SSRIs

Question:

The article, "Bromocriptine Treatment of Relapses Seen During Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitor Treatment of Depression" mentions why bromocriptine might be effective for those who had SSRI poop-out: "Some patients relapse while taking previously effective doses of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants (SSRI), as they do with other antidepressants.  Possible explanations of this include the loss of a nonspecific or placebo response and the possible loss of pharmacodynamic effect due to tachyphylaxis. Extrapyramidal disorders have been reported with the clinical use of fluoxetine, suggesting alterations in striatal dopaminergic neurotransmission.  A review of the literature concludes that serotonin modulates dopamine neurotransmission, although the details of this interaction are yet to be elucidated.  Further, a recent preclinical study found that chronic fluoxetine treatment caused decreases in dopamine levels in the nucleus accumbens and striatum in rats of between 60 and 70% that persisted up to 14 days after fluoxetine was discontinued.  Another laboratory has published preliminary results of decreased synthesis of dopamine in rat forebrain with chronic fluoxetine treatment, consistent with this finding, although further experiments were not able to confirm the original finding.  Nonetheless, the weight of evidence to date suggests that there are important functional interactions between the ascending projections from serotonergic raphe nuclei and dopaminergic neurons in the striatum and limbic forebrain.  Therefore, the loss of SSRI’s benefit may be related to secondary deficiencies in dopamine neurotransmission caused by SSRI treatment, possibly in patients especially vulnerable because of relatively low dopaminergic tone.  We hypothesized that this might be alleviated by postsynaptic dopaminergic agonists like bromocriptine…"

Response:

I’d like to see how you do on bromocriptine or the dopaminergic MAOI’s/RIMA’s.

Response:

>>ubject: Re: SSRI’s and Dopamine Depletion >I’d like to see how you do on bromocriptine or the dopaminergic >MAOI’s/RIMA’s. >Bromocripine alone…or in combo with an SSRI >cause I will NEVER ever take an SSRI again

An ap is what you need Gem. Remove the **** from my address for email replies…. —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

Question:

As well as suffering from SSRI pollution fish and mussels are being forcefed prozac deliberately by greedy people… Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 107, Supplement 6, December 1999 Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in the Environment: Agents of Subtle Change? Christian G. Daughton1 and Thomas A. Ternes2 1Environmental Sciences Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD/NERL, Las Vegas, Nevada USA; 2ESWE-Institute for Water Research and Water Technology, Wiesbaden-Schierstein, Germany http://www.fpinva.org/ProductsEnv.htm It has long been known that serotonin at concentrations of 10-4 to 10-3 M (~0.18-1.8 g/L) induces spawning in bivalves. Some commercial farmers make use of this by adding serotonin to induce spawning. Fong (76) found that Prozac (fluoxetine) and Luvox (fluvoxamine) are the most potent inducers ever found, eliciting spawning behavior in zebra mussels at aqueous concentrations many orders of magnitude lower than serotonin.  Fluoxetine elicited significant spawning in male mussels at concentrations of 10-7 M (~150

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:

Question:

Hi I’m new to this NG – so please excuse if this ha been asked before. My doctor has just prescribed Felicium (fluoxetine hydrochloride) and I read the box and accompanying leaflet which contained all sorts of horrific warnings re possible side effects Are they just covering all possibilities? Or do many of these actually occur? My doctor says that there should be no side effects. It worries me as fear of the drugs was the primary reason I did not seek assistance for many years. Any thoughts would be appreciated. David Probett

Response:

> My doctor has just prescribed Felicium (fluoxetine hydrochloride) and > I read the box and accompanying leaflet which contained all sorts of > horrific warnings re possible side effects > Are they just covering all possibilities? Or do many of these actually > occur? > My doctor says that there should be no side effects. It worries me as > fear of the drugs was the primary reason I did not seek assistance for > many years. > Any thoughts would be appreciated. > David Probett

Your doctor prescribed Prozac. The package insert exists because of laws that require giving patients complete information about all of the adverse events observed in clinical trials. Some are related to the drug; some are not. If a patient in the trial develops pneumonia and dies, that data must be collected and reported. Did the drug give the patient pneumonia? Almost certainly not. There is a lengthy disclaimer prior to the "everything that happened to patients" section that informs you the drug may not have been the cause. Fear of drugs kept me out of treatment for many years as well. I’ve had headaches and dry mouth, diminished and increased libido, constipation and diarrhea…rarely did any side effect rise above merely inconvenient. Psych meds don’t hurt. They won’t give you heart or liver problems. Lots and lots of people around the world take what you’ll be taking. I suggest you relax a little, weigh your options as dispassionately as you can, and if you trust your doctor, try the drug for a month. The likelihood is very high that you’ll feel markedly better. Good luck.

Response:

Question:

Has anyone had any success trying high doses of folate/folic acid as a supplement to Prozac/other SSRIs? FOLIC ACID SUPPLEMENTS FOR DEPRESSION A November 2000 study shows that folic acid supplements are a simple way to greatly improving the antidepressant action of fluoxetine (Prozac) and probably other antidepressants. In addition to improving the effectiveness of fluoxetine, folic acid supplements also greatly reduced the side effects of fluoxetine. This study concludes that folic acid levels used should be sufficient to decrease plasma homocysteine and that men require a higher dose of folic acid to achieve this than do women. Coppen & Bailey (2000) Enhancement of the antidepressant action of fluoxetine by folic acid: a randomized, placebo controlled trial. Journal of Affective Disorders 60, p121-130

Response:

>Has anyone had any success trying high doses of folate/folic acid as a >supplement to Prozac/other SSRIs?

I haven’t used them for depression, but my folate level (along with B12) is one of the things that my pdoc screened for the first time he saw me.  And when my depression recently got worse again, he got another level, because he said that anticonvulsants, which I take for bipolar, often decrease folate levels.  However, mine was fine.  But I do take B-complex. Emily – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->FOLIC ACID SUPPLEMENTS FOR DEPRESSION >A November 2000 study shows that folic acid supplements are a simple way to >greatly improving the antidepressant action of fluoxetine (Prozac) and >probably other antidepressants. In addition to improving the effectiveness >of fluoxetine, folic acid supplements also greatly reduced the side effects >of fluoxetine. This study concludes that folic acid levels used should be >sufficient to decrease plasma homocysteine and that men require a higher >dose of folic acid to achieve this than do women. >Coppen & Bailey (2000) Enhancement of the antidepressant action of >fluoxetine by folic acid: a randomized, placebo controlled trial. Journal of >Affective Disorders 60, p121-130

Response:

I’m not familiar with use of folic acid.  But I do know women respond better to different B vitamins than men do.  B-6 is one that most women find very effective. Christina

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Has anyone had any success trying high doses of folate/folic acid as a > supplement to Prozac/other SSRIs? > FOLIC ACID SUPPLEMENTS FOR DEPRESSION > A November 2000 study shows that folic acid supplements are a simple way to > greatly improving the antidepressant action of fluoxetine (Prozac) and > probably other antidepressants. In addition to improving the effectiveness > of fluoxetine, folic acid supplements also greatly reduced the side effects > of fluoxetine. This study concludes that folic acid levels used should be > sufficient to decrease plasma homocysteine and that men require a higher > dose of folic acid to achieve this than do women. > Coppen & Bailey (2000) Enhancement of the antidepressant action of > fluoxetine by folic acid: a randomized, placebo controlled trial. Journal of > Affective Disorders 60, p121-130

Response:

mental case! Who has as she put it, "a delicate mental condition!" Do not listen to this piece of shit! She’s a mental case! All fucked up in the head! A piece of shit! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m not familiar with use of folic acid.  But I do know women respond better > to different B vitamins than men do.  B-6 is one that most women find very > effective. > Christina > Has anyone had any success trying high doses of folate/folic acid as a > supplement to Prozac/other SSRIs? > FOLIC ACID SUPPLEMENTS FOR DEPRESSION > A November 2000 study shows that folic acid supplements are a simple way > to > greatly improving the antidepressant action of fluoxetine (Prozac) and > probably other antidepressants. In addition to improving the effectiveness > of fluoxetine, folic acid supplements also greatly reduced the side > effects > of fluoxetine. This study concludes that folic acid levels used should be > sufficient to decrease plasma homocysteine and that men require a higher > dose of folic acid to achieve this than do women. > Coppen & Bailey (2000) Enhancement of the antidepressant action of > fluoxetine by folic acid: a randomized, placebo controlled trial. Journal > of > Affective Disorders 60, p121-130

Response:

I don’t know the ideal dose of folate supplementation.  It looks like 500 microgram of folate per day is sufficient for most women, according to the trial (below), with men requiring more. Folate is usually sold by pharmacists in tablets of around 500 microgram — typically taken once daily by women (for pregnancy/menstruation).  But it’s also sold by pharmacies in 5 milligram tablets, which is 10X that dose. There are no adverse effects from taking a high dose of folate in a healthy person — it’s a water-soluble vitamin. So men could probably do with taking that sort of dose (5 mg) daily. Enhancement of the antidepressant action of fluoxetine by folic acid: a randomised, placebo controlled trial. Coppen A, Bailey J MRC Neuropsychiatry Laboratory, West Park Hospital, KT19 8PB, Surrey, Epsom, UK. BACKGROUND: A consistent finding in major depression has been a low plasma and red cell folate which has also been linked to poor response to antidepressants. The present investigation was designed to investigate whether the co-administration of folic acid would enhance the antidepressant action of fluoxetine. METHODS: 127 patients were randomly assigned to receive either 500 microg folic acid or an identical looking placebo in addition to 20 mg fluoxetine daily. All patients met the DSM-III-R criteria for major depression and had a baseline Hamilton Rating Scale (17 item version) score for depression of 20 or more. Baseline and 10-week estimations of plasma folate and homocysteine were carried out. RESULTS: Patients receiving folate showed a significant increase in plasma folate.This was less in men than in women. Plasma homocysteine was significantly decreased in women by 20.6%, but there was no significant change in men. Overall there was a significantly greater improvement in the fluoxetine plus folic acid group. This was confined to women where the mean Hamilton Rating Scale score on completion was 6.8 (S.D. 4. 1) in the fluoxetine plus folate group, as compared to 11.7 (S.D. 6. 7) in the fluoxetine plus placebo group (P<0.001).A percentage of 93. 9 of women, who received the folic acid supplement, showed a good response (>50% reduction in score) as compared to 61.1% of women who received placebo supplement (P<0.005). Eight (12.9%) patients in the fluoxetine plus folic acid group reported symptoms possibly or probably related to medication, whereas in the fluoxetine plus placebo group 19 (29.7%) patients reported such symptoms (P<0.05). LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Folic acid is a simple method of greatly improving the antidepressant action of fluoxetine and probably other antidepressants. Folic acid should be given in doses sufficient to decrease plasma homocysteine. Men require a higher dose of folic acid to achieve this than women, but more work is required to ascertain the optimum dose of folic acid. J Affective Disorders 2000 Nov;60(2):121-30

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I used to take a B-100 capsule everyday and when I did that I noticed I would > get a very mildly better antidepressant response from my meds. It was nothing > spectacular but I noticed a slight improvement. I never tried supplementing > with higher doses than that. > How much folate is needed for AD supplementation do you know? > Eric

Response:

> Folate is usually sold by pharmacists in tablets of around 500 microgram — > typically taken once daily by women (for pregnancy/menstruation).  But it’s > So men could probably do with taking that sort of dose (5 mg) daily. > Enhancement of the antidepressant action of fluoxetine by folic acid: a > randomised, placebo controlled trial.

Yeah the ideal dose of folate is a mystery to me too.  I’d like to thank whoever posted the original reference.  I chow down 10 or more 400 mcg folates whenever I remember; I’d like to take a higher dose supplement but for some reason the federal legislature thought they could be better health care providers than doctors and limited pill forms to that amount. Andy

Response:

>Yeah the ideal dose of folate is a mystery to me too.  I’d like to thank >whoever posted the original reference.  I chow down 10 or more 400 mcg >folates whenever I remember; I’d like to take a higher dose supplement but >for some reason the federal legislature thought they could be better >health care providers than doctors and limited pill forms to that amount.

Andy, The amount you’re taking is a huge overdose and can be harmful! Please, cut it down to 1000 or maybe 1500 mcg at most. Here’s an abstract that should be of interest (emphasis added): Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 1989;13(6):841-63 Folic acid and psychopathology. Young SN, Ghadirian AM Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 1. The incidence of folic acid deficiency is high in patients with various psychiatric disorders including depression, dementia and schizophrenia. 2. In epileptics on anticonvulsants, folate deficiency often occurs because anticonvulsants inhibit folate absorption. In these patients folate deficiency is often associated with psychiatric symptoms. 3. In medical patients psychiatric symptoms occur more frequently, and in psychiatric patients symptoms are more severe, in those with folate deficiency than in those with normal levels. 4. Many open studies have demonstrated therapeutic effects of folate administration on psychiatric symptoms in folate deficient patients. 5. SEVERAL PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDIES HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS, POSSIBLY BECAUSE THE DOSES THEY USED (15-20 mg/day) ARE KNOW TO BE TOXIC AND TO CAUSE MENTAL SYMPTOMS. 6. Two placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated beneficial effects of folic acid administration, one in patients with a syndrome of psychiatric and neuropsychological changes associated with folate deficiency and the other in patients on long-term lithium therapy. In the latter study the dose was only 0.2 mg/day. 7. Folic acid deficiency is known to lower brain S-adenosylmethionine and 5-hydroxytryptamine. S-Adenosylmethionine, which has antidepressant properties, raises brain 5-hydroxytryptamine. Thus, depression associated with folate deficiency is probably related to low brain 5HT. 8. S-Adenosylmethionine is involved in many methylation reactions, including methylation of membrane phospholipids, which influences membrane properties. This may explain the wide variety of symptoms associated with folate deficiency. 9. Because the costs and risks associated with low doses of folic acid (up to 0.5 mg/day) are small, folic acid should be given as an adjunct in the treatment of patients with unipolar or bipolar affective disorders and anorexia, epileptics on anticonvulsants, geriatric patients with mental symptoms and patients with gastrointestinal disorders who exhibit psychiatric symptoms. 10. Although the majority of the patients listed above will probably not be helped by folic acid therapy, a significant minority are likely to have folate-responsive symptoms. good to "see" you <g>, -elizabeth

Response:

Some studies have shown that people who are nonresponsive to SSRIs, in particular, tend to improve with folate — that folate deficiency is what keeps them from responding to the ADs. As many as 2/5 of patients with major depression may be folate deficient (probably more like 1/4). Men appear to require higher doses than women. In general, around 500-1000 mcg is probably adequate for anyone with a folate deficiency. (That’s *micrograms*, not milligrams (the equivalent in mg is 0.5-1000 mg). Don’t take 5 mg of folic acid! It can be toxic.) I think most folate supplements you can get in drug stores over the counter are 400mcg (0.4mg); my dad takes a 1mg supplement by prescription (he has well-controlled heart disease, thanks to meds, surgery, dietary changes, and exercise). I don’t think it works terribly well except in people who are deficient in folate so you shouldn’t expect miracles if your folate levels are normal. BTW, this might be a first step in explaining the connection between depression and cardiovascular disease. That’s pretty cool. Here’s an abstract that explains a little about the current theories regarding folate and depression: Nutr Rev 1996 Dec;54(12):382-90 Folate, vitamin B12, and neuropsychiatric disorders. Bottiglieri T, Kimberly H. Courtwright and Joseph W. Summers Institute of Metabolic Disease, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA. Folate and vitamin B12 are required both in the methylation of homocysteine to methionine and in the synthesis of S-adenosylmethionine. S-adenosylmethionine is involved in numerous methylation reactions involving proteins, phospholipids, DNA, and neurotransmitter metabolism. Both folate and vitamin B12 deficiency may cause similar neurologic and psychiatric disturbances including depression, dementia, and a demyelinating myelopathy. A current theory proposes that a defect in methylation processes is central to the biochemical basis of the neuropsychiatry of these vitamin deficiencies. Folate deficiency may specifically affect central monoamine metabolism and aggravate depressive disorders. In addition, the neurotoxic effects of homocysteine may also play a role in the neurologic and psychiatric disturbances that are associated with folate and vitamin B12 deficiency. -elizabeth

Response:

>Don’t take 5 mg of folic acid! It can be toxic.

Folate 5 mg tablets should not be toxic to a healthy person.  The 5 mg tablets are sold over-the-counter in Australia.  It is a water-soluble, B vitamin. However, folate interacts with the trimethoprim/sulphonamide antibacterials, some anticonvulsants,  sulphasalazine, methotrexate and other drugs.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Some studies have shown that people who are nonresponsive to SSRIs, in > particular, tend to improve with folate — that folate deficiency is what > keeps them from responding to the ADs. As many as 2/5 of patients with major > depression may be folate deficient (probably more like 1/4). > Men appear to require higher doses than women. In general, around 500-1000 > mcg is probably adequate for anyone with a folate deficiency. (That’s > *micrograms*, not milligrams (the equivalent in mg is 0.5-1000 mg). Don’t > take 5 mg of folic acid! It can be toxic.) > I think most folate supplements you can get in drug stores over the counter > are 400mcg (0.4mg); my dad takes a 1mg supplement by prescription (he has > well-controlled heart disease, thanks to meds, surgery, dietary changes, and > exercise). > I don’t think it works terribly well except in people who are deficient in > folate so you shouldn’t expect miracles if your folate levels are normal. > BTW, this might be a first step in explaining the connection between > depression and cardiovascular disease. That’s pretty cool. > Here’s an abstract that explains a little about the current theories > regarding folate and depression: > Nutr Rev 1996 Dec;54(12):382-90 > Folate, vitamin B12, and neuropsychiatric disorders. > Bottiglieri T, Kimberly H. > Courtwright and Joseph W. Summers Institute of Metabolic Disease, Baylor > University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA. > Folate and vitamin B12 are required both in the methylation of homocysteine > to methionine and in the synthesis of S-adenosylmethionine. > S-adenosylmethionine is involved in numerous methylation reactions involving > proteins, phospholipids, DNA, and neurotransmitter metabolism. Both folate > and vitamin B12 deficiency may cause similar neurologic and psychiatric > disturbances including depression, dementia, and a demyelinating myelopathy. > A current theory proposes that a defect in methylation processes is central > to the biochemical basis of the neuropsychiatry of these vitamin > deficiencies. Folate deficiency may specifically affect central monoamine > metabolism and aggravate depressive disorders. In addition, the neurotoxic > effects of homocysteine may also play a role in the neurologic and > psychiatric disturbances that are associated with folate and vitamin B12 > deficiency. > -elizabeth

Response:

> Andy, > The amount you’re taking is a huge overdose and can be harmful! Please, cut > it down to 1000 or maybe 1500 mcg at most. Here’s an abstract that should be > of interest (emphasis added): > Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 1989;13(6):841-63 > Folic acid and psychopathology. > Young SN, Ghadirian AM > Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. > patients. 5. SEVERAL PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDIES HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED > THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS, POSSIBLY BECAUSE THE DOSES THEY USED (15-20 mg/day) ARE > KNOW TO BE TOXIC AND TO CAUSE MENTAL SYMPTOMS. 6. Two placebo-controlled

Elizabeth, Thanks for taking the time to point this out to me.  I had no idea and will cut the dose down to 2X 400mcg a day.  I hope all is well. Andy

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Andy, > The amount you’re taking is a huge overdose and can be harmful! Please, cut > it down to 1000 or maybe 1500 mcg at most. Here’s an abstract that should be > of interest (emphasis added): > Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 1989;13(6):841-63 > Folic acid and psychopathology. > Young SN, Ghadirian AM > Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. > patients. 5. SEVERAL PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDIES HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED > THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS, POSSIBLY BECAUSE THE DOSES THEY USED (15-20 mg/day) ARE > KNOW TO BE TOXIC AND TO CAUSE MENTAL SYMPTOMS. 6. Two placebo-controlled > Elizabeth, > Thanks for taking the time to point this out to me.  I had no idea and > will cut the dose down to 2X 400mcg a day.  I hope all is well. > Andy

Response:

The reference below says that 15-20 mg folate/folic acid is toxic.  But not 5 mg, or 10 X 400 micrograms. I have the label of the over-the-counter folic acid 5 mg tablets from Sigma Pharmaceuticals, 1408 Centre Rd, Clayton, Vic 3168, Australia — a reputable manufacturer of ethical pharmaceuticals: "Dose: Take one tablet daily or as directed by physician." There is a rigorous Poisons Act in Australia.  If folic acid was toxic at this sort of dose, it would certainly not be available in pharmacies over-the-counter, to say the least. The B-vitamins (including folate) are water-soluble.  It is generally the fat-soluble vitamins (eg A and D) that can have serious toxicity problems. The trial below states that: "Folic acid should be given in doses sufficient to decrease plasma homocysteine. Men require a higher dose of folic acid to achieve this than women, but more work is required to ascertain the optimum dose of folic acid."  The dose given in the trial was 500 microgram daily, but this was insufficient for most men in the study.  A significantly higher dose may be required. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Elizabeth, > Thanks for taking the time to point this out to me.  I had no idea and > will cut the dose down to 2X 400mcg a day.  I hope all is well. > Andy > Andy, > The amount you’re taking is a huge overdose and can be harmful! Please, cut > it down to 1000 or maybe 1500 mcg at most. Here’s an abstract that should be > of interest (emphasis added): > Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 1989;13(6):841-63 > Folic acid and psychopathology. > Young SN, Ghadirian AM > Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. > patients. 5. SEVERAL PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDIES HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED > THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS, POSSIBLY BECAUSE THE DOSES THEY USED (15-20 mg/day) ARE > KNOW TO BE TOXIC AND TO CAUSE MENTAL SYMPTOMS. 6. Two placebo-controlled

Enhancement of the antidepressant action of fluoxetine by folic acid: a randomised, placebo controlled trial. Coppen A, Bailey J MRC Neuropsychiatry Laboratory, West Park Hospital, KT19 8PB, Surrey, Epsom, UK. BACKGROUND: A consistent finding in major depression has been a low plasma and red cell folate which has also been linked to poor response to antidepressants. The present investigation was designed to investigate whether the co-administration of folic acid would enhance the antidepressant action of fluoxetine. METHODS: 127 patients were randomly assigned to receive either 500 microg folic acid or an identical looking placebo in addition to 20 mg fluoxetine daily. All patients met the DSM-III-R criteria for major depression and had a baseline Hamilton Rating Scale (17 item version) score for depression of 20 or more. Baseline and 10-week estimations of plasma folate and homocysteine were carried out. RESULTS: Patients receiving folate showed a significant increase in plasma folate.This was less in men than in women. Plasma homocysteine was significantly decreased in women by 20.6%, but there was no significant change in men. Overall there was a significantly greater improvement in the fluoxetine plus folic acid group. This was confined to women where the mean Hamilton Rating Scale score on completion was 6.8 (S.D. 4. 1) in the fluoxetine plus folate group, as compared to 11.7 (S.D. 6. 7) in the fluoxetine plus placebo group (P<0.001).A percentage of 93. 9 of women, who received the folic acid supplement, showed a good response (>50% reduction in score) as compared to 61.1% of women who received placebo supplement (P<0.005). Eight (12.9%) patients in the fluoxetine plus folic acid group reported symptoms possibly or probably related to medication, whereas in the fluoxetine plus placebo group 19 (29.7%) patients reported such symptoms (P<0.05). LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Folic acid is a simple method of greatly improving the antidepressant action of fluoxetine and probably other antidepressants. Folic acid should be given in doses sufficient to decrease plasma homocysteine. Men require a higher dose of folic acid to achieve this than women, but more work is required to ascertain the optimum dose of folic acid. J Affective Disorders 2000 Nov;60(2):121-30

Response:

Question:

I’m on Fluoxetine injections weekly, percocet X4/day,diazepam max dose, cogentin X2/day and Ativan 2-3mg every 2 hours. Any info would help. Thx

Response:

Are you a tad bit addicted?  Why does your doctor prescribe percocet, diazepam and ativan in those high doses?  Do you have other medical problems besides depression? Nikki

Response:

Question:

Hi, About 3 months ago I felt totally SHIT! This began with my 16th birthday, that is like 7 years ago (I think it started earlier). It kept going worse every day. You know "It’s a long way down to nothing at all" (I love the new U2 album (not all tracks, though)). I didn’t like people around me, school kept getting worse, I didn’t know what to do. I was compulsive in a wanking way. Some of my familymembers are on paroxetine, and I saw they were feeling better. So I made an appointment with the dokter and got a prescription for fluoxetine (prozac). Now three months later, my mood is a lot better, I eat more and feel more "social". Have a nice life, SSRI-LOVER God is everywhere, god is everything, I’m a PART of God, you are a PART of God. I don’t mind homosexuals in this world (I have some good friends that live a gay lifestyle), because: more homosexuals equals more pussy for hetero guys like me. Better the world, begin with yourself. Ps. Did you know oxygen in high dosages is lethal? Be aware!

Response:

I used to until it quit working for me.  I was on it for 10 years and I started having breakthrough symptoms (crying all the time, not wanting to leave the house, not sleeping …) I’m glad that Prozac is working for you and I hope it works for a long time to come. schel

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi, > About 3 months ago I felt totally SHIT! This began with my 16th birthday, that > is like 7 years ago (I think it started earlier). It kept going worse every day. > You know "It’s a long way down to nothing at all" (I love the new U2 album (not > all tracks, though)). I didn’t like people around me, school kept getting worse, > I didn’t know what to do. I was compulsive in a wanking way. > Some of my familymembers are on paroxetine, and I saw they were feeling better. > So I made an appointment with the dokter and got a prescription for fluoxetine > (prozac). > Now three months later, my mood is a lot better, I eat more and feel more > "social". > Have a nice life, > SSRI-LOVER > God is everywhere, god is everything, I’m a PART of God, you are a PART of God. > I don’t mind homosexuals in this world (I have some good friends that live a gay > lifestyle), because: more homosexuals equals more pussy for hetero guys like me. > Better the world, begin with yourself. > Ps. Did you know oxygen in high dosages is lethal? Be aware!

Response:

Question:

Yeah, i’ve been following this with interest …    :-) i’ve been taking prozac for 6 yrs now    < Gronk !!! > M.S. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >x-no-archive: yes > Web Page at: http://www.robertpo.com >Prozac is losing its patent protection, and it is starting to drum up >support for the New! Improved! Gets Clothes Whiter! Prozac by casting >aspersions on the original formulation.

Response:

>Yes I saw it Robert, and…..you can chat live with the >author  of "Prozac Backlash" at abc20/20 website after > the show, but, Im not sure of the exact url, sorry. >I almost posted this too.

I had those very same symptoms that the subjects described, the suicidal ideation the thoughts of cutting, God it’s horrible to consider that it was a damn side effect. My pdoc thought I was prone to suggestions too, hope she watched that! Web Page at:www.robertpo.com

Response:

Good post, Mark. But you really should give credit to McMan’s Newsletter wherefrom the material was derived (plagiarized???). — Deep – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> x-no-archive: yes > > Web Page at: http://www.robertpo.com > Prozac is losing its patent protection, and it is starting to drum up > support for the New! Improved! Gets Clothes Whiter! Prozac by casting > aspersions on the original formulation > Nihil, >   Here are the facts behind tonight’s show. > Mark > PROZAC MANIA – PART II > Paradox:  If you do the right thing and make your current product safer, > does this amount to an express admission that your original product was > found wanting?  Could you be held liable?  Could your behavior even be > construed as fraudulent? > This is the problem Eli Lilly, makers of Prozac (fluoxetine), may be facing. > The company is preparing to launch a new version of its blockbuster > antidepressant next year, under a license agreement with Boston-area > Sepracor, just as its 14-year patent is due to expire.  The original Prozac, > according to Eli Lilly, carries a number of risks.  In the words of the > manufacturer: > "Fluoxetine produces a state of inner restlessness (akathisia), which is one > of its more significant side effects … It is also known that in some > patients, use of fluoxetine is associated with severe anxiety leading to > intense violent suicidal thoughts and self mutilation …. In other patients > manic behavior follows treatment with fluoxetine." > All this is spelled out in Eli Lilly’s patent for its new version of the > drug.  According to the patent, the new Prozac will eliminate the side > effects of the old drug.  The drug maker filed for the patent in 1995 and it > was granted in January 1998.  For whatever reasons, Eli Lilly did not > broadcast the news. > A year later, the company was taken to court by a family who refused to > settle (see Newsletter2#18).  Bill Forsyth, a retiree living in Hawaii, had > been prescribed Prozac for his anxiety and depression, and was admitted to a > psychiatric hospital, where doctors continued giving him the drug.  Eleven > days later, he returned home and stabbed his wife of 37 years, then impaled > himself on a kitchen knife. > Despite the disclosure in court of documents showing that Eli Lilly had been > fully aware of Prozac’s side effects since the 1970s and 1980s and had been > active in the suppression of certain information, the jury decided that the > drug was not responsible for Bill Forsyth’s acts of violence.  Then again, > the jury knew nothing about Eli Lilly’s new patent.  According to the > Forsyth’s lawyer, Eli Lilly never revealed its license agreement to the > plaintiffs or the court.  So last week the Forsyths filed a federal lawsuit > accusing the drug maker of fraud. > Dr David Healy of the North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine at > the University of Wales, who testified as an expert witness at the Forsyth > trial, estimates that "probably 50,000 people have committed suicide on > Prozac since its launch, over and above the number who would have done so if > left untreated." > But an Eli Lilly spokesman maintains:  "There is no credible evidence that > establishes a causal link between Prozac and violent or suicidal behavior. > There is, to the contrary, scientific evidence showing that Prozac and > medicines like it actually protect against such behaviors." > No doubt, the company will have ample opportunity to defend that claim in > court. > For two media articles, please see:

http://www.spokane.net/news-story-body.asp?Date=060900&ID=s813090&cat=">clic > k here</a> > <a

href="http://www.spokane.net/news-story-body.asp?Date=060900&ID=s813090&cat= – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> .

Response:

I am very very very very sorry.  I slam stuff together and cut off the edges for neatness. Im not trying to imply that my team of scientists and reporters compiled all that. If I was, I would be bragging for weeks. It wasnt plagiarism in my mind, cause I wasnt trying to pass it off as new and origional work and deliberately not giving the author credit. I rushed and left some stuff on the bottom, but cut it off too early. Sorry. I guess I should be sure to give reference sources in the future. I will drink a glass of mustard and puke on my new shoes tonight for punishment. Anyone interested in subscribing to this fine newsletter which contains a variety of interesting bipolar related issues can do so by following the link below. It is called "McMann’s depression and bipolar weekly." The author is John McManamy. He does this solely for the purpose of helping others and it is free. It seems very up to date. And, I heard he is very handsome and a sharp dresser and can really dance. If you are not a subscriber, please sign up here: <http://www.suite101.com/splash.cfm/depression> <a href="http://www.suite101.com/splash.cfm/depression">click here</a>

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Good post, Mark. But you really should give credit to McMan’s Newsletter > wherefrom the material was derived (plagiarized???). > — > Deep > > x-no-archive: yes > > > Web Page at: http://www.robertpo.com > > Prozac is losing its patent protection, and it is starting to drum up > > support for the New! Improved! Gets Clothes Whiter! Prozac by casting > > aspersions on the original formulation > Nihil, >   Here are the facts behind tonight’s show. > Mark > PROZAC MANIA – PART II > Paradox:  If you do the right thing and make your current product safer, > does this amount to an express admission that your original product was > found wanting?  Could you be held liable?  Could your behavior even be > construed as fraudulent? > This is the problem Eli Lilly, makers of Prozac (fluoxetine), may be > facing. > The company is preparing to launch a new version of its blockbuster > antidepressant next year, under a license agreement with Boston-area > Sepracor, just as its 14-year patent is due to expire.  The original > Prozac, > according to Eli Lilly, carries a number of risks.  In the words of the > manufacturer: > "Fluoxetine produces a state of inner restlessness (akathisia), which is > one > of its more significant side effects … It is also known that in some > patients, use of fluoxetine is associated with severe anxiety leading to > intense violent suicidal thoughts and self mutilation …. In other > patients > manic behavior follows treatment with fluoxetine." > All this is spelled out in Eli Lilly’s patent for its new version of the > drug.  According to the patent, the new Prozac will eliminate the side > effects of the old drug.  The drug maker filed for the patent in 1995 and > it > was granted in January 1998.  For whatever reasons, Eli Lilly did not > broadcast the news. > A year later, the company was taken to court by a family who refused to > settle (see Newsletter2#18).  Bill Forsyth, a retiree living in Hawaii, > had > been prescribed Prozac for his anxiety and depression, and was admitted to > a > psychiatric hospital, where doctors continued giving him the drug. Eleven > days later, he returned home and stabbed his wife of 37 years, then > impaled > himself on a kitchen knife. > Despite the disclosure in court of documents showing that Eli Lilly had > been > fully aware of Prozac’s side effects since the 1970s and 1980s and had > been > active in the suppression of certain information, the jury decided that > the > drug was not responsible for Bill Forsyth’s acts of violence.  Then again, > the jury knew nothing about Eli Lilly’s new patent.  According to the > Forsyth’s lawyer, Eli Lilly never revealed its license agreement to the > plaintiffs or the court.  So last week the Forsyths filed a federal > lawsuit > accusing the drug maker of fraud. > Dr David Healy of the North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine at > the University of Wales, who testified as an expert witness at the Forsyth > trial, estimates that "probably 50,000 people have committed suicide on > Prozac since its launch, over and above the number who would have done so > if > left untreated." > But an Eli Lilly spokesman maintains:  "There is no credible evidence that > establishes a causal link between Prozac and violent or suicidal behavior. > There is, to the contrary, scientific evidence showing that Prozac and > medicines like it actually protect against such behaviors." > No doubt, the company will have ample opportunity to defend that claim in > court. > For two media articles, please see:

http://www.spokane.net/news-story-body.asp?Date=060900&ID=s813090&cat=">clic > k here</a> > <a

href="http://www.spokane.net/news-story-body.asp?Date=060900&ID=s813090&cat= – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> .

Response:

Here’s the exact text from McMan’s Newsletter. — Deep > –This is the message header– > McMAN’S DEPRESSION AND BIPOLAR WEEKLY (June 14, 2000 Vol 2 No 21) > PROZAC MANIA – PART II > Paradox:  If you do the right thing and make your current product safer,

does this amount to an express admission that your original product was found wanting?  Could you be held liable?  Could your behavior even be construed as fraudulent? > This is the problem Eli Lilly, makers of Prozac (fluoxetine), may be

facing.  The company is preparing to launch a new version of its blockbuster antidepressant next year, under a license agreement with Boston-area Sepracor, just as its 14-year patent is due to expire.  The original Prozac, according to Eli Lilly, carries a number of risks.  In the words of the manufacturer: > "Fluoxetine produces a state of inner restlessness (akathisia), which is

one of its more significant side effects … It is also known that in some patients, use of fluoxetine is associated with severe anxiety leading to intense violent suicidal thoughts and self mutilation …. In other patients manic behavior follows treatment with fluoxetine." > All this is spelled out in Eli Lilly’s patent for its new version of the

drug.  According to the patent, the new Prozac will eliminate the side effects of the old drug.  The drug maker filed for the patent in 1995 and it was granted in January 1998.  For whatever reasons, Eli Lilly did not broadcast the news. > A year later, the company was taken to court by a family who refused to

settle (see Newsletter2#18).  Bill Forsyth, a retiree living in Hawaii, had been prescribed Prozac for his anxiety and depression, and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital, where doctors continued giving him the drug.  Eleven days later, he returned home and stabbed his wife of 37 years, then impaled himself on a kitchen knife. > Despite the disclosure in court of documents showing that Eli Lilly had

been  fully aware of Prozac’s side effects since the 1970s and 1980s and had been active in the suppression of certain information, the jury decided that the drug was not responsible for Bill Forsyth’s acts of violence.  Then again, the jury knew nothing about Eli Lilly’s new patent.  According to the Forsyth’s lawyer, Eli Lilly never revealed its license agreement to the plaintiffs or the court.  So last week the Forsyths filed a federal lawsuit accusing the drug maker of fraud. > Dr David Healy of the North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine at

the University of Wales, who testified as an expert witness at the Forsyth trial, estimates that "probably 50,000 people have committed suicide on Prozac since its launch, over and above the number who would have done so if left untreated." > But an Eli Lilly spokesman maintains:  "There is no credible evidence that

establishes a causal link between Prozac and violent or suicidal behavior. There is, to the contrary, scientific evidence showing that Prozac and medicines like it actually protect against such behaviors." > No doubt, the company will have ample opportunity to defend that claim in court. > For two media articles, please see:

http://www.spokane.net/news-story-body.asp?Date=060900&ID=s813090&cat=">clic k here</a> > <a

href="http://www.spokane.net/news-story-body.asp?Date=060900&ID=s813090&cat= > http://www.spokane.net/news-story-body.asp?Date=061100&ID=s813751&cat= > <a

href="http://www.spokane.net/news-story-body.asp?Date=061100&ID=s813751&cat= ">click here</a> > For Eli Lilly’s new patent, go to: > http://164.195.100.11/netahtml/srchnum.htm > <a href="http://164.195.100.11/netahtml/srchnum.htm">click here</a> > .. and enter "5,708,035" in the search field..

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> x-no-archive: yes > Good post, Mark. But you really should give credit to McMan’s Newsletter > wherefrom the material was derived (plagiarized???). > — > Deep > That is categorically NOT where_I_read the article. I believe that I > read the article while doing a search with > http://www.themedengine.com > …

Response:

You’re forgiven, if, for no other reason the literary beauty of your reply ) As to the low down on Prozac……. YES. This is exactly the point I have been trying to  make for some time now in the face of what I perceived as defensiveness or even ridicule. — Deep – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The interesting thing is that for some people, Prozac is a very > effective medicine with no side effects. But as the program > and research has show, it can be devastating, leading to suicide > in quite a few instances, as well as tardive dyskinesia…destroying >  control of the motor nerves. There are instances of homicidal > violence, and it appears that Eli Lilly knew of this and covered > it up. > mark > x-no-archive: yes > > Good post, Mark. But you really should give credit to McMan’s Newsletter > > wherefrom the material was derived (plagiarized???). > > — > > Deep > That is categorically NOT where_I_read the article. I believe that I > read the article while doing a search with > http://www.themedengine.com > …

Response:

The interesting thing is that for some people, Prozac is a very effective medicine with no side effects. But as the program and research has show, it can be devastating, leading to suicide in quite a few instances, as well as tardive dyskinesia…destroying  control of the motor nerves. There are instances of homicidal violence, and it appears that Eli Lilly knew of this and covered it up. mark

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> x-no-archive: yes > Good post, Mark. But you really should give credit to McMan’s Newsletter > wherefrom the material was derived (plagiarized???). > — > Deep > That is categorically NOT where_I_read the article. I believe that I > read the article while doing a search with > http://www.themedengine.com > …

Response:

Web Page at: http://www.robertpo.com

Response:

> Web Page at: http://www.robertpo.com

Yes I saw it Robert, and…..you can chat live with the author  of "Prozac Backlash" at abc20/20 website after  the show, but, Im not sure of the exact url, sorry. I almost posted this too.

Response:

> x-no-archive: yes > Web Page at: http://www.robertpo.com > Prozac is losing its patent protection, and it is starting to drum up > support for the New! Improved! Gets Clothes Whiter! Prozac by casting > aspersions on the original formulation

Nihil,   Here are the facts behind tonight’s show. Mark PROZAC MANIA – PART II Paradox:  If you do the right thing and make your current product safer, does this amount to an express admission that your original product was found wanting?  Could you be held liable?  Could your behavior even be construed as fraudulent? This is the problem Eli Lilly, makers of Prozac (fluoxetine), may be facing. The company is preparing to launch a new version of its blockbuster antidepressant next year, under a license agreement with Boston-area Sepracor, just as its 14-year patent is due to expire.  The original Prozac, according to Eli Lilly, carries a number of risks.  In the words of the manufacturer: "Fluoxetine produces a state of inner restlessness (akathisia), which is one of its more significant side effects … It is also known that in some patients, use of fluoxetine is associated with severe anxiety leading to intense violent suicidal thoughts and self mutilation …. In other patients manic behavior follows treatment with fluoxetine." All this is spelled out in Eli Lilly’s patent for its new version of the drug.  According to the patent, the new Prozac will eliminate the side effects of the old drug.  The drug maker filed for the patent in 1995 and it was granted in January 1998.  For whatever reasons, Eli Lilly did not broadcast the news. A year later, the company was taken to court by a family who refused to settle (see Newsletter2#18).  Bill Forsyth, a retiree living in Hawaii, had been prescribed Prozac for his anxiety and depression, and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital, where doctors continued giving him the drug.  Eleven days later, he returned home and stabbed his wife of 37 years, then impaled himself on a kitchen knife. Despite the disclosure in court of documents showing that Eli Lilly had been fully aware of Prozac’s side effects since the 1970s and 1980s and had been active in the suppression of certain information, the jury decided that the drug was not responsible for Bill Forsyth’s acts of violence.  Then again, the jury knew nothing about Eli Lilly’s new patent.  According to the Forsyth’s lawyer, Eli Lilly never revealed its license agreement to the plaintiffs or the court.  So last week the Forsyths filed a federal lawsuit accusing the drug maker of fraud. Dr David Healy of the North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine at the University of Wales, who testified as an expert witness at the Forsyth trial, estimates that "probably 50,000 people have committed suicide on Prozac since its launch, over and above the number who would have done so if left untreated." But an Eli Lilly spokesman maintains:  "There is no credible evidence that establishes a causal link between Prozac and violent or suicidal behavior. There is, to the contrary, scientific evidence showing that Prozac and medicines like it actually protect against such behaviors." No doubt, the company will have ample opportunity to defend that claim in court. For two media articles, please see: http://www.spokane.net/news-story-body.asp?Date=060900&ID=s813090&cat=">clic k here</a> <a href="http://www.spokane.net/news-story-body.asp?Date=060900&ID=s813090&cat= .

Response:

Question:

Hi Clay, Welcome to ASDM > I should start out by saying that i’ve been depressed for almost 10 years > now and suicidal for about 5. Until today i had never sought treatment or > help. Today the doctor prescribed Fluoxetine, which i’m guessing is a form > of prozac.

Yes…it is the generic form. > Having never taken meds in my life i am kind of scared. > Will this drug change me?

No… > Will it make me a happier person?

Not really…It will enable you to cope more effectively with issues in your life. > Does anyone have any advice for me? Because i’m willing to listen.  

Here are some med links that may be helpful. Please email me anytime. Peace, http://www.rxlist.com http://pharmacology.miningco.com/library/weekly/bl970710.htm http://www.virtualdrugstore.com/druglist.html http://www.pharminfo.com/drugdb/db_mnu.html http://www.nami.org/update/medlist.htm You can do MedLine searches from here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/medline.html This is a good general purpose Web search engine: http://www.dogpile.com

Response:

go with the flow on it all,ok? meds take a bit of time to work as your body adjusts to them. support goes with it. here you get the support, not to mention allot of entertainment too! you’re in! if a med dose needs to be adjusted your doc will do it. just remember that you can and should feel good about yourself and speak the truth. that is all for now.write anytime.   bruce

Response:

Prozac worked really good for me. Just be careful if you start to feel angry or aggressive. You might need a stabilizer (if you are Bi-Polar). I wish you luck.     Ralph – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Hello all, >I should start out by saying that i’ve been depressed for almost 10 >years now and suicidal for about 5. >Until today i had never sought treatment or help. >Today the doctor prescribed Fluoxetine, which i’m guessing is a form of >prozac. >Having never taken meds in my life i am kind of scared. >Will this drug change me? >Will it make me a happier person? >Does anyone have any advice for me? Because i’m willing to listen.   >Thanks, >Clay >Art is long, life short; judgment difficult, opportunity transient.- >Goethe >Book vii. Chap. ix

Response:

Hello all, I should start out by saying that i’ve been depressed for almost 10 years now and suicidal for about 5. Until today i had never sought treatment or help. Today the doctor prescribed Fluoxetine, which i’m guessing is a form of prozac. Having never taken meds in my life i am kind of scared. Will this drug change me? Will it make me a happier person? Does anyone have any advice for me? Because i’m willing to listen.   Thanks, Clay Art is long, life short; judgment difficult, opportunity transient.- Goethe Book vii. Chap. ix

Response:

Question:

> >I’m a first time meds user. >I know this might be a stupid question but i gotta ask:-) >My doctor just prescribed Fluoxetine for me. It says prozac on the side >of the bottle. >Can anyone tell me if it would be wise to smoke the occasional "J" every >now and then? >He advised me to give up my weekend alcoholic drinks but if i have to >give up pot too, i’ll REALLY be depressed.:-) > If you’re going to take meds, take them seriously.

I used a mental trick when I quite smoking cigarettes and later pot (when I went on meds) It would be too depressing to ‘quit forever’, so I just told myself I would take a one year reprieve and then I could restart if I wanted. It worked for me.  And in the case of pot, I’m glad because it would have prevented me from learning how to adjust my meds when needed. Liquor seems harder because everyone does it socially.  There I just cut back to a self-imposed quota.   Tom

Response:

permanently in the ether: > >Can anyone tell me if it would be wise to smoke the occasional "J" every > >now and then?

I hate my new server–this is probably quoted wrong–I never saw the original. Marijuana affects the MAOI system–but no one knows how it affects it. So, it is not advisable to use marijuana and a substance that affects (ehances or restricts uptake) the MAOI system.  Prozac does not affect the MAOI system (as far as I know) and therefore it should be safe to use marijuana. There are receptors in the brain that will only accept THC–and no other substance.  This was discovered in the only real double blind study ever done at the university of washington in the 1970s. Research on marijuana in recent years was limited to the synthetic form, called marinol.  Problem is that they took out so many ingredients to make marinol the results were totally skewed.  Marinol was found to not be very effective–except in some cases of glaucoma. Marinol is still available in one or two states, Illinois being oe of them–they are just using up the supplies from the studies.  Part of the problem with marinol was that the pot they grew is NOTHING like what people grow to get high–so the marinol studies were just one big mess.  The government simply did NOT know how to grow it properly. Anyway, this is an area of special interest to me–I have tons of information at home.  Pot has litterally saved my life–it allowed me to eat when I was projectile vomiting.  It calms me down when I’m in a manic rage.  and on and on and on.  I use it daily, I am legal–the SSDI judge said so. I am not on prozac, but I am on several medications, including two anti-depressants and lithium. Here is a site with tons of links: http://www.hyperreal.org/drugs/marijuana/medical/ Here is a site with links and current political action: http://www.dpf.org Nancy in CA "It is my moral obligation to disobey unjust laws." – MLK, Jr. To reply via email, remove "Z" from my address. Please visit the new moderated recovery group at alt.med.fibromyalgia.recovery.info Also, check out the guafenisin group at alt.med.fibromyalgia.guaifenesin Please visit the new ng, alt.talk.grandparents.

Response:

> But were you able to track down the funding for any of theses sources? > Researchers, however honest, know who is paying them, and what results will > result in future employment.

As a researcher myself I can tell you that the above is absolute, unmitigated *crap*.  It is also illogical:  most drug studies are funded by pharmaceutical companies.  It is in *their* best interests, in terms of FDA approval, to encounter the fewest possible drug-drug interactions, because that will cut down on the number of paying customers who can use that drug. How could inventing a dangerous interaction that doesn’t really exist benefit anyone? Studies not funded by pharmaceutical companies are generally funded by the NIH.  I can tell you from my own personal experience that these studies are *very* closely monitored and the consequences for falsification of data are severe (your career is over.) The only thing that guarantees a researcher future employment is doing good science. Basically you’ve just insulted an entire group of hard-working, poorly-payed people who have dedicated their careers toward helping all of us. Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Hi, I’m a first time meds user. I know this might be a stupid question but i gotta ask:-) My doctor just prescribed Fluoxetine for me. It says prozac on the side of the bottle. Can anyone tell me if it would be wise to smoke the occasional "J" every now and then? He advised me to give up my weekend alcoholic drinks but if i have to give up pot too, i’ll REALLY be depressed.:-) Thanks, C.

Response:

>I know this might be a stupid question but i gotta ask:-) >My doctor just prescribed Fluoxetine for me. It says prozac on the side >of the bottle. >Can anyone tell me if it would be wise to smoke the occasional "J" every >now and then?

I’d say go for it, as long as it’s in moderation. Not only as near to harmless as you’re going to get but also posesses mood-stabilising effects and helps you sleep So as long as it isn’t a regular thing, by all means go ahead

Response:

> My doctor just prescribed Fluoxetine for me. It says prozac on the side > of the bottle. > Can anyone tell me if it would be wise to smoke the occasional "J" every > now and then?

Hi, This is what I found:  in Drug Therapy in Psychiatry, 3rd ed. by Jerrold Bernstein it says that heavy cannabis use can cause psychotic reactions, and that people with prior psychiatric diagnoses are at particular risk.  It sounds like you aren’t a heavy user, so this shouldn’t be so much of an issue.  However, in several studies of college students, (Mendelsohn, et al "The Use of Marijuana:  A Psychological and Physiological Inquiry") an "amotivational syndrome" was described in which users became "complacent and withdrawn" and had decreased interest in activity and ability to work.  This sounds a bit like depression, which is presumably what you are taking the Prozac for – so while you may not be hurting yourself in an acute medical sense by taking the two together, you might be defeating the whole purpose of your medication, or , worse yet, making yourself more depressed. Incidentally, I did find a case report of Lithium toxicity with cannabis use (Ratey, et al, "Lithium and marijuana." in Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology). So, what did your pdoc say about the marijuana? Jeannie Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Hell, I haven’t. There is no better drug for dysphoric rage. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Hi, >I’m a first time meds user. >I know this might be a stupid question but i gotta ask:-) >My doctor just prescribed Fluoxetine for me. It says prozac on the side >of the bottle. >Can anyone tell me if it would be wise to smoke the occasional "J" every >now and then? >He advised me to give up my weekend alcoholic drinks but if i have to >give up pot too, i’ll REALLY be depressed.:-) >Thanks, >C.

Response:

snippage……. >He advised me to give up my weekend alcoholic drinks but if i have to >give up pot too, i’ll REALLY be depressed.:-) > As a beginning meds-taker (as opposed to toker), it is up to > you to report to your doctor how well the chemical is > working > If you’re going to take meds, take them seriously. > dp

Back in the dark ages, 1976, was taking a medical pharmacology course. During which, I noted with great personal interest, that grass interferes with short term memory.  Since this was the memory I relied on for cramming for exams, I reluctantly gave it up (was using to sleep).  And now, so many of my prescription concoctions also interfere with short term memory—I decline. I’ve seen no research indicating that the very occasional use of a "j" is harmful to people—driving not recommended and of course lung disorders possible—but we aren’t just people.  We have a brain disorder and for the most part, take a boatload of drugs. I would never add recreational drugs without speaking with my pdoc; but then he’s non-judgmental and open to the unusual. BTW, there is no evidence that the occasional alcoholic drink is contraindicated with Prozac—if you are otherwise well.  A large part of the reason for the admonition "no alcohol", is a "cover their asses" legal enthusiasm.  Understandable, in this very litigious day and age. regards, julie pa, rdms

Response:

But were you able to track down the funding for any of theses sources? Researchers, however honest, know who is paying them, and what results will result in future employment. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >This is what I found:  in Drug Therapy in Psychiatry, 3rd ed. by >Jerrold Bernstein it says that heavy cannabis use can cause psychotic >reactions, and that people with prior psychiatric diagnoses are at >particular risk.  It sounds like you aren’t a heavy user, so this >shouldn’t be so much of an issue.  However, in several studies of >college students, (Mendelsohn, et al "The Use of Marijuana:  A >Psychological and Physiological Inquiry") an "amotivational syndrome" >was described in which users became "complacent and withdrawn" and had >decreased interest in activity and ability to work.  This sounds a bit >like depression, which is presumably what you are taking the Prozac for >- so while you may not be hurting yourself in an acute medical sense by >taking the two together, you might be defeating the whole purpose of >your medication, or , worse yet, making yourself more depressed. >Incidentally, I did find a case report of Lithium toxicity with >cannabis use (Ratey, et al, "Lithium and marijuana." in Journal of >Clinical Psychopharmacology). >So, what did your pdoc say about the marijuana?

Response: