SSRIs

Question:

STUDIES ON PERSISTENT EFFECTS OF SSRI USE The following new study is very significant. It finds that very young rats exposed to Prozac for just 2 weeks had brains changes that persisted into adulthood. It concludes: "This is the first empirical demonstration of long-lasting effects of the administration of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor during juvenile life on the maturation of the central serotonergic system."  J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 1999;9(1):13-24; discussion 25-6 Persistently increased density of serotonin transporters in the frontal cortex of rats treated with fluoxetine during early juvenile life.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> STUDIES ON PERSISTENT EFFECTS OF SSRI USE > The following new study is very significant. It finds that very young rats > exposed to Prozac for just 2 weeks had brains changes that persisted into > adulthood. It concludes: "This is the first empirical demonstration of > long-lasting effects of the administration of a selective serotonin reuptake > inhibitor during juvenile life on the maturation of the central serotonergic > system." >  J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 1999;9(1):13-24; discussion 25-6 > Persistently increased density of serotonin transporters in the frontal cortex > of rats treated with fluoxetine during early juvenile life.

This must be the study that Steve was talking about. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

YES YES!!!! thanks so much, bob! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> STUDIES ON PERSISTENT EFFECTS OF SSRI USE > The following new study is very significant. It finds that very young rats > exposed to Prozac for just 2 weeks had brains changes that persisted into > adulthood. It concludes: "This is the first empirical demonstration of > long-lasting effects of the administration of a selective serotonin > reuptake > inhibitor during juvenile life on the maturation of the central > serotonergic > system." >  J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 1999;9(1):13-24; discussion 25-6 > Persistently increased density of serotonin transporters in the frontal > cortex > of rats treated with fluoxetine during early juvenile life. > This must be the study that Steve was talking about.

Response:

Thats really interesting Jim.. Ill try to get a copy.. That so little research of this sort is done in the US isnt suprising when most is sponsored by the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical multinationals. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > X-No-Archive: yes >YES YES!!!! thanks so much, bob! > See comments below. > I believe the Rat study  does not in itself "prove" things > But I do believe that the comibination of some > circumstantial information, including the Rat study,  does > indicate that there could be long term damage in the brain > due to the SSRIs. > And that is something both important and worthy of > discussion in substance. >> > STUDIES ON PERSISTENT EFFECTS OF SSRI USE >> > The following new study is very significant. It finds that very young rats >> > exposed to Prozac for just 2 weeks had brains changes that persisted into >> > adulthood. It concludes: "This is the first empirical demonstration of >> > long-lasting effects of the administration of a selective serotonin >> > reuptake  inhibitor during juvenile life on the maturation of the central >> > serotonergic system." >> >  J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 1999;9(1):13-24; discussion 25-6 >> > Persistently increased density of serotonin transporters in the frontal >> >cortex  of rats treated with fluoxetine during early juvenile life. >> This must be the study that Steve was talking about. > Glad  Steven  found his  reference.  Steven or others might > consider reading (or rereading  if you already read it), the > Prozac Backlash Book by Josepth Glenmullen M.D.  copyright > 2000 which comes after the 1999 rat article referenced. > Glenmullen mentions the rat study and quite a bit more. > However the case he makes for  potential  braindamage, > rests not on the rat study, but  rather on the  page after > page of circimumstantial information (not proof). > In addition to the straifforward support for patients rights > and other factors,  the information relative potential brain > damage provided by Gelenmullen (not proved) ,  is > sufficiently convincing to me that it enhances my support > for at least some  patients who desire to be off the meds. > Some Doctors manage to get people on the drugs who do not > seem to be needing them  in the first place. And some who > might need the drugs at least for some time, seem to get > stuck with the  "drug for life" thing even when that does > not seem reasonable.   Only emphasis of some Drs, books etc, > seems to be on the potential of  "remission" ,  rather than > a balance of all factors including remission. > A discussion of potential brain damage as developed in the > Glenumllen  book (or others) would be useful. especially to > those who might be marginal as to real need or not need for > the drugs.  Or might  lnfluence the dosage if people go for > the most allowed,  rather than the least needed. > ——- > Very rough discussion of the book relative the rat study, > and other factors /hypothesis – observations   brought out > by Glenmullen (not facts). Relative potential brain damage. > . > Paraphrases – not direct quotes. > o  Glenmllen discusses the rat study  page 201 and beyond in > a subparagraph called  "Test Tube Studies of Blenderized Rat > Brains" > . > Indicates  that serotonin levels cannot be measured in the > brain of any patient etc.  And to circumvent the problems > with human subjects, pharmaceutical companies turn to animal > models.  He acknowleges that the results may bear little > resemblence to what the drugs do in the living brain. So > this is not offered as "proof". > So the  rat study all by itself is not offered as proof, but > but it is interesting in addition to and in context with > other conjectures. . > Some other circumstantial items. > o   Page 16 there is mention of how both former and > currently popular anitdepressents appear to boost > neurotransmitter beyond  ordinary circumstances.  That > includes cocaine, amphetamines, prozac group etc. > o  Page 20 he indicates how a reaction to artificially > elevated serotonin lowers dopamine.  And notes that drugs > reducing dopamine are known to produce side effects which > are now appearing with Prozac and other drugs in its class. > He notes (page 20) how the earlier drugs the brain damage > could progess slowly and often silent.  And that the degree > of damage relates  to the total cumulartive exposure to the > drugs. > This  point seems to be that drugs were once OK  and took > many years to discover problems with,  have some of the same > side effects which occur in the SSRIs. .  And how long it > was before the older drugs were discovered to be not good. > Would note that it did seem odd to me, that the Dopramine > drop was only  relatively recently discovered. Which does > leave open the question of what all  else might be going on, > and not yet noticed. > The implication that brain damage if it exists,  would be > likely to be total dose related (based on other drugs) , > would leat one towards thinking about minimum dosage needed, > ratther than maximum  dosage.   And the potential > desireability of getting off the drugs sooner rather than > later as some  books – doctors indicatee. Especially if that > is what an individual might desire.. > o    page 22.    Mentions some withdrawal items and how the > drug companies try to avoid negative connotations of > withdrawal,  by using the term antideprssant discontinuation > syndrome. > More about that on page 87 – 88 where there are > recommendatins for physicions to tell the  public there is > no dependence problem etc. And discontinuance will not be a > problem. > Yet we  have seen how it is a problem via many articles on > the internet. > o   page 57 – 59   A subportion called "Silent Brain > Damage".   Not much proof here, but some  conjectures. > o   page 84  - 85  Mention of antidepressants chemically > altering , distorting , stifle feelings etc. . Leaving > patients "bland" and "tranquillize" etc. > Hope that some of the  people here might be not this way > even with the drugs .    However, the  patients on drugs > that  I have seen,  seem to be bland.  Nice, quiet, and even > happy (after some recovery).   But not lively.  This might > or might not be permanent. But if the drugs are never lifter > per the pyschitrists drug for life scenarios, that can > become the equivalent of permanent. > If someone is put on drugs "for life",  and if that person > is misdiagnosed, does not really need the drugs,  or > receives an  unfavorable risk – reward decision relative to > remission and what the  patient wants. there can be a > problem therm. Which gets bigger to the extent that there > might or might not be something to the potential of > permanent brain damage. > . > o  page 88 –  94  etc.  Mentions the wearing off of the > drugs.   Increased doses etc until it no longer work.  Poop > out etc.   Page 94 mentions how the wearout appears > permanent and how that raises concer about the long temr > effects of the drugs on the brain. > page 94 +  Mentions a possiblity of drugs being toxic to the > brain destroying critical parts of brain cells.  And  how > there is a lack of adequate studies of the prozac gp etc. > And therefore needs to turn to studies of the drugs. > On page 97 – 99  that the drugs might be toxic via high > levle of neurotransmitters.. Few published studies but not > conclusive.  This brings us back to the animal studies. > page 101 analogy to other drugs such as cocaine etc. > Etc  The list could go on. > This is  a small sample of the items in just one 584 page > book.  There are other books etc, but the Prozac Backlash > book is  the only book I have that referenced the Rat study. > And the only book I have with so much information about > potential brain damage even if it is not proven,and does not > claim to be proven.    But there is also no proof that there > is not long term damage to the brain.  And   not much > evidence that anyone is going to study that. > It does seem like a shame that the US does not study that > kind of thing (the potential of brain damage). > While all this gets sorted out, I will continue to beleive > that it is a good idea for the patients to have rights of > choice (except maybe for the usual danger type of thing),, > and not be pushed into the drugs by what seems to be a drug > society. > This is based on a number of factors, and  the potential of > long term brain damage is just one of those  factorsr.  The > better that item  gets discussed – sorted out, the better > people will be able to make their risk – reward decisions. > Glad to see good discussions going or here for that reason.

Response:

X-No-Archiev: yes >Thats really interesting Jim.. >Ill try to get a copy.. >That so little research of this sort is done in the US isnt suprising when >most is sponsored by the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical multinationals.

That looks like it could be the situation. It seems to be  difficult to find a doctor in the US that is not so brainwashed by the drug industry and or others,  as to provide mental treatment which passes the test of common sence.   When it comes to the drug situation.  Have read about, and seen some,  situations where the patient is not informed, not listened to.  And where  concent is  coerced via a number of ways into  taking the drugs they don’t want. Have been puzzeled as to how come people can go to doctors for tens of years for regular medical treatment,  and not run into problems with what doctors do  .When it comer to mental health, I am gradually finding out the he US system appears to be a basket case . Have postulated that maybe it is because anyone who graduated in the order of 10 years or more, would be learning about the newer mental health drugs from the drug company’s representatives themselves.  Or from drug company approved research articles. It is unfortunate that the way  doctors actions can make it necessay for regular people to become their own doctors. Problems  I have read about and or  witnessed in the US.: People are  ambushed by MDs with free samples,  and no explanations of side effects etc.  And pushed  to take the drugs sometimes even if the item is not deprsssion. And  a pushiness to continue to take them .   Or the opposite.  A willingness to prescribe them just because someone saw a drug company advertisement,  or wants one for reasons which are not sound.  And a lack of knowledge. When it comes to the Pysciatrists they seem to  know much more about it than the regular MDs. . But many of them also push the the drugs at times that defy common sence.  Refuse treatement without drugs, coerce  people to  do what the doctor says etc.  And there is a tendency to try to keep people on the drugs for life.  Even it it is the first round of depression.   .   Would be nice if the pyschologist PH Ds could help the US regualar people  out,  when they try to fight against the medicine being shoved at them . But have seen where they too will  sucomb to the drug thing by telling people to  do whatever the pyschiatrists  say. Even including the drug for life bit when their own fine therapy might be all that is needed.   It would help if more of them would   stand up for the regular people but few do.. All that would not matter as much if there was no potential of permanent damge. But there does seem to be a danger of potential permanent damage , and that danger  increases with the total dose. So those who don’t need the drugs are being exposed to that potential damage needlessly .  Even  those who really need the drugs and  where the benefits potential benefits outweigh the dangers,  can be exposed to higher  doses than needed. .   The book contains  more items than just potential brain damage .. For example in the very first pages in the introduction Glenmullen  descirbes how he saw a patient he calls Anne. Just moving from Chicago to the Univ of Cambridge (Mass where he is a pyschiatrist). She had come to him because she was running out of medication. .  She had been on 150 mg  of Zoloft for 3 years.  She had been given the serotonin lifter by her primary care doctor   because she was upset over her boyfriend’s breaking up with her. And at that time had only mild symtoms which wouldn’t even qualify for depression diagnosis. Seems like she got together with her boyfriend a few months later and they have now been happily  maried for 2 years. She got her medication for a year and then just kept getting more by calling the office for a refill.  An exposure to a high dose of Zoloft for 3 years until he helped her stop.. Later on mentioned how she was surprised that the pills cost so much ($150 per month),  since she was getting them paid for by her HMO.   Then there was a discussion of withdrawal problems which she thought was  return of symptoms but Glenmullen indicated was withdrawal and not  return to her original symptons.   Much later in the book there is a discussion of how HMO’s push the drugs to save therapy costs etc. —- So there seems to be many  pressures here in the US to use the antidepressent drugs. At least some times  not justified by  symtoms etc.    The drug companies , the doctors, the HMOs,  the advertisements,   and even  family members who can be brainwashed by the doctors to try to make the patient take the pills.. Glenmullen indicates how for patients whose symptoms aer more severe he still recommends medication.  Even though the book is  critical of the way the drugs are prescribed and the potential dangers he is still for the drugs when needed. After this first situation description  (Anne)    of one of his patients,  the  book continues  to describe many more situations where people have been incorrectly given the drugs . Also  much more useful information not found in a  number of other books I have looked at.  One point not being picked up by others is contained on page  208 where he indicates that when a placebo is used which has side effects (but not an anti depressant),  the performance of the placebo climbs to where there is no difference. —- As I mentioned in my prior aritcle, discussion of  the potential or non potential for  brain damage is important. Not proven, but enough information to be well worth discussing the potential of non potential of that. Even if just a little bit true, it would be of value in decisions made for dosages which might be higher than needed,. Or decisions for patients as to  whether or not to use them at all for the minor situations . And , for decisions relative support for those who might not want ot do drugs for life,   when they had at most one depression.   Patients should  have the right to refuse treatment from the doctors.   With the usual  special considerations when involved in  situations of danger. .   All of that hopefully consistent with the needs of the many people here in this usenet gp and elsewhere,  who need the drugs and want to be  able to continue to be able to get them . —- Hope you and some others might  get the book. I have seen it a few times in the bookstores here in the US, but it is not that easy to find.  Should it be difficult to find in the UK,  possibly it could be ordered special. Prozac Backlash. Josepth Glenmllen. M.D.  Copyright 2000   A touchstone Book published by Simon and Shuster  New York, London,, Toronto, Sydney, and Singapore.   Some background of prior posts left in for context. Some snipped. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> X-No-Archive: yes > >YES YES!!!! thanks so much, bob! > See comments below. > I believe the Rat study  does not in itself "prove" things > But I do believe that the comibination of some > circumstantial information, including the Rat study,  does > indicate that there could be long term damage in the brain > due to the SSRIs. > And that is something both important and worthy of > discussion in substance. > >> > STUDIES ON PERSISTENT EFFECTS OF SSRI USE > >> > The following new study is very significant. It finds that very young > >> >  rats  exposed to Prozac for just 2 weeks had brains changes that persisted > >> > into adulthood. It concludes: "This is the first empirical demonstration > >> >  long-lasting effects of the administration of a selective serotonin > >> > reuptake  inhibitor during juvenile life on the maturation of the > >> > central serotonergic system." > >> >  J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 1999;9(1):13-24; discussion 25-6 > >> > Persistently increased density of serotonin transporters in the > >> > frontal cortex  of rats treated with fluoxetine during early juvenile life. > >> This must be the study that Steve was talking about. > Glad  Steven  found his  reference.  Steven or others might > consider reading (or rereading  if you already read it), the > Prozac Backlash Book by Josepth Glenmullen M.D.  copyright > 2000 which comes after the 1999 rat article referenced. > Glenmullen mentions the rat study and quite a bit more. > However the case he makes for  potential  braindamage, > rests not on the rat study, but  rather on the  page after > page of circimumstantial information (not proof). > In addition to the straifforward support for patients rights > and other factors,  the information relative potential brain > damage provided by Gelenmullen (not proved) ,  is > sufficiently convincing to me that it enhances my support > for at least some  patients who desire to be off the meds.

snip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It does seem like a shame that the US does not study that > kind of thing (the potential of brain damage). > While all this gets sorted out, I will continue to beleive > that it is a good idea for the patients to have rights of > choice (except maybe for the usual danger type of thing),, > and not be pushed into the drugs by what seems to be a drug > society. > This is based on a number of factors, and  the potential of > long term brain damage is just one of those  factorsr.  The > better that item  gets discussed – sorted out, the better > people will be able to make their risk – reward decisions. > Glad to see good discussions going or here for that

… read more »

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > X-No-Archiev: yes >Thats really interesting Jim.. >Ill try to get a copy.. >That so little research of this sort is done in the US isnt suprising when >most is sponsored by the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical multinationals. > That looks like it could be the situation. > It seems to be  difficult to find a doctor in the US that is > not so brainwashed by the drug industry and or others,  as > to provide mental treatment which passes the test of common > sence.

GPs are often more independently minded in the UK and have a attitude of care for the patient as a person and arent wannabe scientists in white coats.. they are often quite happy to be doctors. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> When it comes to the drug situation.  Have read about, and > seen some,  situations where the patient is not informed, > not listened to.  And where  concent is  coerced via a > number of ways into  taking the drugs they don’t want. > Have been puzzeled as to how come people can go to doctors > for tens of years for regular medical treatment,  and not > run into problems with what doctors do  .When it comer to > mental health, I am gradually finding out the he US system > appears to be a basket case . > Have postulated that maybe it is because anyone who > graduated in the order of 10 years or more, would be > learning about the newer mental health drugs from the drug > company’s representatives themselves.  Or from drug company > approved research articles.

reports of side-effects have the drug company salesmen picking up reports..they are not always circulated for obvious reasons > It is unfortunate that the way  doctors actions can make it > necessay for regular people to become their own doctors.

not neccessarily unfortunate.. partners with the doctor providing information and resources is a good model.. > Problems  I have read about and or  witnessed in the US.: > People are  ambushed by MDs with free samples,  and no > explanations of side effects etc.  And pushed  to take the > drugs sometimes even if the item is not deprsssion. And  a > pushiness to continue to take them .

Luckily, the provision of free medication for the economically deprived as part of all treatment universally available and free at point of treatment precludes such things in the UK > Or the opposite.  A willingness to prescribe them just > because someone saw a drug company advertisement,  or wants > one for reasons which are not sound.  And a lack of > knowledge.

We have no direct advertisments… Im pretty sure iys illegal and its certainly unconscionable > When it comes to the Pysciatrists they seem to  know much > more about it than the regular MDs. . But many of them also > push the the drugs at times that defy common sence.  Refuse > treatement without drugs, coerce  people to  do what the > doctor says etc.  And there is a tendency to try to keep > people on the drugs for life.  Even it it is the first round > of depression.   .

Sadly economic factors Physical treatments for the poor and pychotherapy for the rich has a long history. Psychotherapy without charge available albeit with a waiting list.. > Would be nice if the pyschologist PH Ds could help the US > regualar people  out,  when they try to fight against the > medicine being shoved at them . > But have seen where they too will  sucomb to the drug thing > by telling people to  do whatever the pyschiatrists  say. > Even including the drug for life bit when their own fine > therapy might be all that is needed.   It would help if more > of them would   stand up for the regular people but few do..

It would be professional suicide … as doctors with the legal right to cut into bodies(the big divide).. and the right to prescribe the psychiatrists are at the top of the totem pole.. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > All that would not matter as much if there was no potential > of permanent damge. > But there does seem to be a danger of potential permanent > damage , and that danger  increases with the total dose. > So those who don’t need the drugs are being exposed to that > potential damage needlessly .  Even  those who really need > the drugs and  where the benefits potential benefits > outweigh the dangers,  can be exposed to higher  doses than > needed. . > The book contains  more items than just potential brain > damage .. > For example in the very first pages in the introduction > Glenmullen  descirbes how he saw a patient he calls Anne. > Just moving from Chicago to the Univ of Cambridge (Mass > where he is a pyschiatrist). > She had come to him because she was running out of > medication. .  She had been on 150 mg  of Zoloft for 3 > years.  She had been given the serotonin lifter by her > primary care doctor   because she was upset over her > boyfriend’s breaking up with her. And at that time had only > mild symtoms which wouldn’t even qualify for depression > diagnosis. > Seems like she got together with her boyfriend a few months > later and they have now been happily  maried for 2 years. > She got her medication for a year and then just kept getting > more by calling the office for a refill.  An exposure to a > high dose of Zoloft for 3 years until he helped her stop.. > Later on mentioned how she was surprised that the pills cost > so much ($150 per month),  since she was getting them paid > for by her HMO.   Then there was a discussion of withdrawal > problems which she thought was  return of symptoms but > Glenmullen indicated was withdrawal and not  return to her > original symptons.   Much later in the book there is a > discussion of how HMO’s push the drugs to save therapy costs > etc. > —- > So there seems to be many  pressures here in the US to use > the antidepressent drugs. At least some times  not justified > by  symtoms etc.    The drug companies , the doctors, the > HMOs,  the advertisements,   and even  family members who > can be brainwashed by the doctors to try to make the patient > take the pills.. > Glenmullen indicates how for patients whose symptoms aer > more severe he still recommends medication.  Even though the > book is  critical of the way the drugs are prescribed and > the potential dangers he is still for the drugs when needed. > After this first situation description  (Anne)    of one of > his patients,  the  book continues  to describe many more > situations where people have been incorrectly given the > drugs . > Also  much more useful information not found in a  number of > other books I have looked at.  One point not being picked up > by others is contained on page  208 where he indicates that > when a placebo is used which has side effects (but not an > anti depressant),  the performance of the placebo climbs to > where there is no difference. > —- > As I mentioned in my prior aritcle, discussion of  the > potential or non potential for  brain damage is important. > Not proven, but enough information to be well worth > discussing the potential of non potential of that. > Even if just a little bit true, it would be of value in > decisions made for dosages which might be higher than > needed,. Or decisions for patients as to  whether or not to > use them at all for the minor situations . And , for > decisions relative support for those who might not want ot > do drugs for life,   when they had at most one depression. > Patients should  have the right to refuse treatment from the > doctors.   With the usual  special considerations when > involved in  situations of danger. > .

I believe it promises to get worse rather than better with hysteria and misinformation driving forced community treatment plans and NAMI taking vast amounts of drug company cash to help force it through.. > All of that hopefully consistent with the needs of the many > people here in this usenet gp and elsewhere,  who need the > drugs and want to be  able to continue to be able to get > them . > —- > Hope you and some others might  get the book. > I have seen it a few times in the bookstores here in the US, > but it is not that easy to find.  Should it be difficult to > find in the UK,  possibly it could be ordered special.

Its available with a one to two week wait http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/202-5814657-72… at Amazon (uk) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Prozac Backlash. Josepth Glenmllen. M.D.  Copyright 2000   A > touchstone Book published by Simon and Shuster  New York, > London,, Toronto, Sydney, and Singapore. > Some background of prior posts left in for context. Some > snipped. >> X-No-Archive: yes >> >YES YES!!!! thanks so much, bob! >> See comments below. >> I believe the Rat study  does not in itself "prove" things >> But I do believe that the comibination of some >> circumstantial information, including the Rat study,  does >> indicate that there could be long term damage in the brain >> due to the SSRIs. >> And that is something both important and worthy of >> discussion in substance. >> >> > STUDIES ON PERSISTENT EFFECTS OF SSRI USE >> >> > The following new study is very significant. It finds that very young >> >> >  rats  exposed to Prozac for just 2 weeks had brains changes that persisted >> >> > into adulthood. It concludes: "This is the first empirical demonstration >> >> >  long-lasting effects of the administration of a selective serotonin >> >> > reuptake  inhibitor during juvenile life on the

… read more »

Response: