Harming the Guinea Pig Kids? At least the Bottom Line hasn't been affected. Yet.[excerpts]
Wyeth notes increased suicidal behavior in children taking Effexor
By LINDA A. JOHNSON, Associated Press Business Writer
In what is known as a "Dear Doctor" letter, Madison-based Wyeth is telling health professionals that clinical studies of the long-acting version, Effexor XR, found a higher incidence in children of "hostility and suicide-related adverse events, such as suicidal ideation and self-harm." ...
"You should be alert to signs of suicidal ideation in children and adolescent patients prescribed Effexor or Effexor XR (and) reassess the benefit-risk balance" for each patient, the Wyeth letter states.
The caution comes after U.S. and British regulators in June said no one under 18 should take GlaxoSmithKline's popular antidepressant Paxil because it could increase a child's risk of suicide attempts. Pediatric patients already taking Paxil were told to stop use gradually, under a doctor's supervision.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently is investigating how newer antidepressants affect children. Even though Eli Lilly & Co.'s Prozac is the only antidepressant approved for treating children some doctors are prescribing other medicines for patients under 18. That's why the FDA has asked makers of antidepressants to submit data from any studies they have done on their safety and effectiveness in children.
FDA spokeswoman Susan Cruzan noted many antidepressant makers have been testing them on children under an FDA initiative that grants drug companies an extra six months' marketing exclusivity for doing so.
Wyeth's Aug. 22 letter, written by Dr. Victoria Kusiak, North American medical director for Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, said that in a study of Effexor XR's use against major depression, ... children reported thoughts about suicide, versus none in a comparison group getting a dummy pill.
Additionally, some displayed hostility, more than double the rate in those getting a placebo. In a study of patients under 18 with generalized anxiety disorder, some displayed abnormal or changed behavior; none did so in the comparison group.
Wyeth sent the letter to thousands of psychiatrists, general practitioners, other physicians and pharmacists, spokesman Doug Petkus said.
The letter notes that the studies did not show Effexor relieves depression or anxiety in children.
Effexor was first approved in 1993; along with the once-a-day Effexor XR, it now generates $2.1 billion in annual sales for Wyeth, making it the company's biggest-selling drug.
Independent pharmaceutical analyst Hemant Shah of HKS & Co. in Warren, N.J., said that because the pediatric safety question involves all antidepressants, it shouldn't hurt sales of Effexor.
Wyeth shares closed up 3 cents at $44.35 on Wednesday on the New York Stock Exchange. [excerpts]
Wyeth notes increased suicidal behavior in children taking Effexor
By LINDA A. JOHNSON, Associated Press Business Writer
In what is known as a "Dear Doctor" letter, Madison-based Wyeth is telling health professionals that clinical studies of the long-acting version, Effexor XR, found a higher incidence in children of "hostility and suicide-related adverse events, such as suicidal ideation and self-harm." ...
"You should be alert to signs of suicidal ideation in children and adolescent patients prescribed Effexor or Effexor XR (and) reassess the benefit-risk balance" for each patient, the Wyeth letter states.
The caution comes after U.S. and British regulators in June said no one under 18 should take GlaxoSmithKline's popular antidepressant Paxil because it could increase a child's risk of suicide attempts. Pediatric patients already taking Paxil were told to stop use gradually, under a doctor's supervision.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently is investigating how newer antidepressants affect children. Even though Eli Lilly & Co.'s Prozac is the only antidepressant approved for treating children some doctors are prescribing other medicines for patients under 18. That's why the FDA has asked makers of antidepressants to submit data from any studies they have done on their safety and effectiveness in children.
FDA spokeswoman Susan Cruzan noted many antidepressant makers have been testing them on children under an FDA initiative that grants drug companies an extra six months' marketing exclusivity for doing so.
Wyeth's Aug. 22 letter, written by Dr. Victoria Kusiak, North American medical director for Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, said that in a study of Effexor XR's use against major depression, ... children reported thoughts about suicide, versus none in a comparison group getting a dummy pill.
Additionally, some displayed hostility, more than double the rate in those getting a placebo. In a study of patients under 18 with generalized anxiety disorder, some displayed abnormal or changed behavior; none did so in the comparison group.
Wyeth sent the letter to thousands of psychiatrists, general practitioners, other physicians and pharmacists, spokesman Doug Petkus said.
The letter notes that the studies did not show Effexor relieves depression or anxiety in children.
Effexor was first approved in 1993; along with the once-a-day Effexor XR, it now generates $2.1 billion in annual sales for Wyeth, making it the company's biggest-selling drug.
Independent pharmaceutical analyst Hemant Shah of HKS & Co. in Warren, N.J., said that because the pediatric safety question involves all antidepressants, it shouldn't hurt sales of Effexor.
Wyeth shares closed up 3 cents at $44.35 on Wednesday on the New York Stock Exchange.
[Based on excerpts for Associated Press "business news" release]
In what is known as a "Dear Doctor" letter, Madison-based Wyeth is telling health professionals that clinical studies of the long-acting version, Effexor XR, found a higher incidence in children of "hostility and suicide-related adverse events, such as suicidal ideation and self-harm."
"You should be alert to signs of suicidal ideation in children and adolescent patients prescribed Effexor or Effexor XR ...", the Wyeth letter states.
The caution comes after U.S. and British regulators in June said no one under 18 should take GlaxoSmithKline's popular antidepressant Paxil because it could increase a child's risk of suicide attempts. Pediatric patients already taking Paxil were told to stop use gradually, under a doctor's supervision.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently is investigating how newer antidepressants affect children. Even though Eli Lilly & Co.'s Prozac is the only antidepressant approved for treating children some doctors are prescribing other medicines for patients under 18. That's why the FDA has asked makers of antidepressants to submit data from any studies they have done on their safety and effectiveness in children.
FDA spokeswoman Susan Cruzan noted many antidepressant makers have been testing them on children under an FDA initiative that grants drug companies an extra six months' marketing exclusivity for doing so.
Wyeth's Aug. 22 letter, written by Dr. Victoria Kusiak, North American medical director for Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, said that in a study of Effexor XR's use against major depression, ... children reported thoughts about suicide, versus none in a comparison group getting a dummy pill.
Additionally, some displayed hostility, more than double the rate in those getting a placebo. In a study of patients under 18 with generalized anxiety disorder, some displayed abnormal or changed behavior; none did so in the comparison group.
Wyeth sent the letter to thousands of psychiatrists, general practitioners, other physicians and pharmacists, spokesman Doug Petkus said.
**** The letter notes that the studies did not show Effexor relieves depression or anxiety in children. ****
Effexor was first approved in 1993; along with the once-a-day Effexor XR, it now generates $2.1 billion in annual sales for Wyeth, making it the company's biggest-selling drug.
Independent pharmaceutical analyst Hemant Shah of HKS & Co. in Warren, N.J., said that because the pediatric safety question involves all antidepressants, it shouldn't hurt sales of Effexor.
Wyeth shares closed up 3 cents at $44.35 on Wednesday on the New York Stock Exchange.
> Wyeth's Aug. 22 letter, written by Dr. Victoria Kusiak, North American > medical director for Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, said that in a study of > Effexor XR's use against major depression, ... children reported > thoughts about suicide, versus none in a comparison group getting a > dummy pill.
> Additionally, some displayed hostility, more than double the rate in > those getting a placebo. In a study of patients under 18 with > generalized anxiety disorder, some displayed abnormal or changed > behavior; none did so in the comparison group.
Well I think this at least say's that they are doing something. :) There goes the sugar pill debate...unless of course you want to use it selectively.
I remember reading something about a study that was talking about the metabolization of base sugars into neurotransmitters and that studied alcoholics had a decreased capacity to process it and create them effectively. This was pointing toward the "imbalance" that causes the feeling of desire or not ok-ness as seen through the eyes of the "imbalanced" or depressed etc etc. Sugar is the key. :) Sweet.... Peace Michael H.
> Harming the Guinea Pig Kids? At least the Bottom Line hasn't been > affected. Yet.[excerpts]
Marathon: A contest of endurance, an activity that requires prolonged effort or endurance.
OBSTINATE, adj. Inaccessible to the truth as it is manifest in the splendor and stress of our advocacy.
"But what makes these 'experts' preach their own opinion and call it truth?" asked the inquirer. "Is it an inheritance of humankind to do this, or is it merely something they gain satisfaction from?"
"Apart from consciousness," answered the Buddha, "no absolute truths exist. False reasoning declares one view to be true and another view wrong. It is delight in their dearly held opinions that makes them assert that anyone who disagrees is bound to come to a bad end. But no true seeker becomes embroiled in all this. Pass by peacefully and go a stainless way, free from theories, lusts, and dogmas."
In article <3F63E831.B59E4...@earthlink.net>, `F.H
<disconne...@earthlink.net> wrote: > ... But no > true seeker becomes embroiled in all this. Pass by peacefully and go a > stainless way, free from theories, lusts, and dogmas."
Well, then... a "true seeker" is seeking just what, why, where and how?
Meanwhile, back on the action scene of brain drugs and the like, here's a rather interesting and revealing examination by yet another teaching psychiatrist, Dr. D. Healy:
We are in an era, which is popularly portrayed as an "Evidence Based Medicine" era. What can go wrong if we have clinical trial evidence to demonstrate what works and what doesn't work, if we but adhere to this evidence? What more can we do than that?
Arguably, the term "Evidence Biased Medicine" would be more appropriate. Clinical trials in psychiatry have never showed that anything worked. Penicillin eradicated a major psychiatric disease without any clinical trial to show that it worked. You don't need a trial to show something works. Anaesthetics work without trials to show the point. Analgesics work and clinical trials aren't needed to show this.
What clinical trials demonstrate are treatment effects. In some cases, these effects are minimal. One may have to strain with the eye of faith to detect the treatment effect. The majority of trials for sertraline and for fluoxetine (Prozac) failed to detect any treatment effect. This is not evidence that sertraline or fluoxetine do not work. In clinical practice many are under no doubt that these drugs do work. It is, rather, evidence of the inadequacy of our assessment methods. To show that something works, we would need to go beyond treatment effects to show that these effects produce a resolution of a disorder in a sufficient number of people to outweigh the problems such as dependence syndromes that these drugs also cause. If our drugs really worked, we shouldn't have 3 times the number of patients detained now compared with before, 15 times the number of admissions and lengthier service bed stays for mood and other disorders that we have now. This isn't what happened in the case of a treatment that works, such as penicillin for GPI.
Aside from the inadequacy of our clinical trial methods, professors of psychiatry are now in jail for inventing patients. A significant proportion of the scientific literature is now ghost written. A large number of clinical trials done are not reported if the results don't suit the companies' sponsoring study. Over trials are multiply reported so that anyone trying to meta-analyse the findings can have a real problem trying to work out how many trials there have been. Within the studies that are reported, data such as quality of life scale results on antidepressants have been almost uniformly suppressed. To call this science is misleading.
One of the other aspects of the new medical arena is that the most vigorous and hostile patient groups of the antipsychiatry period have been penetrated by the pharmaceutical industry. Other patient groups have been set up de novo by companies. Part of the market development plans for many drugs these days include the creation of patient groups to lobby on behalf of a new treatment. Meetings are convened for pharmaceutical companies specifically to advise and train on how to set up such groups.
All of this is perhaps part of the normal rough and tumble between clinical practice, science and business. But there is a further even more important aspect of what is happening, which is contained in the following quote from Max Hamilton: "it may be that we are witnessing a change as revolutionary as was the introduction of standardization and mass production in manufacture. Both have their positive and negative sides".
Most of you who have used Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. What is this man on about when he talks about a revolutionary aspect to using such a simple instrument as this. Note the date. 1972. Maybe Hamilton is close enough to the events that were happening at the time to see something that we cannot now see. Maybe as a communist, he was sensitive to things that we are not sensitive to now.
Rating Scales have been such feature of psychiatric trials and clinical practice for so long now that it is perhaps difficult to see that there are revolutionary aspects to what happened. There is now a profusion of rating scales and checklists used throughout our schools and all walks of life. We quantify aspects of sexual behaviour, aspects of the behaviour of children, all sorts of things we never quantified before. Where once there was life¹s rich variety, now children in our schools fall outside all sorts of norms. And in the case of children falling outside norms, we now have a range of data suggesting there are things that parents can do to bring their children back inside appropriate norms. Things that we can do to minimise the risk for our children¹s future. Figures that just like the figures for IQ it is thought will generalise to the population at large.
The figures on treatment effects from rating scales used in our clinical trials have set up a new market. When you consider that we are now treating children from the ages of 1 to 4 with "Prozac" and "Ritalin", you will realise that we are not treating diseases here. I have written extensively on how corporations make markets but pharmaceutical corporations have not sold psychotropic drugs to children. The explosion of drug use in children is a manifestation of the force that makes markets, that underpins the market development of pharmaceutical companies and others. This is the force that creates pharmaceutical companies. The treatment effects from clinical trials have been taken to be findings that generalise across the community - they are taken to indicate that these agents will return children within the set of norms that will minimise future risks. What parent could not want to minimise future risks for their child?
The eating disorders perhaps offer an analogy for what is involved. Clearly people have starved themselves for millennia. For a variety of reasons, good and bad. Anorexia nervosa, as you know, emerged as something different to previous starving behaviors in the early 1870s. No good epidemiological figures exist for this next claim, as the epidemiology of eating disorders didn't exist until recently, but the syndrome appears to have increased in frequency in 1920s and 1930s and increased yet again in the 1960s with new variants mushrooming. Competing theories have focused on the possible psychodynamics of the problem, the biology of the problem, or socio-political aspects of the problems. These competing theories have rarely spoken to each other however.
What is rarely recognised is that in the 1870s Weighing Scales emerged and with them norms for weight and deviations from the norm and an awareness that deviations in the direction of what had formerly been thought to be healthy and beautiful carried risks. The insurance industry published these figures. In the 1920s, Weighing Scales increased in frequency and the scales, with their norms printed on the front of them, appeared in pharmacies, drug stores and other retail outlets. In the 1960s, the Scales were miniaturised so that we all ended up with Weighing Scales in our homes.
Clearly Weighing Scales don't create eating disorders in that even blind individuals can become eating disordered. But it's impossible to imagine eating disorders on the epidemic scale that now exist without the presence of both Weighing Scales and modern normative ideas about weight. And it is easy to imagine the removal of the feedback from Weighing Scales as being in many cases therapeutic in its own right. These new figures and norms have been a means for women to govern their bodies.
But the selectivity of the figures also grounds a peculiarly modern neurosis. Just as figures for GDP give us feedback from some areas of endeavour but not others and in so doing encourage the promotion of automobiles and the chopping down of trees, so also figures from this one area of life, which are easy to produce, have the power to control behaviour. Markets can be set up in other areas, such as air-quality and wilderness. Until such time as they are, it requires great wisdom and considerable internal resources to factor into our lives these other values.
What is the future? Well, there is bad and good news. Although in truth, both scenarios that I will outline may seem so strange that you may feel both of them are bad.
You see here [showing a slide] the face of one of the greatest serial killers ever. Perhaps the greatest serial killer of all time. This man was a doctor. His name, Harold Shipman. He worked close to where I live. Shipman's case illustrates that situations where trust is important can provide the conditions for extraordinary abuses.
One of the conditions where trust applies is in prescription only arrangements, this arrangement that was introduced for the bad drugs to restrict their availability but now applies exclusively to the good drugs. This arrangement was put in place so that physicians would quarry information out of pharmaceutical companies on behalf of their patients and would provide the counter-balancing wisdom to market forces.
Since this arrangement was first put in place, modern pharmaceutical companies and corporations have grown to be the most profitable organisations on the planet. There has been a change from companies run by physicians and chemists to companies run by business managers who rotate in from Big Oil or Big Tobacco. The companies are advised by the same lawyers who advise Big Oil and Big Tobacco and other corporations.
In the case of tobacco industry, it now seems clear that the legal advice in the
...
> In article <3F63E831.B59E4...@earthlink.net>, `F.H > <disconne...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > ... But no > > true seeker becomes embroiled in all this. Pass by peacefully and go a > > stainless way, free from theories, lusts, and dogmas."
> Well, then... a "true seeker" is seeking just what, why, where and how?
> Meanwhile, back on the action scene of brain drugs and the like, here's > a rather interesting and revealing examination by yet another teaching > psychiatrist......................
snip//////
"But what makes these 'experts' preach their own opinion and call it truth?" asked the inquirer. "Is it an inheritance of humankind to do this, or is it merely something they gain satisfaction from?"
"Apart from consciousness," answered the Buddha, "no absolute truths exist. False reasoning declares one view to be true and another view wrong.
In article <3F6400FF.55C5A...@earthlink.net>, `F.H
<disconne...@earthlink.net> wrote: > "But what makes these 'experts' preach their own opinion and call it > truth?" asked the inquirer. "Is it an inheritance of humankind to do > this, or is it merely something they gain satisfaction from?"
> "Apart from consciousness," answered the Buddha, "no absolute truths > exist. False reasoning declares one view to be true and another view > wrong.
> In article <3F6400FF.55C5A...@earthlink.net>, `F.H > <disconne...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "But what makes these 'experts' preach their own opinion and call it > > truth?" asked the inquirer. "Is it an inheritance of humankind to do > > this, or is it merely something they gain satisfaction from?"
> > "Apart from consciousness," answered the Buddha, "no absolute truths > > exist. False reasoning declares one view to be true and another view > > wrong.
> >> Harming the Guinea Pig Kids? At least the Bottom Line hasn't been > >> affected. Yet.[excerpts]
> >Marathon: > >A contest of endurance, an activity that requires prolonged effort or > >endurance.
> >OBSTINATE, adj. Inaccessible to the truth as it is manifest in the > >splendor and stress of our advocacy.
> Fanatic......well, you get it, right? When you push a fantics button > by disagreeing, it sends them into overtime.
If you don't really have any actual interest or want to discuss anything. Or your disagreement and interest is merely hoping to push buttons. But then, you've often told us that's what you like to do. And like to think you are, even when you're not. Okay.
> > In article <3F6400FF.55C5A...@earthlink.net>, `F.H > > <disconne...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > "But what makes these 'experts' preach their own opinion and call it > > > truth?" asked the inquirer. "Is it an inheritance of humankind to do > > > this, or is it merely something they gain satisfaction from?"
> > > "Apart from consciousness," answered the Buddha, "no absolute truths > > > exist. False reasoning declares one view to be true and another view > > > wrong.
> > Is that true?
> Is it satisfying?
Who knows?
"The whole key here is to simplify, to do less, not more, to that final point of artistry where all that needs to be done is done, and yet nothing more." - George Leonard
> > > > "But what makes these 'experts' preach their own opinion and call it > > > > truth?" asked the inquirer. "Is it an inheritance of humankind to do > > > > this, or is it merely something they gain satisfaction from?"
> > > > "Apart from consciousness," answered the Buddha, "no absolute truths > > > > exist. False reasoning declares one view to be true and another view > > > > wrong.
In article <lc19mvkinsjlcmivopi8nbcqe9f97mp...@4ax.com>, GaryE
<garye...@swbell.net> wrote: > Fanatic......well, you get it, right? When you push a fantics button > by disagreeing, it sends them into overtime. Gar
So you've insisted repeatedly, countless times, for years. Heck, I'll agree with you, then, Gary -- yes, you're clearly mentally ill, just as you assure.
Something's simply wrong with your brain and you're suffering from irrational, disordered thinking and feeling, however "real" and convincing they seem to you. But you're a sick man. You should be psychiatricly medicated, even as you say a qualified doctor has already prescribed for you. Since that's not been working well enough for you, clearly you probably ought to try other drugs, too. There are more than ever, these days. That's what they're for. Happens all the time, with millions of people.
Your frequent obsession with extreme ideations about "fanatics" disagreeing with you, along with your sociopathological preoccupation and pursuit of adversarially "pushing buttons", seem possibly among your symptoms, which have obviously flared up once again -- even as you've said you've also not been taking your necessary psychiatric drugs. Well, no wonder.
Perhaps you yet need more psychotherapy, too, since you continue to resist or fail to comply with your required treatment regimen, as you report, and so succumb to these unavoidably unhealthy, disordered states. There also could be further diagnosis necessary, to more successfully identify and control these chronic mental and behavioral problems you suffer. It's not your fault. You're not responsible. You can't help it. No need to be ashamed. We get it.
Take your meds, Gary. And you seriously ought to go get all the professional help you've apparently needed. That's what it's there for. You don't have to keep suffering like this, when there's such good reliable help available. You owe it to yourself and others. God speed to you.
> In article <lc19mvkinsjlcmivopi8nbcqe9f97mp...@4ax.com>, GaryE > <garye...@swbell.net> wrote:
> > Fanatic......well, you get it, right? When you push a fantics button > > by disagreeing, it sends them into overtime. Gar > Your frequent obsession with extreme ideations about "fanatics" > disagreeing with you, along with your sociopathological preoccupation > and pursuit of adversarially "pushing buttons", seem possibly among > your symptoms, which have obviously flared up once again -- even as > you've said you've also not been taking your necessary psychiatric > drugs. Well, no wonder.
Sounds like a diagnosis. May I see your credentials. Or.....as Herr. Ashcroft would say.....your papers please.
> > > Fanatic......well, you get it, right? When you push a fantics button > > > by disagreeing, it sends them into overtime. Gar > > So you've insisted repeatedly, countless times, for years. Heck, I'll > > agree with you, then, Gary -- yes, you're clearly mentally ill, just as > > you assure.
> > Something's simply wrong with your brain and you're suffering from > > irrational, disordered thinking and feeling, however "real" and > > convincing they seem to you. But you're a sick man. You should be > > psychiatricly medicated, even as you say a qualified doctor has already > > prescribed for you. Since that's not been working well enough for you, > > clearly you probably ought to try other drugs, too. There are more than > > ever, these days. That's what they're for. Happens all the time, with > > millions of people. > > Perhaps you yet need more psychotherapy, too, since you continue to > > resist or fail to comply with your required treatment regimen, as you > > report, and so succumb to these unavoidably unhealthy, disordered > > states. There also could be further diagnosis necessary, to more > > successfully identify and control these chronic mental and behavioral > > problems you suffer. It's not your fault. You're not responsible. You > > can't help it. No need to be ashamed. We get it.
> > Take your meds, Gary. And you seriously ought to go get all the > > professional help you've apparently needed. That's what it's there for. > > You don't have to keep suffering like this, when there's such good > > reliable help available. You owe it to yourself and others. God speed > > to you. > > Sounds like a diagnosis. May I see your credentials. Or.....as Herr. > Ashcroft would say.....your papers please.
Yeah, Gary, just what are your credentials to diagnose anyone as "fanatics."
> > > > Fanatic......well, you get it, right? When you push a fantics button > > > > by disagreeing, it sends them into overtime. Gar
> > > So you've insisted repeatedly, countless times, for years. Heck, I'll > > > agree with you, then, Gary -- yes, you're clearly mentally ill, just as > > > you assure.
> > > Something's simply wrong with your brain and you're suffering from > > > irrational, disordered thinking and feeling, however "real" and > > > convincing they seem to you. But you're a sick man. You should be > > > psychiatricly medicated, even as you say a qualified doctor has already > > > prescribed for you. Since that's not been working well enough for you, > > > clearly you probably ought to try other drugs, too. There are more than > > > ever, these days. That's what they're for. Happens all the time, with > > > millions of people.
> > > Perhaps you yet need more psychotherapy, too, since you continue to > > > resist or fail to comply with your required treatment regimen, as you > > > report, and so succumb to these unavoidably unhealthy, disordered > > > states. There also could be further diagnosis necessary, to more > > > successfully identify and control these chronic mental and behavioral > > > problems you suffer. It's not your fault. You're not responsible. You > > > can't help it. No need to be ashamed. We get it.
> > > Take your meds, Gary. And you seriously ought to go get all the > > > professional help you've apparently needed. That's what it's there for. > > > You don't have to keep suffering like this, when there's such good > > > reliable help available. You owe it to yourself and others. God speed > > > to you.
> > > Sounds like a diagnosis. May I see your credentials. Or.....as Herr. > > Ashcroft would say.....your papers please.
> Yeah, Gary, just what are your credentials to diagnose anyone as > "fanatics."
Tsk, tsk, don't go gettin thin skinned on me now. Or worse, skirt the edges of martyrdom. Martyrs are so manipulative, and friendless. They all seem to wind up in therapy. Of course, as you know, it does no good at all.
> > In article <3F64E8C0.ECCAF...@earthlink.net>, `F.H > > <disconne...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > GaryE wrote:
> > > > > Fanatic......well, you get it, right? When you push a fantics button > > > > > by disagreeing...... > > > Virt wrote:
> > > > So you've insisted repeatedly, countless times, for years. Heck, I'll > > > > agree with you, then, Gary -- yes, you're clearly mentally ill, just as > > > > you assure....... > > F.H. wrote:
> > > > Sounds like a diagnosis. May I see your credentials. Or.....as Herr. > > > Ashcroft would say.....your papers please. > > Yeah, Gary, just what are your credentials to diagnose anyone as > > "fanatics." > Tsk, tsk, don't go gettin thin skinned on me now. Or worse, skirt the > edges of martyrdom. Martyrs are so manipulative, and friendless. They > all seem to wind up in therapy. Of course, as you know, it does no good > at all.
Hmmm. "Martyrs"? Is that in the new DSM -- or are we back to the Patriots Act now? Maybe we can all just take something for that.
In article <2q9bmv8gkpn0qjbtctep2f9e9d810c1...@4ax.com>, GaryE
<garye...@swbell.net> wrote: > .... And as for as depressives commiting suicide, that's not real > unusual either. That stuff about medications causeing it? Sure. Of > course. Did they mention any possibility that the medications weren't > working and the depressive committed suicide? Just curious. ...
Not working is one thing, yes. Could be quite a bit of evidence for that. But higher suicidal symptoms of drugged patients compared to dummy pill recipients seems another thing.
For the curious:
-------------------- Dr. Victoria Kusiak, North American medical director for Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, said that in a study of Effexor XR's use against major depression, ... patients reported thoughts about suicide, versus none in a comparison group getting a dummy pill.
Additionally, some displayed hostility, more than double the rate in those getting a placebo. In a study of patients, some displayed abnormal or changed behavior; none did so in the comparison group.
The letter notes that the studies did not show Effexor relieves depression or anxiety.
------------------
[based on excerpts from: Suicidal and violent behavior associated with the use of fluoxetine (Prozac), distributed via Harvard School of Public Health]
The first major study to examine the possible association of fluoxetine and suicidal preoccupation or violence was published by Fava and Rosenbaum of the Massachusetts General Hospital. The design involved a survey of 27 psychiatrists treating 1017 depressed outpatients at MGH. This survey found that the among those treated with either fluoxetine, tricyclics or lithium the only group that had a higher incidence of persons becoming suicidal only after treatment was initiated than the fluoxetine group, was a group that was administered both fluoxetine and tricyclics.
Eli Lilly itself weighed in with a meta-analysis performed by Beasley et. al. of the 17 double blind clinical trials which were conducted prior to the release of fluoxetine. These trials were pooled into a dataset of a couple of thousand persons including fluoxetine and placebo subjects. If only suicidal acts were considered, the pooled incidences were: 50% more for fluoxetine than for placebo.
------------------
Can long-term treatment with antidepressant drugs worsen the course of depression? by Fava GA. Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo; and the Affective Disorders Program, Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The possibility that antidepressant drugs may worsen its course has received inadequate attention.
METHOD: A review of the literature suggesting potential depressogenic effects of long-term treatment with antidepressant drugs was performed.
RESULTS: A number of reported clinical findings point to the following: very unfavorable long-term outcome of major depression treated by pharmacologic means, paradoxical (depression-inducing) effects of antidepressant drugs in some patients with mood and anxiety disturbances, antidepressant-induced switching and cycle acceleration in bipolar disorder, occurrence of tolerance to the effects of antidepressants during long-term treatment, onset of resistance upon rechallenge with the same antidepressant drug, and withdrawal syndromes following discontinuation of mood-elevating drugs.
These phenomena in susceptible individuals may be explained on the basis of the oppositional model of tolerance. Continued drug treatment may recruit processes that oppose the initial acute effects of a drug and may result in loss of clinical effect. When drug treatment ends, these processes may operate unopposed, at least for some time, and increase vulnerability to relapse.
---------------------------
Why has the antidepressant era not shown a significant drop in suicide rates? by van Praag HM. Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Academic Hospital, Maastricht University, The Netherlands.
ABSTRACT Over the past decades the rate of completed suicide has remained quite stable, whereas that of suicide attempts seems to have increased (to the extent it has been studied in defined regions). These are puzzling observations, since depression is the major suicide precursor and since antidepressants have been increasingly used over the years in the treatment of depression. These observations have not attracted sufficient attention, possibly because they do not accord with consensus opinions about depression treatment in psychiatry today.
In article <2q9bmv8gkpn0qjbtctep2f9e9d810c1...@4ax.com>, GaryE
<garye...@swbell.net> wrote: > It's OK Frank, When cornered fanatics always respond by claiming > their 'enemies' are sick, crazy, etc. It's a common theme. ...
Fanatics on the loose, who "by virtue of of having read" unsubstantiated stuff, pretend to medical knowledge when cornered, claiming their "enemy" is [censored], and becoming nasty fear-mongerers, indeed.
> How so? Would you mind substantiating that? ... > ... Well, I'd sure like for you to get more specific than > that. ... > The fact, as I have read it regarding depression ... > is called clinical depression , which is an entity of its own, > caused primarily by a deficiency in serotonin reuptake...that > deficiency being that it uses more serotonin than 'normal' and > depletes the chemical. I don't know who you are but your statement > sounds like the kind of stuff that comes from ... > people who, by virtue > of having read ... have become fucking experts on just about > everything medical.... Now if you can back these statements up with > pertinent authority or research, I recant. > ... you twist things to suit your purpose and you put > yourself in the place of a medical doctor. ... > You (censored) fear mongerer......so you know cause-effect even if > your statement isn't just a lie? You clambake.... > Maybe your 'many friends' who blew their head off were talked > out of their anti depressants by you and they became depressed and > killed themselves. How does that stack up with you. Jesus Christ, > how do people like you get loose?
GaryE wrote: > What does Virt do? Anyone know? Do you, Frank? Has he ever talked > about his life in a way that you can get a feel for the man? WEll > now he says he was 'involved' with deprogramming? School teacher? > Social Scientist? (Social Scientist seem to love to take on > crusades). We all know a little to a lot about each other out here > except for a couple of people, who seem to pretty well avoid talking > about themselves personally. Frank, you've probably spent as much > time with Virt as anyone. What do you know about him? Anything?
Over the years Virt and I have alternated between banging heads and tacit agreement. Early on I had considerable curiosity about the questions you raise. Over time I've imagined him as just about everything you can think of from former priest to a federal prisoner to a home bound quadriplegic.
I figure I'm pretty good at accumulating subtle clues and building profiles yet to date I have nothing I would bet on including gender. Take that back, Virts a guy. And if we went out drinking and hustling in our prime I would outscore him. <G> Other than that, I haven't really considered it in quite some time though. More power to him.
Simple truth is Virt has certain qualities I admire more and more as I get older. Conviction, tenacity, vocabulary, <EG>, a wide variety of interests, and like me, it seems, a slight lean to the left. <G>
Our sparing has made me a better thinker, better able to articulate a point, forced me to learn how to use search engines, and more cautious lest I should have to dine on crow. Ponds gotten bigger, me smaller. Inevitable.
Sparing with everyone here has helped me grasp the insignificance of my opinions, but hey, I am, therefore I bitch, (and shall continue).
In our most frustrating and angry exchange the worst Virt ever said to me was "break a leg." That counts for something in my book and I wish I could lay claim to the same, but I can't. No friggin brakes.
This curiosity about Virts identity reminds of an old black and white spaghetti western where the cowboys bid to have lunch with the girl behind the sheet when all you can see is the shadow profile.
The town romeo thinks he's bidding on the local babe when in fact it's an old grandma. Maybe at this point, knowing Virts profile would be anti climatic, even disappointing. Make him less interesting.
What the hell, we both believe in sobriety and I'm partial to drunks that have skated near the edge and made it back. Interesting folks. We're all just trying to make sense of a rigged game. Womb to tomb.
Virt, if you're reading this don't get all puffed up, I'll be back to give you some trouble soon enough.
> What the hell, we both believe in sobriety and I'm partial to drunks > that have skated near the edge and made it back. Interesting folks. > We're all just trying to make sense of a rigged game. Womb to tomb.
> Virt, if you're reading this don't get all puffed up, I'll be back to > give you some trouble soon enough.
> Gramps
A guy had been feeling down for so long that he finally decided to seek the aid of a psychiatrist.
He went there, lay on the couch, spilled his guts then waited for the profound wisdom of the psychiatrist to make him feel better.
The psychiatrist asked him a few questions, took some notes then sat thinking in silence for a few minutes with a puzzled look on his face.
Suddenly, he looked up with an expression of delight and said, "Um, I think your problem is low self-esteem. It is very common among losers."
> >Over the years Virt and I have alternated between banging heads and > >tacit agreement. Early on I had considerable curiosity about the > >questions you raise. Over time I've imagined him as just about > >everything you can think of from former priest to a federal prisoner to > >a home bound quadriplegic.
> I think he's just a man who's fallen quite short of his own > expectations for himself. Tea Leaves 101.
You asked me:
What does Virt do? Anyone know? Do you, Frank? Has he ever talked about his life in a way that you can get a feel for the man?
I answered honestly. Kinda like the wife asking if I've noticed she's put on a few lbs.
> > I think he's just a man who's fallen quite short of his own > > expectations for himself. Tea Leaves 101.
Gosh, just like you, eh? Well, so much for your fanatical don't-care-enough-to-even-read-much, yet still able to divine so definitively. LOL
> You asked me:
> What does Virt do? Anyone know? Do you, Frank? Has he ever talked > about his life in a way that you can get a feel for the man?
> I answered honestly. Kinda like the wife asking if I've noticed she's > put on a few lbs.
Hey, enough with all that stuff what with other people discussing brain drugs, scientific/medical evidences, commercialization and politicizing of these things. What kind of topics are those for any folks to be doing on this NG. At least, not when GaryE doesn't feel like. Or like something being said. Or by some certain person or other.
GaryE's ready for his usual characteristic Only Get Personal, Ad Hom sessions, instead. Nothing new there. Must've been something posted he didn't like, since he's got a track record of posting reports of similar stuff, including simply web cut/pastes, although everyone has their favorites. But if it ain't his favorite and other people he's begrudged are pursuing the stuff anyway, well, that's quite enough of that. Time to grill.
>Treatment for Erectile Dysfunction Can Improve Depression > >Viagra May Solve Two Problems With One Little Blue Pill >By Michael Smith , MD
>Oct. 3, 2001 -- Impotence and depression are closely linked and >commonly occur in the same man. But now a new study shows that one >little blue pill might actually be able to take care of both problems.. >In some men, depression can cause ED. In others, however, ED may >actually cause mild depression . So researchers from the department of >psychiatry at Columbia University tried to determine whether Viagra >could improve erections and depression in one fell swoop. >They looked at more than 150 men with ED and mild depression -- half >were given Viagra and the other half received a placebo but were not >aware of which treatment they were taking. >The results often showed that whether the men took the drug or >placebo, if erections improved, so did their mood. >"Results from the study suggest that successful treatment of ED in >depressed men can lead to marked improvement in depression ," write >Stuart N. Seidman, MD, and his colleagues. However, they are quick to >point out that this single study does not reveal how long the >improvement in depression will last.
Especially what with drugs for depression reported widely as causing impotence. Short of defining "causing," of course.
> > > Sparing with everyone here has helped me grasp the insignificance of my > > > opinions, but hey, I am, therefore I bitch, (and shall continue).
> > What are you sparing? Can you spare it? Do you, perhaps, mean to say > > "sparring"?? lol
> > -sorry. I couldn't resist! ;-)
> Vanna......I'll take another "R" please. Also Vanna, could we go for a > hike? <EG>
HeeHee. ;~) There was no malicious intent there. I love playing with words and making puns. I just couldn't help myself from trying to be punny. You know how it goes... lol! :)
|
