SSRIs

Question:

I know I’m new here and already posting too many questions but I’m very bothered by what I "really need", so please bear with me and help me find the most possible solution.     OK, I have heard from a lot of people that Paxil does in fact work very well but causes fatigue and sexual side effects (at least in men) regardless of the duration you’ve been taking it. My biggest side effect problem now is the sexual because of the almost impossibility of gaining an orgasm. It is like an act of congress to concentrate hard enough to climax on this stuff. My sexual desire however isn’t being affected detrimentally yet. And the fatigue is another big problem.     On valium, I figured I could just take it when a certain situation is upcoming and be relaxed for that situation. This way (it seems to me) I wouldn’t have the side effects to deal with that Paxil brings. I truly want to be happy and maybe I will, in fact, simply have to sacrifice bad orgasms, faitgue and nausea with ultimate happiness. Please help me if any of you have any suggestions for I am listening wholeheartedly. Thank You.

Response:

SSRIs commonly decrease sexual desire and often cause impotence in men.  Ask your doc if he can prescribe something along with the Paxil to get you going again.   It is a trade-off.   Jon – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I truly want to be happy and maybe I will, in fact, simply have to >sacrifice bad orgasms, faitgue and nausea with ultimate happiness. >Please help me if any of you have any suggestions for I am listening >wholeheartedly. Thank You.

Response:

Pill abusers are more often female while opiate users are more likely to be male. GPs are all familiar with the extremes: ‘morbid’ abusers are usually younger patients who may be using other drugs as well. They often take far higher than therapeutic doses. At the other extreme is an older patient who is taking therapeutic or slightly higher doses of benzodiazepines with or without alcohol. There is also a grey area in between. We now know that patients in both groups are in danger of serious complications and hence may need intervention.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I know I’m new here and already posting too many questions but I’m very > bothered by what I "really need", so please bear with me and help me > find the most possible solution. >     OK, I have heard from a lot of people that Paxil does in fact work > very well but causes fatigue and sexual side effects (at least in men) > regardless of the duration you’ve been taking it. My biggest side effect > problem now is the sexual because of the almost impossibility of gaining > an orgasm. It is like an act of congress to concentrate hard enough to > climax on this stuff. My sexual desire however isn’t being affected > detrimentally yet. And the fatigue is another big problem. >     On valium, I figured I could just take it when a certain situation > is upcoming and be relaxed for that situation. This way (it seems to me) > I wouldn’t have the side effects to deal with that Paxil brings. > I truly want to be happy and maybe I will, in fact, simply have to > sacrifice bad orgasms, faitgue and nausea with ultimate happiness. > Please help me if any of you have any suggestions for I am listening > wholeheartedly. Thank You.

Response:

As with any prescription medication, Paxil may cause side effects in some people. These are usually mild and temporary. A common side effect is nausea, which may be alleviated by taking Paxil with food. Other side effects might include asthenia (lack or loss of strength), sweating, decreased appetite, somnolence (sleepiness), dizziness, insomnia, tremor, nervousness and sexual side effects. If you experience any side effects, be sure to report them to your doctor.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I know I’m new here and already posting too many questions but I’m very > bothered by what I "really need", so please bear with me and help me > find the most possible solution. >     OK, I have heard from a lot of people that Paxil does in fact work > very well but causes fatigue and sexual side effects (at least in men) > regardless of the duration you’ve been taking it. My biggest side effect > problem now is the sexual because of the almost impossibility of gaining > an orgasm. It is like an act of congress to concentrate hard enough to > climax on this stuff. My sexual desire however isn’t being affected > detrimentally yet. And the fatigue is another big problem. >     On valium, I figured I could just take it when a certain situation > is upcoming and be relaxed for that situation. This way (it seems to me) > I wouldn’t have the side effects to deal with that Paxil brings. > I truly want to be happy and maybe I will, in fact, simply have to > sacrifice bad orgasms, faitgue and nausea with ultimate happiness. > Please help me if any of you have any suggestions for I am listening > wholeheartedly. Thank You.

Response:

I just wanted to ask everyone about how long does it take for the Paxil to start working for a person to notice a small decrease in anxiety? I’m now on my 9th day and the doctor told me that I will start seeing a difference in 2 weeks and I was just wondering if anyone from the group has taken it before and can give me an estimation?     Also, when it does start working, is it like a life changing feeling… i.e.: No more fear of getting things done in front of strangers? Thanks.

Response:

It does took just over 2 weeks for me and then it got better. After that it WAS a life changing experience. I never regretted taking it even though I have changed meds since then. I went from terrified of doing much except for being quiet and staying at home to being quite social and having friends. I even got my eyebrow and tongue pierced…..which I had been wanting to do for a long time but was too shy and socially withdrawn to do. wreck

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I just wanted to ask everyone about how long does it take for the Paxil to > start working for a person to notice a small decrease in anxiety? I’m now on > my 9th day and the doctor told me that I will start seeing a difference in 2 > weeks and I was just wondering if anyone from the group has taken it before > and can give me an estimation? >     Also, when it does start working, is it like a life changing feeling… > i.e.: No more fear of getting things done in front of strangers? Thanks.

Response:

About 2 or 3 weeks for me too.  I don’t know if it will absolutely remove that fear you mentioned, but it might minimize it a bit.  For me, it basically "took the edge off" of things. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I just wanted to ask everyone about how long does it take for the > Paxil to start working for a person to notice a small decrease in > anxiety? I’m now on my 9th day and the doctor told me that I will > start seeing a difference in 2 weeks and I was just wondering if > anyone from the group has taken it before and can give me an > estimation?     Also, when it does start working, is it like a life > changing feeling… i.e.: No more fear of getting things done in > front of strangers? Thanks.

Response:

Question:

BULLSHIT Joe

Response:

> BULLSHIT > Joe

Therapy can be very good. I know because I have tried it. I know about this sort of thing. Really.

Response:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Therapy is at least as effective in treating depression as drugs are, and its effects last longer, scientists said on Thursday in a report sure to annoy drug companies that make millions selling antidepressants. The cost of therapy is about the same as drugs short-term, and cheaper over the long term, the researchers told a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. "This will be a surprising, controversial finding for many psychiatric professionals," Robert DeRubeis, chair of the psychology department at the University of Pennsylvania, said in a statement. "Most believe quite strongly in the efficacy of medication, and psychiatric treatment guidelines call unequivocally for medication in cases of severe depression." An estimated 20 million Americans suffer from depression, which can lead to suicide. DeRubeis and Steven Hollon of Vanderbilt University in Nashville studied 240 patients with depression to see if drugs or therapy worked better. "The question that has most often been asked in studies is, ‘What gets people better faster?"’ DeRubeis said. "We asked, ‘What will keep depression away over the long term?"’ Their patients got one of three treatments — 16 weeks of cognitive therapy, 16 weeks of antidepressants plus visits to a professional, or 16 weeks of placebo pills plus visits. Cognitive therapy is a type of talking-out treatment in which patients are helped to question their negative views of themselves. "By the 16-week post-treatment assessment, response rates were identical (57 percent) for both pharmacotherapy and cognitive therapy," the researchers said in their report. "Thus, these findings suggest that cognitive therapy may work more slowly in effecting change than does pharmacotherapy, but that by the end of a four-month course of treatment, patients who receive cognitive therapy fare as well as those who receive pharmacotherapy." Most — 75 percent — of the patients who got cognitive therapy avoided a relapse, compared to 60 percent of patients on medication and 19 percent of those receiving a placebo pill, they told the group’s annual meeting in Philadelphia. "These results suggest that even after termination, a brief course of cognitive therapy may offer enduring protection comparable to that provided by ongoing medication," DeRubeis said. THERAPY IS CHEAPER The 16 weeks of drugs cost an average of $2,590, compared with $2,250 for cognitive therapy, the researchers said. Over time, therapy may prove to be cheaper because patients have to continue taking antidepressants, the researchers said. "Some proponents of medication for severely depressed patients have suggested that cognitive therapy is impractical on the basis of cost," DeRubeis said. "Our study indicates that isn’t true, especially over the long term." The study is a sharp contrast to dozens of others being presented at the meeting that show the efficacy of one antidepressant over another. The market for antidepressants is huge — and profitable. Eli Lilly and Co. earned nearly $2 billion in 2001 from Prozac and Sarafem, two brand names of a drug known generically as fluoxetine used to treat depression and severe premenstrual syndromes. The study is not the first to challenge the assumptions underlying the use of drugs to treat depression. The idea behind the drugs is to change levels of brain chemicals — in the case of fluoxetine and related drugs the targeted chemical is serotonin, linked with mood. But two recent reports suggest that placebos not only work as quickly as drugs short-term, but affect the same areas of the brain.

Response:

BULLSHIT Joe

Response:

> BULLSHIT > Joe

Therapy can be very good. I know because I have tried it. I know about this sort of thing. Really.

Response:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Therapy is at least as effective in treating depression as drugs are, and its effects last longer, scientists said on Thursday in a report sure to annoy drug companies that make millions selling antidepressants. The cost of therapy is about the same as drugs short-term, and cheaper over the long term, the researchers told a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. "This will be a surprising, controversial finding for many psychiatric professionals," Robert DeRubeis, chair of the psychology department at the University of Pennsylvania, said in a statement. "Most believe quite strongly in the efficacy of medication, and psychiatric treatment guidelines call unequivocally for medication in cases of severe depression." An estimated 20 million Americans suffer from depression, which can lead to suicide. DeRubeis and Steven Hollon of Vanderbilt University in Nashville studied 240 patients with depression to see if drugs or therapy worked better. "The question that has most often been asked in studies is, ‘What gets people better faster?"’ DeRubeis said. "We asked, ‘What will keep depression away over the long term?"’ Their patients got one of three treatments — 16 weeks of cognitive therapy, 16 weeks of antidepressants plus visits to a professional, or 16 weeks of placebo pills plus visits. Cognitive therapy is a type of talking-out treatment in which patients are helped to question their negative views of themselves. "By the 16-week post-treatment assessment, response rates were identical (57 percent) for both pharmacotherapy and cognitive therapy," the researchers said in their report. "Thus, these findings suggest that cognitive therapy may work more slowly in effecting change than does pharmacotherapy, but that by the end of a four-month course of treatment, patients who receive cognitive therapy fare as well as those who receive pharmacotherapy." Most — 75 percent — of the patients who got cognitive therapy avoided a relapse, compared to 60 percent of patients on medication and 19 percent of those receiving a placebo pill, they told the group’s annual meeting in Philadelphia. "These results suggest that even after termination, a brief course of cognitive therapy may offer enduring protection comparable to that provided by ongoing medication," DeRubeis said. THERAPY IS CHEAPER The 16 weeks of drugs cost an average of $2,590, compared with $2,250 for cognitive therapy, the researchers said. Over time, therapy may prove to be cheaper because patients have to continue taking antidepressants, the researchers said. "Some proponents of medication for severely depressed patients have suggested that cognitive therapy is impractical on the basis of cost," DeRubeis said. "Our study indicates that isn’t true, especially over the long term." The study is a sharp contrast to dozens of others being presented at the meeting that show the efficacy of one antidepressant over another. The market for antidepressants is huge — and profitable. Eli Lilly and Co. earned nearly $2 billion in 2001 from Prozac and Sarafem, two brand names of a drug known generically as fluoxetine used to treat depression and severe premenstrual syndromes. The study is not the first to challenge the assumptions underlying the use of drugs to treat depression. The idea behind the drugs is to change levels of brain chemicals — in the case of fluoxetine and related drugs the targeted chemical is serotonin, linked with mood. But two recent reports suggest that placebos not only work as quickly as drugs short-term, but affect the same areas of the brain.

Response:

Question:

I have a tendency toward diahrrea and suffer from IBS. I’ve recently started taking Celexa 10mg per day and seem to be having more diahrrea. Given my IBS, it’s difficult to assess the likelihood of whether the celexa is actually causing or exacerbating the diahrrea. Is diahrrea a fairly common side effect of celexa? TIA Louise

Response:

> I have a tendency toward diahrrea and suffer from IBS. > I’ve recently started taking Celexa 10mg per day and seem to be having > more diahrrea. > Given my IBS, it’s difficult to assess the likelihood of whether the > celexa is actually causing or exacerbating the diahrrea. > Is diahrrea a fairly common side effect of celexa? > TIA > Louise

Hi Louise.  I’ve been on citalopram for three and a half months, my stomach has been very upset the entire time, and yes I have had diahrea quite a bit.  I’m taking 40 mg and I’m thinking of saying screw it and going down in dose, or even off because of the stomach aches I have been getting these last few weeks. The Squire

Response:

Question:

Prozac Truth How to taper off medication   Quitting ssris and psychiatric medication must be done by tapering off, very slowly. Step by step instructions found on this Web Site.   How to Taper Off Prozac, Sarafem, Paxil, Celexa, Zoloft, Wellbutrin and other Psychiatric Medication Read testimonials of people that have quit psychiatric medication with this method. Click Here (This page also includes recent feedback from people tapering off medication with this method) I want to hear from you. If you are using this method or not, it does help to have someone to talk with during withdrawal. Click Here to send e-mail. A change in your diet can make a change in how you feel. Click here to visit a common sense Web Site by, Dr. Hugh Mann, M.D. If you plan to change your diet while tapering, do so mildly. If you smoke or drink coffee, first taper off the medication before you quit. Your metabolism plays a major role during tapering and detox. Take the time to read Dr. Mann’s information. How to Taper Step-by-Step Recommendation Click the text below that applies to you situation: Currently using medication and have not reduced the dosage yet Currently using medication and have already started to taper You have already quit taking medication but are suffering from side effects Currently using medication and have not reduced the dosage yet Inform your doctor you wish to discontinue the medication Begin replenishing the intracellular glutathione levels in the body. This needs to be done before you begin to taper. a) Begin by increasing intracellular levels of glutathione for at least one full week before beginning the taper. Longer if necessary. I have received information from a physician that he is having people stay at this step for 8 weeks before tapering. Each individual is different. I do not feel that an arbitrary amount of time on this step is warranted. What has shown to be the most effective is staying on this step for at least one full week or until most of your side effects are gone or nearly gone AND YOU FEEL VERY STABLE. You should not begin to taper off the medication until all or nearly all of your current side effects are gone. Getting yourself very stable before tapering is critical. If you are getting the

Question:

I know an arse. Who thinks changing the clock is going to make this crap stick. Count Down Begins. why bother?

Response:

Just one opinion, but I think your conspiracy theory is absurd.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> please correct your date.  You’re top-posting. > — > I know a man who saw God so clearly that he lost all faith. > — Aegidius of Assisi quoted in "The Silent Cry" by Dorothee Soelle > I hope that after I die, people will say of me: ‘That guy sure owed me a > lot > of money.’ > – Jack Handey > Dear Group > Greetings. I am a bipolar disordered individual who is finding this group > absolutely superb. Whereas most groups waste your time with irrelevancies > and indulgences, this group is substance to the max, and bears witness > therefore to the perception that we sufferers of bipolarity and allied > conditions lack nothing in depth. > I was only diagnosed last Nov. after a severe experience where depression > triggered a profound mystical opening (this has been the pattern of my > life). Essentially my perception is that what we ’suffer’ from is foremost > a > spiritual affliction, a kind of inability to adjust our frequencies to > those > of the majority, whose own more conditioned frequencies tend to fall > within > agreeable parameters for the easy management of the soceity > they create and further condition. > I feel very strongly – and you are most welcome to agree, disagree or > otherwise feed back – that the appearance of SSRIs such as Prozac and > other > such ‘upper downers’ (my term, I even wrote a song about it;) > are the establishment response to the challenge of the restlessness of the > middle class white population in the wake of the societal upheavals of the > late 60s and early 70s. Look at it this way (and this is highly > theoretical, > if a little too credible to dismiss): In the late 60s and early 70s the > unrest in the West, esp. in the West, amongst the white middle class – > which > was unprecedented in its style and content – must have been very > concerning > to the control structure. They had already started dealing with some > success > with the problems of > ethnic minority rebellion by running hard, highly addictive drugs into > inner > city areas, etc (this is now a matter of record) thus turning the > rebellious > energy in on itself. But what to do with the more ‘important’ middle class > strata of society, who were also showing signs of discontent and unease? > The control structure realised that different rules had to apply for this > latter group. Hence the arising of a new kind of addictive and, if > anything, > even more insidious kind of drug. A kind of drug that would desensitise, > render more submissive, and crucially undermine spiritual aspects of the > human being (which are causal in the kind of unrest seen as necessary to > suppress) whilst leaving most users able to function as needed for society > at large to continue to endorse and support the control structure. Eureka! > SSRIs! Prozac!! Cipramil!! Zispin!! Miracle drugs (sic) to treat > ‘depression’ which is in any case often just a nautral process of > spiritual > awakening where the initial symptoms of a change of awareness and > consciousness – the coming to awareness first of the negative energy > forms – > that would eventually, if treated intelligently, give way to new growth in > the mind, body and spirit, are instead hammered ruthlessly into clinical > negatives. > Is this mad raving? Conspiracy theory?? I doubt it. As a sufferer for a > quarter century from bipolarity I am not ‘blaming anybody’ and I am > realist. > All I am saying is that it seems a little uncanny that all these Prozac > drugs and their boosters appeared when they did. This is a form of > spiritual > warfare we’re seeing, and it is intensifying. The economic battle is won. > Now the battle for our souls has begun. Literally. Even TV, MTV, video > games, movies, and all the other paraphenalia of distraction has not been > enough to > deter awakening awareness at this time. The ‘drugs’ are the best hope > ‘they’ > have of making ‘us’ them. > Comments welcome…and thanx for a magnificent resource and > support…Cybermystic

Response:

Don’t forget the shadow prez is on prozac.

Response:

please correct your date.  You’re top-posting. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> — > I know a man who saw God so clearly that he lost all faith. > — Aegidius of Assisi quoted in "The Silent Cry" by Dorothee Soelle > I hope that after I die, people will say of me: ‘That guy sure owed me a lot > of money.’ > – Jack Handey > Dear Group > Greetings. I am a bipolar disordered individual who is finding this group > absolutely superb. Whereas most groups waste your time with irrelevancies > and indulgences, this group is substance to the max, and bears witness > therefore to the perception that we sufferers of bipolarity and allied > conditions lack nothing in depth. > I was only diagnosed last Nov. after a severe experience where depression > triggered a profound mystical opening (this has been the pattern of my > life). Essentially my perception is that what we ’suffer’ from is foremost a > spiritual affliction, a kind of inability to adjust our frequencies to those > of the majority, whose own more conditioned frequencies tend to fall within > agreeable parameters for the easy management of the soceity > they create and further condition. > I feel very strongly – and you are most welcome to agree, disagree or > otherwise feed back – that the appearance of SSRIs such as Prozac and other > such ‘upper downers’ (my term, I even wrote a song about it;) > are the establishment response to the challenge of the restlessness of the > middle class white population in the wake of the societal upheavals of the > late 60s and early 70s. Look at it this way (and this is highly theoretical, > if a little too credible to dismiss): In the late 60s and early 70s the > unrest in the West, esp. in the West, amongst the white middle class – which > was unprecedented in its style and content – must have been very concerning > to the control structure. They had already started dealing with some success > with the problems of > ethnic minority rebellion by running hard, highly addictive drugs into inner > city areas, etc (this is now a matter of record) thus turning the rebellious > energy in on itself. But what to do with the more ‘important’ middle class > strata of society, who were also showing signs of discontent and unease? > The control structure realised that different rules had to apply for this > latter group. Hence the arising of a new kind of addictive and, if anything, > even more insidious kind of drug. A kind of drug that would desensitise, > render more submissive, and crucially undermine spiritual aspects of the > human being (which are causal in the kind of unrest seen as necessary to > suppress) whilst leaving most users able to function as needed for society > at large to continue to endorse and support the control structure. Eureka! > SSRIs! Prozac!! Cipramil!! Zispin!! Miracle drugs (sic) to treat > ‘depression’ which is in any case often just a nautral process of spiritual > awakening where the initial symptoms of a change of awareness and > consciousness – the coming to awareness first of the negative energy forms – > that would eventually, if treated intelligently, give way to new growth in > the mind, body and spirit, are instead hammered ruthlessly into clinical > negatives. > Is this mad raving? Conspiracy theory?? I doubt it. As a sufferer for a > quarter century from bipolarity I am not ‘blaming anybody’ and I am realist. > All I am saying is that it seems a little uncanny that all these Prozac > drugs and their boosters appeared when they did. This is a form of spiritual > warfare we’re seeing, and it is intensifying. The economic battle is won. > Now the battle for our souls has begun. Literally. Even TV, MTV, video > games, movies, and all the other paraphenalia of distraction has not been > enough to > deter awakening awareness at this time. The ‘drugs’ are the best hope ‘they’ > have of making ‘us’ them. > Comments welcome…and thanx for a magnificent resource and > support…Cybermystic

Response:

Smell the fart.

Response:

Way past China’s Shore.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Steps" >Smell the fart. > Clear across the Sea?? > — > "Caution, the surgeon general has found that psychiatric > treatements cause poverty and mental illness."

Response:

Question:

http://www.sciencenews.org New antidepressant medications have gained widespread use in the past decade, and more await approval from the Food and Drug Administration following clinical trials. Much debate currently concerns whether it’s ethical for physicians to give placebo pills to depressed volunteers in such studies, instead of providing either the drug being tested or an FDA-approved antidepressant. An analysis of the FDA’s clinical-trial database on recently approved antidepressants now promises to enliven the controversy further. It finds that depressed patients assigned to 4 to 8 weeks of placebo treatment

Question:

>All this "science", and one still has to play hit or >miss with meds. Welcome to the real world. >Science is an attempt to understand and >control >the world, and the mind; looking for the inner >thetan or counting chicken bones, has not >been >competitive. >Squiggles

"The purpose of "Science" is to devolop without prejudice or preconception of any kind a knowledge of the facts, the laws and the processes of nature. The laws of nature are the rules of existence, actions and relations, where God has endowed animate and inanimate matter by giving it various properties, as essential to its varing constitution and as regulating its existence, actions and relations. It is erroneous in this imperfect earth and universe to speak of fixed and eternally unchngeable laws of nature." Paul S. L. Johnson (1938)

Response:

> >You allow yourself to fear death! > What’s wrong with embracing death?

– We are not so powerful as to embrace death; sometimes it embraces us. Squiggles

Response:

> >> Is the mind even meant to be "controlled"? >Absolutely – unless you like running around like >a raving lunatic, and slaughtering millions of >innocent people, like some great charismatic leaders >have done – I think you can name them. > Actually, people with their mind controlled do slaughter innocent > people. See religion.

If you mean "drugged" by controlled, which is what you originally used the word for in the previous message, undrugged insanity is more dangerous than drugged insanity. Squiggles

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > wrote the following: >>> Is the mind even meant to be "controlled"? >>Absolutely – unless you like running around like >>a raving lunatic, and slaughtering millions of >>innocent people, like some great charismatic leaders >>have done – I think you can name them. > Actually, people with their mind controlled do slaughter innocent > people. See religion. > This mailbomber guy had some issues: > Text of note left with bombs in Illinois, Iowa > Following is the letter attached to pipe bombs left in mailboxes in > Iowa and Illinois. Spelling and punctuation errors are preserved from > the original: > Mailboxes are exploding! Why, you ask? > Attention people. > You do things because you can and want (desire) to > If the government controls what you want to do, they control what you > can do. > If you are under the impression that death exists, and you fear it, you > do anything to avoid it. (This is the same way pain operates. Naturally > we strive to avoid negative emotion/pain.) > You allow yourself to fear death! > World authorities allowed, and still allow you to fear death! > In avoiding death you are forced to conform, if you fail to conform, > you suffer mentally and physically. (Are world powers utilizing the > natural survival instinct in a way that allows them to capitalize on > the people?) > To ?live? (avoid death) in this society you are forced to conform/slave > away. > I?m here to help you realize/ understand that you will live no matter > what! It is up to you people to open your hearts and minds. There is no > such thing as death. The people I?ve dismissed from this reality are > not at all dead. > Conforming to the boundaries, and restrictions imposed by the > government only reduces the substance in your lives. When 1% of the > nation controls 99% of the nations total wealth, is it a wonder why > there are control problems? > The United States strives to provide freedom for their people. Do we > really have personal freedom? I?ve lived here for many years, and I see > much limitation. Does the definition of freedom include limitation? > I?ve learned about the history of various civilizations in history, and > I see more and more limitation. Do you people enjoy this trend of > limitation? If not, change it! > As long as you are uninformed about death you will continue to say ?how > high?, when the government tells you to ?jump?. As long as the > government is uninformed about death they will continue tell you to > ?jump? Is the government uninformed about death, or are they > pretending? > You have been missing how things are, for very long. I?m obtaining your > attention in the only way I can. More info is on its way. More > ?attention getters? are on the way. If I could, I would change only one > person, unfortunately the resources are not accessible. It seems > killing a single famous person would get the same media attention as > killing numerous un-famous humans. There is less risk of being > detained, associated with dismissing certain people. > Sincerely, > Someone Who Cares > PS. More info. will be delivered to various locations around the > country. > — >

Question:

Paxil Causes Withdrawal in Infants Short-Term Symptoms Are Intense, Require Hospitalization By   Jeanie Davis   WebMD Medical News  Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD May 6, 2002 — Women taking the antidepressant Paxil should know this: If they get pregnant, their baby could go through a withdrawal period right after birth — one that causes respiratory problems and hospitalization for up to two weeks. However, researchers say, there don’t seem to be any long-term negative effects on the infant. Paxil is one of the antidepressants known as SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) and is commonly prescribed for depression, anxiety, and panic disorder. "However, Paxil is a little bit different from the other SSRIs … in adults, it has higher rates of discontinuation syndrome — problems when people abruptly stop taking the drug — like nervousness, sleep problems, sweating," says Gideon Koren, MD, professor of pediatrics, pharmacology, and medicine and medical genetics at the University of Toronto. Koren’s previous studies and others "have shown that SSRIs are safe in pregnancy, that they do not cause malformations in the fetus," he tells WebMD. His current study focuses on the effects of Paxil on the newborn infant — whether a baby exposed to Paxil throughout the mother’s pregnancy experiences any withdrawal symptoms. He presented his paper today at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies in Baltimore. The study involved 55 women who took Paxil throughout their pregnancies, 27 women who stopped taking Paxil after the second trimester, and 27 women who took other drugs considered not to cause birth defects. Twelve of the babies exposed to Paxil through the third trimester had complications that lasted one to two weeks and required hospitalization. The problems: respiratory distress in nine infants, low blood sugar in two infants, and jaundice in one. "But the good news is, [the complications] were short term," Koren tells WebMD. "None of these babies had long-term adverse effects from the Paxil." In the comparison group, two infants exposed to Paxil in the first and second trimesters had respiratory distress and a complication in which the infant breathes in its own feces while still in the womb. A third infant who was not exposed to Paxil was born with jaundice. In the third trimester-exposed group, 36 women breastfed and continued taking Paxil after delivery. Eight women reported symptoms in their babies including difficulties with alertness, constipation, sleepiness, and irritability, but the majority of women reported no such symptoms. In the comparison group, 44 babies were breastfed and none of the mothers reported symptoms. "Breast milk may have a protective effect," says Koren. "If mom took the drug through pregnancy and she continues through breastfeeding, the baby is supplemented with lower levels of the drug and may be protected from these effects — gradually weaned off the drug."

Response:

Paxil Causes Withdrawal in Infants Short-Term Symptoms Are Intense, Require Hospitalization By   Jeanie Davis   WebMD Medical News  Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD May 6, 2002 — Women taking the antidepressant Paxil should know this: If they get pregnant, their baby could go through a withdrawal period right after birth — one that causes respiratory problems and hospitalization for up to two weeks. However, researchers say, there don’t seem to be any long-term negative effects on the infant. Paxil is one of the antidepressants known as SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) and is commonly prescribed for depression, anxiety, and panic disorder. "However, Paxil is a little bit different from the other SSRIs … in adults, it has higher rates of discontinuation syndrome — problems when people abruptly stop taking the drug — like nervousness, sleep problems, sweating," says Gideon Koren, MD, professor of pediatrics, pharmacology, and medicine and medical genetics at the University of Toronto. Koren’s previous studies and others "have shown that SSRIs are safe in pregnancy, that they do not cause malformations in the fetus," he tells WebMD. His current study focuses on the effects of Paxil on the newborn infant — whether a baby exposed to Paxil throughout the mother’s pregnancy experiences any withdrawal symptoms. He presented his paper today at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies in Baltimore. The study involved 55 women who took Paxil throughout their pregnancies, 27 women who stopped taking Paxil after the second trimester, and 27 women who took other drugs considered not to cause birth defects. Twelve of the babies exposed to Paxil through the third trimester had complications that lasted one to two weeks and required hospitalization. The problems: respiratory distress in nine infants, low blood sugar in two infants, and jaundice in one. "But the good news is, [the complications] were short term," Koren tells WebMD. "None of these babies had long-term adverse effects from the Paxil." In the comparison group, two infants exposed to Paxil in the first and second trimesters had respiratory distress and a complication in which the infant breathes in its own feces while still in the womb. A third infant who was not exposed to Paxil was born with jaundice. In the third trimester-exposed group, 36 women breastfed and continued taking Paxil after delivery. Eight women reported symptoms in their babies including difficulties with alertness, constipation, sleepiness, and irritability, but the majority of women reported no such symptoms. In the comparison group, 44 babies were breastfed and none of the mothers reported symptoms. "Breast milk may have a protective effect," says Koren. "If mom took the drug through pregnancy and she continues through breastfeeding, the baby is supplemented with lower levels of the drug and may be protected from these effects — gradually weaned off the drug."

Response:

Question:

> Seroxat. > Sorry for the crosspost, I don’t know which of these groups you read

Thanks. I like to cross-post all the groups. Seroxat? Is that like Aropax? Clare (clear, bright, light, brilliant?) is such a nice name. Bri — Om Mani P

Question:

Here is a link to the 7 May 2002 article in The Washington Post regarding placebos versus antidepressants. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42930-2002May6.html Cut and paste it into the address spot in your Internet browser.

Response:

As if you didn’t know?

Response:

> But hasn’t EACH ONE of these anti depressants undergone trials for > effectiveness before approval and use by the general public? Part of that is > to be better than placebo. What am I missing?

Evidently the FDA requires that the drug manufacturer furnish data from at least 2 studies (so usually only data from 2 studies are provided) showing the drug to be better than placebos.  Sometimes manufacturers must conduct 5 studies (maybe even more!) to obtain 2 that show their drug has qualities that exceed those of the placebo. The studies not sent to the FDA to gain approval for the drug may show that the placebo performed better than the drug, or that the drug was not found to be better than the placebo with suitable statistical significance (based on the number of patients involved in the study, etc.). Evidently patients who learn they improved using the placebo are prone to sudden reversal of the gains of the non-drug placebo!  So how much of "getting better" is in the mind of the patient, that "thinking one has gotten better" is a major part of "getting better"?  We must all wonder…

Response:

But hasn’t EACH ONE of these anti depressants undergone trials for effectiveness before approval and use by the general public? Part of that is to be better than placebo. What am I missing?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Placebos & Antidepressants Work the same Way > Antidepressants also cause additional brain changes > http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/weekly/aa050502a.htm > We have known for some time that patients given placebos (pills with no > active ingredient) often respond the same way that patients given > antidepressants. Their depression often lifts as a result of either > treatment. A new study (5/02) shows us that these two treatments both > cause similar changes in the brain. > Helen Mayberg, M.D., and her colleagues at the University of Texas > Health Science Center, San Antonio, used functional brain imaging to > study glucose metabolism in different parts of the brain following > treatment with either fluoxetine or placebo. The study was a > randomized, double-blind trial of 17 middle-aged men who were > hospitalized for unipolar depression. The researchers found that their > depressed male subjects who got better (four in each condition) > responded with increased cortical activity and decreased limbic > activity after six weeks of either treatment. Patients receiving > fluoxetine also showed changes in lower parts of the brain – in the > brainstem, striatum and hippocampus. These changes were not seen in > patients who received placebo. > A graphic illustration of the changes shows the similarities and > differences between the two conditions. > Composite PET (positron emission tomography) scan data, superimposed on > MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scans, show brain areas that increased > (red) or decreased (yellow) in activity in men who responded to placebo > (top row) and fluoxetine (bottom row). Both groups shared a pattern of > increased activity in the cortex (e.g., prefrontal, posterior > cingulate) and decreased activity in limbic regions (e.g., subgenual > cingulate), which the researchers suggest is necessary for therapeutic > response. Men who responded to the active medication, in addition, > experienced decreased activity in certain lower brain areas (e.g., > hippocampus, anterior insula) thought to sustain the cortical/limbic > changes and prevent relapse. (Graphic and key courtesy of NIMH, 2002) > What does this all mean? There are several ways to think about this > study. One conclusion that we can draw is that the placebo effect is > real – and that the act of taking an inert substance (along with other > aspects of a hospital treatment program) can trigger certain changes in > the brain. In an interview with NIMH Dr. Mayberg cautioned against > equating antidepressants and placebos. "Our findings do not support > the notion that antidepressants work merely via a placebo effect. > Patients on active medication who failed to improve did not sustain the > brainstem, striatal and hippocampus changes unique to antidepressant > responders." Rather, the authors speculate that "clinical improvement > in the group receiving placebo as part of an inpatient study is > consistent with the well-recognized effect that altering the > therapeutic environment may significantly contribute to reducing > clinical symptoms. The additional subcortical and limbic metabolism > decreases seen uniquely in fluoxetine responders may convey additional > advantage in maintaining long-term clinical response and in relapse > prevention" (Mayberg, et.al., 2002). > This study is important because it helps us begin to understand how > antidepressants and other treatment techniques change the brain. We > are just beginning to understand the brain at this level, and further > research will undoubtedly build upon this foundation. We already know > that both psychiatric medications and psychotherapy result in changes > in the brain. This study begins to tell us how the brain changes. > Reference: > Helen S. Mayberg, J. Arturo Silva, Steven K. Brannan, Janet L. Tekell, > Roderick K. Mahurin, Scott McGinnis, and Paul A. Jerabek, The > Functional Neuroanatomy of the Placebo Effect, Am J Psychiatry 2002 > 159: 728-737. [Abstract available Online]

Response:

This surprises me. Worries me for some reason also. On one hand I think that my anti depressant probably works for me. (Indeed, speculation is that too much antidressants can set off a manic cycle.) On the other hand I KNOW that my other medications do control my mania.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Placebos & Antidepressants Work the same Way > Antidepressants also cause additional brain changes > http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/weekly/aa050502a.htm > We have known for some time that patients given placebos (pills with no > active ingredient) often respond the same way that patients given > antidepressants. Their depression often lifts as a result of either > treatment. A new study (5/02) shows us that these two treatments both > cause similar changes in the brain. > Helen Mayberg, M.D., and her colleagues at the University of Texas > Health Science Center, San Antonio, used functional brain imaging to > study glucose metabolism in different parts of the brain following > treatment with either fluoxetine or placebo. The study was a > randomized, double-blind trial of 17 middle-aged men who were > hospitalized for unipolar depression. The researchers found that their > depressed male subjects who got better (four in each condition) > responded with increased cortical activity and decreased limbic > activity after six weeks of either treatment. Patients receiving > fluoxetine also showed changes in lower parts of the brain – in the > brainstem, striatum and hippocampus. These changes were not seen in > patients who received placebo. > A graphic illustration of the changes shows the similarities and > differences between the two conditions. > Composite PET (positron emission tomography) scan data, superimposed on > MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scans, show brain areas that increased > (red) or decreased (yellow) in activity in men who responded to placebo > (top row) and fluoxetine (bottom row). Both groups shared a pattern of > increased activity in the cortex (e.g., prefrontal, posterior > cingulate) and decreased activity in limbic regions (e.g., subgenual > cingulate), which the researchers suggest is necessary for therapeutic > response. Men who responded to the active medication, in addition, > experienced decreased activity in certain lower brain areas (e.g., > hippocampus, anterior insula) thought to sustain the cortical/limbic > changes and prevent relapse. (Graphic and key courtesy of NIMH, 2002) > What does this all mean? There are several ways to think about this > study. One conclusion that we can draw is that the placebo effect is > real – and that the act of taking an inert substance (along with other > aspects of a hospital treatment program) can trigger certain changes in > the brain. In an interview with NIMH Dr. Mayberg cautioned against > equating antidepressants and placebos. "Our findings do not support > the notion that antidepressants work merely via a placebo effect. > Patients on active medication who failed to improve did not sustain the > brainstem, striatal and hippocampus changes unique to antidepressant > responders." Rather, the authors speculate that "clinical improvement > in the group receiving placebo as part of an inpatient study is > consistent with the well-recognized effect that altering the > therapeutic environment may significantly contribute to reducing > clinical symptoms. The additional subcortical and limbic metabolism > decreases seen uniquely in fluoxetine responders may convey additional > advantage in maintaining long-term clinical response and in relapse > prevention" (Mayberg, et.al., 2002). > This study is important because it helps us begin to understand how > antidepressants and other treatment techniques change the brain. We > are just beginning to understand the brain at this level, and further > research will undoubtedly build upon this foundation. We already know > that both psychiatric medications and psychotherapy result in changes > in the brain. This study begins to tell us how the brain changes. > Reference: > Helen S. Mayberg, J. Arturo Silva, Steven K. Brannan, Janet L. Tekell, > Roderick K. Mahurin, Scott McGinnis, and Paul A. Jerabek, The > Functional Neuroanatomy of the Placebo Effect, Am J Psychiatry 2002 > 159: 728-737. [Abstract available Online]

Response: