more substantial reference to these claims? They're hard to address on the face of it, as they are unsourced.


Please note, I'm by no means advocating anti-depressants as the only or 'best' solution to depression - there are literally dozens of non 'drug' based treatments that are effective, but drugs have an appropriate context, for other people exercise, diet, socialisation, therapy/counselling are equally or more effective.

[MP5]

Most anti-depressants have been shown to work no better then placebo. The cash crop of big pharma which are the SSRI's and SNRI's have been shown to be less effective against major depressive disorder then the much cheaper tricyclics and MAOI's like Parnate and Nardil. Some SSRI's and SNRI's cost in the hundreds for a months supply while tricyclics and older MAOI's cost little more then $20 or less. The only difference between many SSRI's and SNRI's and tricyclics is that SSRI's and SNRI's don't have the anti-cholinergic side effects of the tricyclics. But recent studies with the strong anti-cholinergic scopolamine has shown that it has immediate anti-depressant effects so the anti-cholinergic side effects of the tricyclics may not be such a bad thing after all.

I have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and as far as anti-depressants i have been on effexor, amitriptyline, remeron and wellbutrin. Effexor drove me absolutely batshit manic and i damn near ended up in jail for throwing my boss up against a truck in a manic rage. Normally what he said to me would not have bothered me at all but effexor turned my somewhat short fuse to no fuse at all. The withdrawal effect of effexor where absolutely hellish and lasted for weeks. Remeron damn near killed me because i almost hung myself ffs!

Amitriptyline worked pretty good and was hands down the best sleep aid i have ever taken. It is one of the oldest tricyclics on the market and a months worth cost me about $15 i think. This was when i had no insurance so that was rather convenient. However it stopped working altogether as a anti-depressant and along with the weight gain and risk of mania it was not worth it. I normally weigh around 175lbs but amitriptyline made me tip the scales at 200lbs or more. I had cut out beer altogether, had seriously cut down on my use of Cannabis, worked out with weights as well as cardio for a few hours everyday and i ate nothing but protein basically. I still could not loose the damn weight and although much of it was muscle weight alot of it was also fat and i started to get that puffy look. At only 5'9 200lbs was abit heavy for me (although i would still have been skinny for the majority of the population now :rolleyes: ) but thankfully due to lifting weights i was so wide and had so much muscle that i didn't look that heavy. I can notice it in my face though from old photos and i hate that puffy in the face look.

Right now the only anti-depressant i take is wellbutrin and it works great for the depression side of my bipolar and helps the seasonal affective disorder i get as well. Wellbutrin combined with my other bipolar meds has helped stabilized my mood and made my life livable. It was only a few years ago that i was basically begging for death and in the span of a year made a few passive suicide attempts with combining alcohol with large doses of drugs like temazepam and Valium and strong opiates such as morphine and hydromorphone. I was also using cocaine rather heavily and would inject huge doses and take huge hit's of crack and would keep going until i felt like my heart was going to give out. I would also shoot speedballs which is a good way to end up like your favorite dead rock star. I also took large doses of amphetamines and would get angina like attacks that would just about stop me in my tracks from the pain of it.

I do not miss those years of my life that's for sure.

[Art Vandelay]

Fuck anti-depressants.

[The Jay]

I like em but when I miss a few days and go back on it then I get massive headaches.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Most anti-depressants have been shown to work no better then placebo. The cash crop of big pharma which are the SSRI's and SNRI's have been shown to be less effective against major depressive disorder then the much cheaper tricyclics and MAOI's like Parnate and Nardil. Some SSRI's and SNRI's cost in the hundreds for a months supply while tricyclics and older MAOI's cost little more then $20 or less. The only difference between many SSRI's and SNRI's and tricyclics is that SSRI's and SNRI's don't have the anti-cholinergic side effects of the tricyclics. But recent studies with the strong anti-cholinergic scopolamine has shown that it has immediate anti-depressant effects so the anti-cholinergic side effects of the tricyclics may not be such a bad thing after all.

I have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and as far as anti-depressants i have been on effexor, amitriptyline, remeron and wellbutrin. Effexor drove me absolutely batshit manic and i damn near ended up in jail for throwing my boss up against a truck in a manic rage. Normally what he said to me would not have bothered me at all but effexor turned my somewhat short fuse to no fuse at all. The withdrawal effect of effexor where absolutely hellish and lasted for weeks. Remeron damn near killed me because i almost hung myself ffs!

Amitriptyline worked pretty good and was hands down the best sleep aid i have ever taken. It is one of the oldest tricyclics on the market and a months worth cost me about $15 i think. This was when i had no insurance so that was rather convenient. However it stopped working altogether as a anti-depressant and along with the weight gain and risk of mania it was not worth it. I normally weigh around 175lbs but amitriptyline made me tip the scales at 200lbs or more. I had cut out beer altogether, had seriously cut down on my use of Cannabis, worked out with weights as well as cardio for a few hours everyday and i ate nothing but protein basically. I still could not loose the damn weight and although much of it was muscle weight alot of it was also fat and i started to get that puffy look. At only 5'9 200lbs was abit heavy for me (although i would still have been skinny for the majority of the population now :rolleyes: ) but thankfully due to lifting weights i was so wide and had so much muscle that i didn't look that heavy. I can notice it in my face though from old photos and i hate that puffy in the face look.

Right now the only anti-depressant i take is wellbutrin and it works great for the depression side of my bipolar and helps the seasonal affective disorder i get as well. Wellbutrin combined with my other bipolar meds has helped stabilized my mood and made my life livable. It was only a few years ago that i was basically begging for death and in the span of a year made a few passive suicide attempts with combining alcohol with large doses of drugs like temazepam and Valium and strong opiates such as morphine and hydromorphone. I was also using cocaine rather heavily and would inject huge doses and take huge hit's of crack and would keep going until i felt like my heart was going to give out. I would also shoot speedballs which is a good way to end up like your favorite dead rock star. I also took large doses of amphetamines and would get angina like attacks that would just about stop me in my tracks from the pain of it.

I do not miss those years of my life that's for sure.
Wellbutrin made me feel like I was on coke, and not in a good way. Remeron made me rage. Bad. I was extremely aggressive. I stopped taking both of those after a week or two. Paxil made me want to sleep my life away, I was sedated and sleepy 24/7, but it did make me not give a fuck and take it easy for a while. Cymbalta made me go from depressed to really really depressed.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Okay, I have a few things to add about antidepressants. Firstly, the article mentioned is a hodgepodge and really does not add a lot to what is known. I don't know where the 70-80 percent spontaneous remission figure comes from. It might be true, but I think the difference is time frame. Most depressive episodes end -- that's absolutely true (btw, I'm a clinical psychologist and I have worked in psychiatric hospitals). But it makes a big difference if they end in a couple of months, or in a couple of years. They all have side effects. Some work well for a given individual while others may be horrible for them. The SSRI's are not more efficacious than the older Tricyclics or Mao Inhibitors (some comrades obviously would not be happy with the Inhibition of Mao:D). They are more widely used because of their somewhat milder side effects and because it is very difficult to take a lethal overdose of SSRIs. Also, there are antidepressants, such as Wellbutrin and Remiron that are not in any of the above categories.

I do not prescribe meds -- I use psychotherapy as a primary mode of treatment (as well as a technique called neurofeedback). Sometimes it is the combination of meds and talk therapy that is the most helpful for patients (research bears this out). Also not mentioned is that these medications can be effective for reducing anxiety. Anxiety can be the most horrible symptom of depression.

Sadly, medication is cheaper and easier to treat with than psychotherapy, group therapy and milieu therapy.

The idea that schizophrenia does not have a huge biological component seems farfetched to me. Because you can do almost anything to a given individual during their development and not produce schizophrenia. Obviously the etiology is complex because monozygotic twins have about a 45 percent concordance (which suggests a large genetic component), meaning that in people with 100 of the same DNA more than half the time only one twin develops the illness. Also, it is not clear whether or not there are not several different conditions that are lumped together as schizophrenia.

I agree that delusions and hallucinations have meaning. Obviously they are not random. But they need to be analyzed as part of the treatment for severe psychotic illness. The doctors that dismiss psychotic process as being meaningless are arrogant philistines. The main thing I tried to teach interns working under me was that you must treat patients with respect and kindness -- these are people, like you and me, that have had something go terribly wrong in the central nervous systems.

I disagree very strongly with folks like Laing and Szaz that Schizophrenia does not exist. These are political stances -- in Laing's case I think he romanticizes these conditions. It is not just an "alternative" way of being. No one would choose it if given a choice. Do we, in capitalist society do a good job with mental illness? Fuck no. Why would we do that well when all aspects of medical care are totally fucked up?

Big Pharma sucks. But trashing antidepressants, which have saved a lot of people's bacon, because they have many shortcomings is foolish.

To the comrade with Bipolar d/o -- sorry to hear it, it's a rough go. Effexor can be an immensely helpful drug. A bit dicey with bpdo-as you found out, it can be a substitute for rocket fuel.

[Yuppie Grinder]

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with anti-depressants. The problem is mental health services not being controlled communally, but by the state and the private industrialist. Through dependency on pharmaceuticals, your body's chemical processes become the private property of someone else. This is total despotism.

[Prisma]

Cymbalta made me go from depressed to really really depressed.

Note: This reply is directed to the OP and a general audience rather than you PC LOAD LETTER.

This illustrates effectively what I was trying to highlight before; I've used Cymbalta before and it was a time when I was in the deepest depression I've experienced in my entire life, whilst taking this and having weekly sessions with a psychologist I managed to stabilise my mood and reverse a period of intense emotional fragility, where I would cry every day on the way to work, at work, at home; I literally could not control my emotionality or the invasive thoughts that stimulated these feelings in me.

I wouldn't credit Cymbalta with this reversal, but it stabilised my emotionality, not in an intense way, but it reduce the intensity of my depression and give me more control over how I felt. I got to the point where I no longer needed anti-depressants anymore, and I don't use them, and haven't, for years now.

The reason I point this out is I feel some people wrongly criticise anti-depressants from the POV of, well I tried this and it didn't work, or; they don't work for me (generally). It's widely understood that some of these drugs don't work for individuals, the point of the medical process should be to find something that does work for you, in consultation with your GP and/or a psychiatrist. It's a cut-and-dry process, and does depend on having open communication with medical workers and some level of competency there. Maybe this won't involve much or any medication at all, certainly no competent medical worker would say that medication is the best or only solution to mental health issues.

I think it's fine for someone to have personal POV that is anti-anti-depressants, but I don't think that is as a valid starting position for a political opposition to pharmacology (though by all means I agree the attached industry is controlled by vampires). The main issue is as described by other posters:


The problem is mental health services not being controlled communally, but by the state and the private industrialist. Through dependency on pharmaceuticals, your body's chemical processes become the private property of someone else. This is total despotism.


Also with the issues are intellectual property (IP) law and the way IP law is used to control the flow of all types of medication, and subsequent the profiteering involved in the industry; and the over-prescription of medication in lieu of other treatment techniques such as those that are lifestyle based or therapy based, or a combination of these.



I disagree very strongly with folks like Laing and Szaz that Schizophrenia does not exist. These are political stances -- in Laing's case I think he romanticizes these conditions.


Out of curiosity, what do they base this view on? Do they reject the diagnostic criteria? Or the notion that mental health conditions exist at all in discrete forms?


As far as I understand as a layman, from the POV that there is a diagnostic criterion for Schizophrenia how can it not ‘exist’ in a strict sense? That is, a classification system exists (with a degree of consensus) to order a clustering of symptoms into discrete diagnoses, such as ‘schizophrenia’, being composed of a handful of common characteristics (though of course there are some difficulties in pinning every individual case into neat boxes, or is their point?)


I think one can dispute the composition of the criteria, but deeper disputation I would tend to think would be pushing a philosophical (philosophy of science) debate, as you mentioned, ''It is not just an "alternative" way of being’’ – otherwise we might as well as throw out the language of psychiatric medicine entirely.





It is not just an "alternative" way of being. No one would choose it if given a choice.



I agree, I lived for many years with a friend who is schizo-affective – that is they have a mood disorder as well as a diagnosis of schizophrenia – it’s a deeply punishing condition, and when he is going through an episode (though he experiences voices daily sometimes they are overwhelming and depressive and constitute a more intense and enduring episode) all he longs for is that it might stop, as he can struggle to control the effect the voices and delusions have on him.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Note: This reply is directed to the OP and a general audience rather than you PC LOAD LETTER.[snip]
Just FYI, I'm not anti-psychiatry or anti-antidepressants, I was replying to the other poster sharing their experiences with various psychiatric drugs. I'm actually in the process of working with a doctor to go back on antidepressants, the Remeron experience was a couple of weeks ago. It doesn't change that Cymbalta specifically either flat-out didn't work for me, or possibly made me much worse than I otherwise would have been, and I took it for 10 months.

[MP5]

Cymbalta is more or less a more selective version of effexor. Effexor only hit's norepinephrine at higher doses and in really high doses it can hit dopamine. Of course this varies among everyone. Cymbalta acts equally on both serotonin and norepinephrine so it's sort of like amitriptyline without the anti-cholinergic side effects. I am however sick to fucking death of seeing the ads for cymbalta! If you believed all that shit you would think it's a miracle pill. It's being marketed for everything from major depression, fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain. I would bet that amitriptyline which has a much longer history of use in treating those disorders and has been demonstrated to be effective for treating fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain would work better and is dirt cheap also.

It sort of reminds me of neurontin when it first came out. It was being pushed as a panacea for basically everything. They are still sorting out the class action lawsuits from that drug. My stupid quack of a shrink loved it and had a thing on her desk advertising neurontin ffs! She took me off the divalproex (epival, depakote) and seroquel i was on and decided to just use neurontin as a mood stabilizer. As it turned out the seroquel and epival where the only things holding my sanity together and to say i lost it would be a major understatement. It took me a whole year to get my moods stabilized again. I got to see another shrink and i was put on lamictal which is literally a lifesaver for me and back on the seroquel as well. But that was a whole year of my life gone! I spent most of it in either mixed states (this is the most dangerous psychiatric condition you can have as you are suicidally depressed and very manic as well so you have more then enough energy to carry it out) or bouts of the most severe bipolar depression i have ever had. Most of the year was spent in my room doing nothing at all and in a near catatonic state. Looking back i should have sued the ***** :glare:

But everyone reacts differently to every medication. Some people find seroquel and lamictal to be either useless or have horrible side effects but without them i would go off the deep end pretty quick.

@PC LOAD LETTER

It's funny you should mention that wellbutrin felt like coke but in a bad way. It acts on the brain in much the same way as coke does or actually more like Ritalin. These drugs all do a reuptake inhibition on both dopamine and norepinephrine. Wellbutrin is actually used off label for both cocaine as well as amphetamine addiction. A methamphetamine addict that i knew actually managed to beat her addiction to meth with wellbutrin. Also wellbutrin sort of blocks the effects of both cocaine and amphetamines to some degree.