Grassley Probes Paxil Suicide Risks
50 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // June 12th, 2008 // 12:39 pm
The Republican Senator from Iowa wants the agency to “carefully scrutinize” info from Glaxo after reviewing a report about suicide risks among adults using the antidepressant. Chuck has also asked the FDA to review findings released earlier this year by UK regulators, which charged the drugmaker with knowing about suicide risks in children since 1998, but failed to pursue criminal charges.
The report cited by Grassley was prepared by Joseph Glenmullen, a Harvard psychiatry professor, for litigation in federal court in California over Paxil side effects. The report, which was unsealed earlier this year, asserts that Glaxo obscured suicide risks associated with Paxil for 15 years or more.
“The British counterpart to our country’s FDA found that GlaxoSmithKline withheld important safety data on Paxil,” Grassley says in a statement. “If the company engaged in this behavior in the UK, then I want to make sure that the same didn’t happen here in the US. The FDA should investigate this question thoroughly and be forthcoming about its findings.”
Dan
Another joins Elliott Spitzer…….
Current Depression Medications: Do The Benefits Outweigh the Harm?
Presently, for the treatment of depression and other what some claim are mental disorders, as they are questionable, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are the drugs of choice by most prescribers. Such meds, meds that affect the mind, are called psychotropic medications. SSRIs also include a few meds in this class with the addition of a norepinephrine uptake inhibitor added to the SSRI, and these are referred to SNRI medications. Examples of SNRIs are Cymbalta and Effexor. Some consider these classes of meds a next generation after benzodiazepines, as there are similarities regarding their intake by others, yet the mechanisms of action are clearly different, but not their continued use and popularity by others.
Some Definitions:
Serotonin is a neurotransmitter thought to be associated with mood. The hypothesis was first suggested in the mid 1960s that this neurotransmitter may play a role in moods and emotions in humans. Yet to this day, the serotonin correlation with such behavioral and mental conditions is only theoretical. In fact, the psychiatrist’s bible, which is the DSM, states that the definite etiology of depression remains a mystery and is unknown. So a chemical imbalance in the brain is not proven to be the cause of mood disorders, it is only suspected with limited scientific evidence. In fact, diagnosing diseases such as depression is based on subjective assessment only, as interpreted by the prescriber, so one could question the accuracy of such diagnoses.
Norepinephrine is a stress hormone, which many believe help those who have such mood disorders as depression. Basically, with the theory that by adding this hormone, the SSRI will be more efficacious for a patient prescribed such a med.
And depression is only one of those mood disorders that may exist, yet possibly the most devastating one. An accurate diagnosis of these mood conditions lack complete accuracy, as they can only be defined conceptually, so the diagnosis is dependent on subjective criteria, such as questionnaires. A social patient history is uncertain and tricky. There is no objective diagnostic testing for depression. Yet the diagnosis of depression in patients has increased quite a bit over the decades. Also, few would argue that depression does not exist in other people. Yet, one may contemplate, actually how many other people are really depressed? What is believed is that if one is disabled or impaired from a mental paradigm, treatment is necessary and appropriate.
Several decades ago, less than 1 percent of the U.S. populations were thought to have depression. Today, it is believed that about 10 percent of the populations have depression at some time in their lives. Why this great increase in the growth of this condition remains unknown and is subject to speculation. What is known is that the psychiatry specialty is the one specialty most paid to by certain pharmaceutical companies for ultimately and eventual support of their psychotropic meds, as this industry clearly desires market growth of these products. Regardless, SSRIs and SRNIs are the preferred treatment methods if depression or other mood disorders are suspected by a health care provider. Yet these meds discussed clearly are not the only treatments, medicinally or otherwise, for depression and other related disease states.
Over 30 million scripts of these types of meds are written annually, and the franchise is around 20 billion dollars a year, with some of the meds costing over 3 dollars per tablet. There are about ten different SSRI/SRNI meds available, many of which are now generic, yet essentially, they appear to be similar in regards to their efficacy and adverse events. The newest one, a SNRI called Pristiq, was approved in 2008, and is believed to being promoted for treatment for menopause. The first one of these SSRI meds was Prozac, which was available in 1988, and the drug was greatly praised for its ability to transform the lives of those who consumed this medication in the years that followed. Some termed Prozac, ‘the happy pill’. In addition, as the years went by and more drugs in this class became available, Prozac was the one of preference for many doctors for children. A favorable book was published specifically regarding this medication soon after it became so popular with others.
Furthermore, these meds have received additional indications besides depression for some really questionable conditions, such as social phobia and premenstrual syndrome. With the latter, I find it hard to believe that a natural female experience can be considered a treatable disease. Social phobia is a personality trait, in my opinion, which has been called shyness or perhaps a term coined by Dr. Carl Jung, which is introversion, so this probably should not be labeled a treatable disease as well. There are other indications for certain behavioral manifestations as well with the different SSRIs or SRNIs. So the market continues to grow with these meds. Yet, it is believed that these meds are effective in only about half of those who take them, so they are not going to be beneficial for those suspected of having certain medical illnesses treated by such meds. The makers of such meds seemed to have created such conditions besides depression for additional utilization of these types of medications, and are active and have been active in forming symbiotic relationships with related disease- specific support groups, such as providing financial support for screenings for the indicated conditions of their meds- screening of children and adolescents in particular, I understand, and as a layperson, I consider such activities dangerous and inappropriate for several reasons.
Danger and concerns by others primarily involves the adverse effects associated with these types of meds, which include suicidal thoughts and actions, violence, including acts of homicide, and aggression, among others, and the makers of such drugs are suspected to have known about these effects and did not share them with the public in a timely and critical manner. While most SSRIs and SNRIs are approved for use in adults only, prescribing these meds to children and adolescents has drawn the most attention and debate with others, such as those in the medical profession as well as citizen watchdog groups. The reasons for this attention are due to the potential off-label use of these meds in this population, yet what may be most shocking is the fact that some of the makers of these meds did not release clinical study information about the risks of suicide as well as the other adverse events related to such populations, including the decreased efficacy of SSRIs in general, which is believed to be less than 10 percent more effective than a placebo. Paxil caught the attention of the government regarding this issue of data suppression some time ago, this hiding such important information- Elliot Spitzer specifically, as I recall.
And there are very serious questions about the use of SSRIs in children and adolescents regarding the effects of these meds on them. For example, do the SSRIs correct or create brain states considered not within normal limits, which in effect could cause harm rather than benefit? Are adolescents really depressed, or just experiencing what was once considered normal teenage angst? Do SSRIs have an effect on the brain development and their identity of such young people? Do adolescents in particular become dangerous or bizarre due to SSRIs interfering with the myelination occurring in their still developing brains? No one seems to know the correct answer to such questions, yet the danger associated with the use of SSRIs does in fact exist. It is observed in some who take such meds, but not all who take these meds. Yet health care providers possibly should be much more aware of these possibilities
Finally, if SSRIs are discontinued, immediately in particular instead of a gradual discontinuation, withdrawals are believed to be quite brutal, and may be a catalyst for suicide in itself, as not only are these meds habit forming, but discontinuing these meds, I understand, leaves the brain in a state of neurochemical instability, as the neurons are recalibrating upon discontinuation of the SSRI that altered the brain of the consumer of this type of med. This occurs to some degree with any psychotropic med, yet the withdrawals can reach a state of danger for the victim in some classes of meds such as SSRIs, it is believed.
SSRIs and SRNIs have been claimed by doctors and patients to be extremely beneficial for the patient’s well -being regarding the patient’s mental issues where these types of meds are used, yet the risk factors associated with this class of medications may outweigh any perceived benefit for the patient taking such a drug. Considering the lack of efficacy that has been demonstrated objectively, along with the deadly adverse events with these meds only recently brought to the attention of others, other treatment options should probably be considered, but that is up to the discretion of the prescriber. It is my hope that such a prescriber rules out possible deficiencies of a patient they diagnose as being mentally impaired, such as other diseases or meds that could cause a mental illness, imbalances with the patient’s harmones, deprivation of light and/or sleep, or life stressors. Rarely do prescribers consider such possibilities.
“I use to care, but now I take a pill for that.” — Author unknown
Dan Abshear
truthman30
Thanks for highlighting this ED..
It never ceases to amaze me how low some pharmaceutical companies will go in order to make a profit..
Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase..
“making a killing” ..
From the evidence I (and others ) have seen about GSK, Paxil and Seroxat, it seems obvious that GSK have been suppressing the truth about Paxil for a long long time…
To knowingly produce, release and sell a drug which can cause such a littany of dangerous and debilitating side effects on an unsuspecting and vulnerable demographic of patients is akin to attempted manslaugher as far as I am concerned…
To further this atrocity by suppressing, decieving and blatantly lying about the defective dangers of this drug for years is beyond comprehension…
There are literally tens of thousands of Paxil-Seroxat horror stories on the web, and no drug since thalidomide has been as controversial as Paxil-Seroxat..
A quick google search can easily attest to this…
The only difference with Paxil damage is it is internal, it is a thalidomide of the mind, a raping of the soul and a genocide of the spirit..
The side effects such as depersonalization and akathisia are sheer mental torture to endure…
The withdrawal is one of the most documented as being utterly horrific…
The MHRA (UK Drug Regulators) have already as much as admitted GSK suppressed info on Seroxat(Paxil) causing suicide and aggression in children.. They did this in order to minimize any negative impact on the profile of seroxat in the adult population…
Seroxat-Paxil causes the same seriously dangerous side effects of addiction and withdrawal in the adult population…That is a well documented FACT..
The MHRA did not have the guts to prosecute GSK over the Seroxat Scandal in the UK..
I sincerely hope the American authorities have the balls to do so in the US…
johnd
Another big hooray to Sen Grassley. The pervasiveness of children 6, 7, 8 years old on anti-depressants is also mind-boggling.
truthman30
“Another big hooray to Sen Grassley. The pervasiveness of children 6, 7, 8 years old on anti-depressants is also mind-boggling”
Indeed JohnD..
It wasn’t too long ago that psychiatrists were claiming that depression couldn’t possibly exist in children as children did not know how to internalize their anger ..
But that was before Prozac and the drug companies came along and bastardized , exploited and marketed “mental illness” into their corporate led and consumer fed realm of deception …
Psychiatry quickly changed its tune when it realized that it too could “make a killing” by diagnosing “conditions” and prescribing these meds…
Enter Key Opinion Leaders of psychiatry who became nothing more than whores to their pharmaceutical masters…
History will look back on all this with the absolute disdain and disgust which it deserves…
Bruce
Dan,
Next time, paste a URL so that we can go to the story, if we choose. Pasting a whole story is a bit rude to this website.
Dan
Thanks, Bruce. I’m a bit technologically impaired, but will do that next time,
Dan Abshear
Dan
By the way, and for those who do not know, Sen. Grassley is an Iowa Senator who is a public health advocate, so it seems. Yet at the same time, I consider politicians and liars overall synonomous.
If you go on his website, he offers contact information for anyone, combined with a fax number for those who trust him to fax evidence.
Again, I’m sure many typical readers here are aware of this.
Dan
Addendum to my previous message: The fax number is defined as a ‘whistleblower fax line’, according to his website,
Dan
Anne
I greatly admire Senator Grassley. Would that he had a little more company on the Senate floor.
I find it interesting that he wants to know what the FDA knew and if they were or are going to bring criminal charges against Glaxo for hiding evidence of lethal side effects. The FDA? Surely, he jests. We have right on a website the evidence that Lilly hid the evidence of Zyprexa’s lethal side effects. And we have the worst evidence of all, which is all the deaths that have occurred. Due to the SSRI black box warning for children, more doctors are moving children over to Zyprexa and the other atypical antipsychotics, yet the notion of criminal charges has not even been raised.
The death of little Rebecca Riley was, I am afraid, the canary in the coal mine for children who are/will suffer lethal side effects from the atypical antipsychotics. I hope Congress will put heat on these drugs as well.
truthman30
I agree Anne..
The evidence base for the efficacy of all psychiatric drugs is dubious…
These are very powerful, potent and lethal drugs which can cause very serious side effects and have little efficacy over placebo..
Zyprexa is the anti-psychotic version of Paxil..
Prescribing them to children is never justified ..
At least adults have some semblance of “informed choice” , children don’t…
Sam
And don’t loose sight of what Pharma is hoping to push through with The MOTHERS Act. Mandatory screening of pregnant and new mothers for post partum depression and treatment (i.e. psychiatric drugging) would be devastating. See http://www.psychdrugdangers.com/MothersAct.html (which defaults to paroxetine (Paxil), the worst offender).
The Senate has yet to vote on The MOTHERS Act. If anyone has the ear of Senator Grassley or their own State Senator, make them aware of what has already been reported to the FDA about the harmful, often deadly side effects of this and other psychiatric medications on pregnant and new mothers and their unborn/newborn babies.
Sam
sara
Seroxat scandal ! what scandal is that Truthman30.
It is a well established FACT that the so-called scandal was nothing more than media hype bought & paid for by Mark Harvey Litigation Lawyer for the so-called seroxat user group.
The stories were all placed in the UK media by GOODRELATIONS a public relations company, part of Lord Tim Bell’s Chime Communications.
Yes there is a problem with the entire SSRI/SNRI class of medication but the real scandal is the exploitation of vulnerable (mentally unwell clients) by their own lawyers for personal gain.
SARA XXX
go to google news uk and search SEROXAT & what do you get - NEXT to NOTHING
http://news.google.co.uk/news?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&rlz=1T4GZEZ_en-GBGB262GB262&tab=wn&ned=uk&q=seroxat&btnG=Search+News
Wake up and smell the coffee
Doc
I find this story all too common concerning pharma companies primary objective - profits. I’m sure there are many in these cos that truly have patient benefit as their top priority, but most reside in R&D from what I know. The sales and marketing groups by and large in my company are only concerned with dollars - getting them is job 1, how doesn’t really matter. If the physician population and general public could hear the comments behind closed doors from most sales and marketing leadership - they would riot in the streets.
Go Sen. Grassley!
truthman30
“If the physician population and general public could hear the comments behind closed doors from most sales and marketing leadership - they would riot in the streets.
Go Sen. Grassley!”
Very true Doc..
I’ve read enough of it on the scummy cafepharma web site to gain a sense of the lowlifes there who call themselves drug reps…
(some of their comments show blatant contempt for patients prescribed dodgy drugs…)
Sen Grassley.. Kepp em under pressure…
BOB FIDDAMAN
Quite laughable and contradictory if you ask me.
Information from NHS Foundation Trust
The page is entitled ‘How SSRIs (probably) work’
Probably?
Straight away I have a tendency to take the information given with a pinch of salt.
The NHS giving information on how SSRi’s probably work?
It’s a bit like a car dealer telling you that the car you are about to buy will probably get you from A to B and you probably will be safe despite the engine not being thoroughly tested. Oh, and you will probably be safe wearing a seat belt with this particular model sir because it’s probably passed all the test regulations!
How can the NHS get away with such vagueness? How have the MHRA got away with it for years? How have GlaxoSmithKline got away with it regarding Seroxat?
I’m sitting here with a wry smile on my face - there is nothing more left to do than to smile at the hypocrisy of it all.
The NHS site How SSRi’s (probably) work kicks off with a marvellous piece of patronization.
It states:
In order to try to understand a little about how drugs work, it is best to first learn a few facts about the brain. Each human being has:
One head
One brain
Thanks for clearing that up - What would we do without you?
They then go on to explain to the layman (or the paupers) about brain cells and nerve fibres. They then tell us that… and I quote, ‘the brain is an extraordinarily complex part of the body.’
Really?
Who needs to study a beginners course in psychology when we have the wisdom of the NHS!!!
Next up for us mere mortals is an explanation of synapses.
They state:
Synapses are very important because;-
There are a lot of them
Thank you oh wise ones. I sit in utter disbelief at your confound wisdom.
They then tell us what happens when a brain cell decides to send a message to another cell in order to make something happen.
This is all highly educational. There’s talk of transmitters, electrical impulses, nerve fibres, and receptors.
Then our good friend Serotonin or 5-HT makes an appearance.
The NHS explain:
In the body, 5-HT is involved with blood pressure and gut control.
In the brain, it controls mood, emotions, sleep/wake, feeding, temperature regulation, etc.
More so they tell us what happens if problems get out of balance:
Too much serotonin and you feel sick, less hungry, get headaches or migraines
Too little and you feel depressed, drowsy etc.
Hmmm
In 2007 the MHRA told us “A variety of factors can contribute to an individual’s predisposition to depression. Although it is believed that depression may be caused by a biochemical imbalance and it is recognised that serotonin plays a role in the development of depression it is considered that there is more than one final common pathway in the aetiology of depression, and we are not aware of an internationally agreed ’proper chemical balance of serotonin in the brain’ that would prevent or reduce the likelihood of experiencing depression.”
They added
“As the precise role that serotonin plays in depression is still subject to ongoing research we really are not best placed to provide you with a response on this particular issue.”
Hang on - The NHS say:
Too much serotonin and you feel sick, less hungry, get headaches or migraines
Too little and you feel depressed, drowsy etc.
Whilst the MHRA state:
“As the precise role that serotonin plays in depression is still subject to ongoing research we really are not best placed to provide you with a response on this particular issue.”
So what about GlaxoSmithKline? What exactly is their take on the whole serotonin issue?
In 1997 the patient information leaflet [PIL] that accompanied Seroxat told us that Seroxat:
“…boosts the levels of serotonin in your brain and that’s what makes you stop feeling depressed”
9 years later, GlaxoSmithKline had moved the goalposts. The patient information leaflet read:
“…It is not fully understood how Seroxat and other SSRIs work…”
Even more confusing is GlaxoSmithKline’s Australian web page. It’s now 2008 and they tell us:
“Aropax [Seroxat] corrects the chemical imbalance and so helps relieve the symptoms of depression.”
Back to the NHS - Here they explain depression:
“In depression, it is known that there are reduced levels of serotonin and noradrenaline. These reduced levels lead to a lowering of mood. The full reasons are not fully known but stress may well play a part in causing this.”
It is known that there are reduced levels of serotonin? The full reasons are not fully known…?
Thanks. That’s clear as day!
Section 6 of the NHS page is entitled:
‘HOW SSRI ANTIDEPRESSANTS PROBABLY WORK’
*Coughs*
Don’t you just love the way they cover themselves [Probably]?
Face it. The NHS, the MHRA and GSK have not got a clue how this drug works, more importantly they went into this with eyes shut firmly and when the brown stuff hit the fan their eyes remained shut. People have died as a result of their probabilities, people have…and still are suffering because they cannot decide how the hell a drug works.
This is like some recurring nightmare. I may buy myself a chemistry set and manufacture a pill. I will tell the MHRA that it corrects the chemical imbalance of the brain - I’m sure it will get a licence, though Ian Hudson may be a stumbling block as he is head of licensing at the MHRA - he used to work at GSK [then SKB] and may see my new pill as a threat to his former employees miracle pill.
Hey, if it gets passed by the MHRA and later down the line I claim that it is not known whether or not it actually corrects the imbalance of serotonin then I’ll still be sitting pretty. The MHRA won’t remove it from the shelves even though I was adamant that it corrected the imbalance when I first told them but now I wasn’t so sure?
Section 8 of the NHS page - ‘DO THE SSRIs WORK, AND FOR HOW LONG?’
“We do not know for certain what happens after five years. Many people may be advised to carry on with an antidepressant for longer but that is a decision for you and your doctor to make.”
Gee thanks. Talk about washing your hands of a problem!
Personally, I was on Seroxat for 6 years and now I read ‘We do not know for certain what happens after five years’
So where does that leave me?
I have short term memory problems and an undesirable sleep problem - both of which I never had before taking Seroxat. I take it that the NHS don’t know why I have this problem? Would they lean toward prolonged use of Seroxat? I think a court of law would don’t you?
What kind of half assed system are we under here?
We have the NHS giving out messages contradicted by the MHRA who in turn are contradicted by GlaxoSmithKline!
It’s an utter farce. A health system giving out information that is not scientific fact, a medicines regulator ignoring the problem of SSRi withdrawal and a manufacturer being allowed to do as it pleases. What a nightmare!
The Health Minister role in the UK changes like the wind - I have no idea who the current one is. Whoever it is I hope you sleep well.
The CEO of the MHRA is Kent Woods. I hope he sleeps well.
The CEO of GlaxoSmithKline is Andrew Witty. I hear rumours that on taking over his new role he turned to Garnier and said ‘That’s another fine mess you’ve got me into’ - I hope he sleeps well.
I’d be embarrassed to show my face to any of my friends or family if I were any of the above.
Fid
HorusCat
Bob,
You don’t have to know exactly how a drug works, especially in the brain, to know THAT it works. New research in depression and SSRIs suggests that they may encourage plasticity and neural growth–which pretty much stunned people. Other current research suggests that glial cells play a much more prominent role in neural activity than was ever suspected. And the picture of an impulse travelling down an axon to the end in order to release neurotransmitters is being complicated by new findings. In other words, when it comes to the brain, we really know very little. Nonetheless, we have found medications that work for depression, anxiety, psychosis, Parkinson’s, dementia, epilepsy, cancer, etc.
I’m not defending the NHS or Glaxo, simply pointing out that we don’t always have exactly to know HOW something works in order to use it.
I hope that if you are having sleep and short-term memory problems you have had a full neurological work-up, since it would be awful to assume it was the Seroxat and discover later it was something else entirely.
truthman30
“Bob,
You don’t have to know exactly how a drug works, especially in the brain, to know THAT it works. New research in depression and SSRIs suggests that they may encourage plasticity and neural growth–which pretty much stunned people” Says HC
Are you nuts HC? seriously this is the brain we are talking about, you know.. the human brain!… the most complex organic object in the world and also the most poorly understood object in the world.
Don’t patronize people with your defence of psychiatric drugs which for the past 50 years have done nothing but damage and disable people. How dare you, you have some nerve HC, you really do.
A couple of years ago there were studies done where it was found that SSRI’s can actually downgrade neuro-receptors and make the brain cells corkscrew shaped! And I suppose you are gonna tell us that is a good thing are you???
Gimme a break..
Get off the Zoloft or whatever it is you are medicating yourslef with, deal with reality for a change..
“Nonetheless, we have found medications that work for depression, anxiety, psychosis, Parkinson’s, dementia, epilepsy, cancer, etc. ”
OH REALLY? ..
Really ???
Where are they then these wonderous drugs which cure all the misfortunes of the brain?
Are you talking about drugs like Keppra for epilepsy? The one which gives the “Keppra Rage”? the one which along with every other drug of its class has not been studied for long term effects, and the one which like every other psychiatric drug has turned desperate people into guinea pigs for life!..
Or were you talking about the SSRI’s and A-typical anti-psychotics which have caused more mental illnesses than they were originally and falsely supposed to treat?..
“I’m not defending the NHS or Glaxo, simply pointing out that we don’t always have exactly to know HOW something works in order to use it.”
No, but you are making some astounding and incredulous statements ..
“we don’t always have exactly to know HOW something works in order to use it.”
Very articulate HC..
Why don’t you put that on your epitaph instead of promoting it..
Because it’s not only nonsense logic HC, it’s absolutely and totally ridiculous…
And if you said it to any scientist they would choke on their spatula..
All drugs which are used for brain “disorders” are like pissing in the wind…All of them are experimental and all of them have huge risks..
Don’t even dare to suggest otherwise, because you know that is a FACT…
And another thing, you mention depression, anxiety and psychosis in your misinformation about the brain..
None of these manifestations are due to faulty brain chemistry , they are all psycho-spiritual-emotional crisis which can have an effect on the brain, just like every human experience does, from Love to anger to grief..
These are not “brain disorders” which need to be fixed with crappy chemicals…
I really do wonder about you HC..
Sometimes the things you say are so unbelievably absurd, I think you are taking the piss.. Are you?
truthman30
“I hope that if you are having sleep and short-term memory problems you have had a full neurological work-up, since it would be awful to assume it was the Seroxat and discover later it was something else entirely.”
I’ll tell ya what HC, why don’t you come off all your psychiatric meds and tell us how your brain feels ?…
That’s if you can remember your own name…
Perks
Well said, Truthman30.
Nathan
“we don’t always have exactly to know HOW something works in order to use it.”
Truthman,
I’m a scientist and I can vouch for HC’s statement. It’s absolutely true. Even many of the modern cancer drugs (Terceva, Hercepten) have a poorly understood mechanism of action. They were designed and developed as very potent inhibitors of a particular kinase. However, after entering the market, it has been found that they have activity on several different kinases other than the intended target. There is significant speculation that the mechanism of action is ACTUALLY through one of these alternative kinases that we didn’t know anything about back when the drug was in development!
This happens all the time in drug discovery. In spite of all the medical advances of our time, we actually know very little about disease progression on a MOLECULAR basis. (i.e. where drug intervention is taking place)
For years, no one knew the target of many popular antibiotics! As far as I know, the FDA *still* does not require a known mechanism of action in order to approve a drug. You only have to prove that it is safe and effective. Until ~15-20 years ago, quite a lot of drugs were developed simply based on efficacy in animal models with little regard for how they achieved that efficacy.
CNS drug development will always be far more difficult than drug development in other therapeutic areas. The reason is that animal models of CNS diseases are just not predictive of human efficacy. While our muscular, digestive, skeletal and cellular physiology is very similar to many animals, our brain physiology is very different. Of course, our brain function is largely what differentiates us from animals. Because of this, drugs treating diseases of the brain will ALWAYS be very difficult to develop and understand.
AA
HC,
The research you cite was done on rats. If I gave similar supporting evidence for an opposite view, you would be very critical of me.
Here is a link to a study that show cognitive damage that results from SSRIS. It was done on humans by the way.
http://tinyurl.com/3va3j2
I do love how they say it might be due to the depression. Nothing like blaming the patient for damage from side effects. I can tell you from personal experience that word retrieval problems are not due to depression.
On a more personal note, one reason why I decided to taper off all my psych meds was that they had considerably worsened my LD issues. For example, my memory, which was mediocre before starting psychotropic meds, has now worsened.
I also have some type of typing problem related to cognitive issues that I never had prior to starting meds. For example, my brain will know what I want to type but it will come out totally different on the computer. I don’t think it is happening now because I am very aware of it.
When I was on my full complement of meds, I lost stuff that I literally had no memory of losing. That was very scary.
Go to http://www.paxilprogress.org and check out stories of people who have cognitive problems. No, this doesn’t make for scientific research but using examples from rats doesn’t either.
Sorry, as one who has suffered greatly from these meds and withdrawing from them, saying that these meds improve cognitive function is one my hot button issues.
AA
AA
Nathan,
I believe you when you say that drugs have mechanisms that are poorly understood.
But if that is the case, then the industry needs to stop denying that side effects exist when patients complain and attribute it to something else.
You can’t have it both ways.
AA
BOB FIDDAMAN
HC,
You are clearly missing the point.
In 1997 GlaxoSmithKline told us they knew exactly how it worked then in 2006 they did a complete U-Turn and told us they were unsure how it worked.
Where or what was the scientific evidence that granted them a license on the basis of them knowing exactly how it worked?
The NHS and the MHRA were basically going on what used to be on the patient information leaflet.
And the creme de la creme is that GlaxoSmithKline, Australia, still claim Aropax [Paxil] “corrects the chemical imbalance and so helps relieve the symptoms of depression”
Would you buy a car from me if I was unsure whether or not it was really two cars welded together?
Fid
Nathan
Bob says: “In 1997 GlaxoSmithKline told us they knew exactly how it worked then in 2006 they did a complete U-Turn and told us they were unsure how it worked. Where or what was the scientific evidence that granted them a license on the basis of them knowing exactly how it worked?”
That’s exactly my point, Bob! The FDA did NOT grant approval based on HOW the drug worked — they base thier approval on IF the drug worked. As I was stating, exactly the same thing is true of many cancer drugs. We thought we knew how they worked when we got them approved. But later studies have shown that we actually don’t have a good understanding of how they work. But they DO work — and that’s the important part.
BOB FIDDAMAN
Hi Nathan,
I can agree with you to a certain extent regarding whether they work. They [Seroxat] worked for me… if masking the illness and losing all empathy is working.
You want to try getting off them. It took me 18 months to taper slowly from 40mg per day to 22mg per day.
Had they known exactly how they worked they may have known how difficult it would be to come off them. There own spokesperson has stated that it can take up to two weeks to taper off Seroxat - Longets two weeks of my life mate
Fid
HorusCat
truthman,
Please refrain from the personal attacks. You and I disagree on the origin of mental illness. Well, not entirely, since I agree with you that a profound spiritual deficit contributes to mental illness. I diverge in that I think medication has a place in the treatment of mental illness. You have a tough road ahead if you are going to persuade this secular, reductionist society that a deeper connection to the transcendent will cure many of their ills. On the other hand, I am a devout Christian who prays and meditates; I believe firmly that my connection to God directly impacts my mental and physical health. Nonetheless, I also believe that God created us as physical creatures–and disease manifests itself in physical ways that can be helped with physical things, like medications.
You and AA and others present anecdotes as argument that no one should have access to these medications. You ignore the millions who have benefited from the drugs. You attack me for using these medications and use that fact as a way to not only insult me, but to discount anything I say. Your arguments are thus circular and solipsistic: I’m right because I’m right and you’re wrong because you are mentally ill. It’s like playing the race card in a political argument: your opponent gets busy proving they’re not racist and doesn’t have the opportunity to put forth his argument.
and truthman, are you really arguing that epilepsy can be cured with spirituality? Please. You lose all credibility there. I don’t sell Keppra, but I know many who have benefited from it.
I am not taking the piss. I would be chuffed if you would quit with the insults, though.
HorusCat
Bob,
I thought I made clear that I am not defending Glaxo or your NHS. I don’t know enough about NHS to make any comments on it. I was simply pointing out that we don’t have to know how an SSRI works to say that it works. A company may come out and say “This is how it works,” because at the time, that’s what they think and the public wants to hear something. I don’t ding a company for that.
Certainly from what I have read about Paxil/Seroxat (how many names does this drug have?) and Glaxo (actually Smith-Kline, to be accurate), there appears to have been unsavory activities. I am curious about what exactly Paxil does that is markedly different from the others, in an intellectual sense.
BOB FIDDAMAN
HC. My mission is to educate, I hope you don’t find that patronizing in any way?
I don’t think I stated that you were defending GSK?
Thing is many patients were given a drug that, in essence, was said to correct the chemical imbalance. This was a lie. It’s 2008 now and GSK have never shown the evidence that supported this.
Does that statement in itself make the product defective?
Scenario: I have a pill here in front of me, it says if I take it for four weeks it will correct my irregular sleep patterns. Could I sue if it don’t?
Scenario 2: I’ve just purchased some Ribena, it states on the bottle that it is full of vitamin C - I just had two school girls run a check on it - in fact it contains very little vitamin C… Oh wait a second, this isn’t a scenario - this happened last year. Ribena, incidently manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline was sold under the banner of ‘full of vitamin C’ - in fact it wasn’t. GSK were fined.
Now what of Paxil, Seroxat… there are many names - it’s a great marketing trick HC. When Paxil first got bad press in the States, us Brits were unaware because we had never heard of it, same as the Aussies, where Paxil goes by the name of Aropax. It’s a genius piece of marketing.
So, Paxil claimed to correct a chemical imbalance, in fact there is no scientific evidence to support this. So why say it?
Moneytalks HC - at the expense of the poor souls who found out to their cost that Seroxat/Paxil, call it what you will, is the most difficult SSRi to taper off - this is something that is still denied to this day by GSK.
I respect your balanced view but beleive me HC, I DO know what I am talking about here.
Forget the issue of whether Seroxat works and concentrate on the blatant lie… “[Seroxat] corrects the chemical imbalance and so helps relieve the symptoms of depression.”
Surely you cannot agree on that HC?
Fid
ps - sorry for the spelling errors
Laurie
“The FDA did NOT grant approval based on HOW the drug worked — they base thier approval on IF the drug worked. ”
And herein lies the problem with the public perception of these drugs. It is not known how these drugs “work”, yet the public is shown an nice little graphic of the serotonin chemical imbalance theory in a commercial that, unless you read the fine print, most would take that scenario as fact. Lets face it..most doctors take it as fact, when it is speculative at best. Now add in the lack of information on long term effects and you open another can of worms that is just coming to light now.
AA
HC,
Once again, you are flaming me and I don’t appreciate it. Not once in my post did I say anything disrespectful to you. I would appreciate the same courtesy.
I gave you a link on a study that says that SSRI causes cognitive damage. I didn’t give you a link from the Scientology site. It was from a conventional medical site.
My argument that your statements based on SSRIs repairing neuron damage (I don’t have it exactly right but you get the gist) was based on rat experiments is a fair one. If I said that SSRIs don’t work based on rat experiments, you would be all over me.
You’re avoiding the issues by making general statements about SSRIs working. I have thrown these statistics at you before but the NIMH site says that antidepressants work 50% of the time and reduce 50% of the symptoms. The effectiveness rate is less if you are going for total remission.
The star D study showed a 33% effectiveness rate.
Where are your statistics showing the big success rate of these meds not backed by pharma financing? Please stick to the issues instead of flaming me.
Thank you.
AA
HorusCat
AA,
I am sorry if I flamed you. I reread my comments and disagree that I flamed you, but perhaps I threw you under the bus with truthman. Your comments do imply that SSRIs should not be used. My point is simply that I disagree with that position.
This site has had many conversations about the limitations of clinical studies, the high rate of placebo response, the apparently limited effectiveness of the SSRIs, etc. Clinical trial experience is a pointer to real-world efficacy, not a guarantee OR proof of limitation. My point to you is that the clinical experience with SSRIs of those with MDD is generally positive. The cognitive side effects, if any, of the SSRIs are not usually as severe as you seem to experience. The study you linked to does not make the claim that SSRIs cause physical damage to the brain. I don’t have access to the article right now, but I will log onto my company’s website and access the full text. I would be interested in seeing a breakdown of cognitive effects (which were most common) and SSRIs represented in the sample. That aside, perhaps there are those of us who accept the possible side effects because the alternative is so awful. I do think I have some apathy as a result of the Zoloft, but I freely accept that because at least with Zoloft I can get out of bed in the morning.
As for the rat study–all we have for models of actual physiological changes in the brain is animals, since we can’t chop people open and examine them. Functional scans tell us a bit, but not a whole lot.
Bob,
I have learned quite a bit about Paxil from reading this site. And GSK. I am just saying that GSK put out the prevailing theory of SSRI activity at the time they began marketing the drug. And many, many people still believe that is how the SSRIs work. The pace at which we learn about the brain is often slow–and we seem not to ever know anything for sure. Although, to be honest, it seems to be the case with a lot of drugs in a lot of disease states, not just CNS drugs.
I have some experience with Paxil reps…not pleasant ones, I might add. I can see the possibility that they were trained to be quite aggressive in their sales techniques and adamant in their denials of the obvious difficulties with the drug. I was bemused at the market share it maintained when everyone acknowledged it to be the dirtiest, shortest-acting SSRI with the most weight gain and sedation. But then again, I think the sedation was precisely the reason docs used it. The more time I spent in the psychiatric world, the more I saw that doctors, nurses and even patients themselves like sedating effects. There is a conflation of sedation with efficacy–a somnolent patient is easier to deal with and the patient “feels” the somnolence as anxiolytic and mistakes it for calm.
CMC guy
Laurie you are correct that public perception is a problem but there are two (at least) additional points. Information is “toned down/simplified” in effort to make more understandable (and in some cases to get attention) so indeed full story is not presented based on target audience (we live in age of sound-bites). May be more complete in science publications and elsewhere but still can be gaps. Unfortunately I would classify many MDs as having limited/public level knowledge of drugs (IMO ask a Pharmacist who are typically more fully aware)
The other issue is Science itself and complexities. Science/Drugs are built on ideas and theories and frequently there is insufficient means to determine if they are working as postulated, especially with biological systems/individual variations. Sometimes new information comes along to disprove or weaken the accepted arguments of how things work. Usually it takes a long time and/or right experiments to get to a level can interpret. This reality applies to mechanism of action as well as side effects, short-term and long-term. Happens all the time in Science (pharma and everywhere), MDs should know this but many forget.
HorusCat
Laurie et al,
I think the lesson from psychiatric medications, and indeed ALL medications, is that human physiology is phenomenally complex. Look at the process of heart disease and the debate over statins: it’s not just choleterol. And the statins do more than just lower cholesterol, but we aren’t quite sure what all they do. They appear to have anti-inflammatory effects, among other things. They cross the blood-brain barrier (at least Zocor appears to) and affect prion proteins in animal studies. Wow. Who’d a thunk it?
Just when I thought I had my risks for heart disease under control, I find out that my homocysteine is high and that has to be controlled. (A prescription drug, but not a brand-name product; also not covered by insurance.)
It’s like Roseanne Roseanna Danna said: It’s always something. If we are going to muck about with our bodies’ chemistry, we are going to be making tremendous leaps of faith while we do so. My favorite law, the Law of Unintended Consequences, reigns supreme. All of our trials and monitoring is meant to reduce the risks while enhancing the benefits, but it is a very imperfect process.
The first question then is: are we going to mess around with chemicals and our bodies? I think the answer is yes because the evidence of the past 100 years is so overwhelmingly positive for the benefits of using chemicals.
So then we have to ask how much risk we are willing to assume. That is the ongoing debate with this site, when people play nice and don’t get personal.
HorusCat
CMC guy,
Just curious: is English your first language? You have an interesting shorthand in your syntax.
AA
HC,
I greatly appreciate your response. To address the various points you made:
<>
Yeah, that is what you were doing which I objected to.
<>
I said that based on statistics by NIMH, that SSRIs aren’t as effective as people think they are. That is different from saying they shouldn’t be used.
I am not against people using any drug as long as they are fully informed of the risks and won’t be thrown under a bus (to steal your terminology) when they complain about legitimate side effects.
Also, I am curious as to how MD’s define a successful experience with SSRIs. My guess is that it would be totally different from how patients define it. I am not saying that as a fact by the way.
<>
Hmm, how do you know that if long term studies aren’t being done? Also, have you read Prozac Backlash? Joseph Glenmullen, MD, the author, is not anti SSRIS but had some studies that suggested this is definitely a possibility. I wouldn’t say the evidence was strong but strong enough that made me very uncomfortable.
<>
I disagree. I am too tired to pull it up to point to specific examples.
<>
I hate to tell you this but that apathy you are experiencing may be a sign of worse things to come regarding brain damage. Not to be an alarmist as that isn’t my intent but that example is exactly what I am talking about.
As far as the alternative being so awful, I thought the same thing and accepted the horrific side effects I was experiencing. It was only when I developed a hearing loss from the Remeron that was part of my 4 med cocktail that I realized that the cure was worse than the disease.
By the way, my hearing has improved as I have reduced the Remeron. When I accidentally took too much one week, my hearing got worse until I got back to the right dose.
Anyway, I have no trouble getting out of bed and when I am not experiencing drug withdrawal symptoms, my life is so much better.
<>
I understand what you’re saying but again, you used a rat study to make a claim about the benefits of antidepressants. If I had done that regarding them not working, you would have been very critical of me for not using valid studies. Right?
AA
AA
HC,
My above post got messed up as I didn’t realize you couldn’t use brackets after sections.
Hopefully, you will know which comments I am referring to.
Darn
AA
HorusCat
AA,
I HATE when that happens! Nonetheless, I was able to put it all together.
You and I are much closer together than would first appear. I agree that SSRIs ought to be used with caution; patients ought to be warned of side effects. I would add that additional therapies should be used with every patient: counseling, CBT, spiritual guidance, whatever the patient is open to. The patient should never be handed a prescription and told to come back in 6 weeks. I strongly believe this because I DO agree with truthman that mental illness has spiritual causes that must be addressed before complete healing can occur.
Thought leaders in the area of depression believe that SSRIs are helpful in many patients, REALLY effective in some patients, and useless in some patients. They speculate that some of this is genetically based (speculation that is going on with most illnesses and their response to medication); i.e., Zoloft may work so well for me because I have certain genes. This is borne out by the fact that my entire family responds to sertraline.
As for the apathy and other side effects, I have been taking SSRIs for 16 years. I have discontinued several times, and each time have decided that the benefits outweigh the costs. I can remember being depressed as far back as I have memories. I also have some compulsive behaviors that respond quite well to sertraline. All in all, I prefer life with Zoloft to life without.
Again with the rats, I think it is different to look at animal studies when talking about physical changes in the brain, since we really can’t find any human volunteers for dissection. And we do rely on animal trials in the beginning phases of drug trials–we torture mice to make them depressed and anxious, then treat them with drugs to see if they get better. We use drugs to make them psychotic, then use anti-psychotics to see if they get better. That clearly only points us in the right direction, but I think that bearing in mind the limitations, such studies are helpful and intriguing.
Remeron, eh? Wow. I didn’t think anyone used that, unless they want their patients to get fat and sleepy. I hope you continue to do better. Thanks for your thoughtful response. How did you do the italics thing?
Laurie
Remeron and Seroquel are probably the most commonly prescribed drugs for those who have reactions to ssri’s, or withdrawal from ssri’s.
truthman30
HC..
My intention is not to attack you, but sometimes I must admit I do feel the need to strongly disagree with some of the stuff you come out with…
Personally I feel you defend these drugs in part because , as you admit, you have used them yourself for 16 years, and also because you are a drug rep in the industry..
If you were to validate the reality of what these drugs do, the very real dangers they pose and the devastation they cause then that might be a little too much for you too accept considering your situation…
It is a well known fact admitted by psychiatry, that in most cases depression will pas of its own accord without intervention, so why have so many people been needlessly medicated with dubious drugs like Paxil for so many years?..
Well, It is because the pharmaceutical industry has spent billions promoting these drugs for decades. The pharmaceutical industry has done a grave disservice to those whom suffer from depression. They have completely exploited the illness and destroyed countless lives in the processs.
Post 9-11 , GSK blitzed TV screens with seductive and suggestive Paxil adverts because they knew the American public would be nervous and anxious , do you not think this is disgustingly cynical and expolitative? I do.
You keep saying that I am anti-SSRI, but you have got this wrong, I do understand that they can be helpful in extreme cases of depression when all else has failed. But it does piss me off how the drug companies continue to get away with suppressing the side effect profile of these drugs. And that is one of the reasons why so many people are pissed off about SSRI’s and the industry as a whole. People were not given informed consent when they decided to take these drugs to alleviate their problems, most were not given therapy either. This is the fault of the drug companies because the drug companies couldn’t give a hoot how these drugs are prescribed or if they are monitored or used correctly, their intention was to drive up sales above all else.
In the case of Paxil, when people began reporting withdrawal symptoms to their doctors in the beginning GSK said that this was the illness returning and that is what doctors were led to believe. It is now admitted by GSK that Paxil does in fact have a severe withdrawal reaction which can happen in as many as 1 in 4 individuals. So the pharmaceutical industry has not only let patients down , it has blatantly misled the whole medical profession with its hunger for profit before people.
The pharmacutical industry will continue to suffer its terrible reputation until it begins to value health and well being before money…
“and truthman, are you really arguing that epilepsy can be cured with spirituality? Please. You lose all credibility there. I don’t sell Keppra, but I know many who have benefited from it”
You seem to be missing my point again HC, I have said that depression, psychosis and manifestations of other “mental illnesses” have a root sources stemming from the individuals state of being, be it socio-economic, truama or an psycho-emotional-spiritual crisis , none of them are due to faulty brain chemistry…
Never did I imply that Epilepsy can be cured with spirituality…
But my younger brother is on Keppa actually and it has changed his personality (rage, anger, depression etc) and the side effects in my opinion are not a worthy trade off for the occassional fit which he used to suffer from..
Yes he does not have seizures anymore, but will he ever be able to come off Keppa? ..
.. probably not because if he did his seizures would get worse in withdrawal and god only knows what teh long term side effects are…
But the pharmas don’t really want people to come off their drugs do they?…
That would mean less profits..
So it’s best that we all stay medicated isn’t it, and we shouldn’t really question the mighty pharma should we? .. They know best don’t they? They care about our health don’t they?..
Wrong! .. they couldn’t care less…
So is the Keppra curing his epilepsy?..
No, it is merely masking it, just like the same as the SSRI drugs mask depression…
And what about the long term effects of all these drugs being prescribed for the brain?..
Is it not admitted that the long term effects are “unknown” … And is that not using the general population as guinea pigs?..
Of course it is..
Pharma likes to throw the “Risk : Benefit” phrase around a lot…
Well, I would like to know…
How do we assess the “risk : benefit” of a drug?..
Are suicidal feelings, homicidal thoughts, cognitive damage and a list of hundreds of other side effects a worthy trade off for experiencing the condition of being “human”?…
In the case of Paxil..
I think not..
truthman30
Nathan : “CNS drug development will always be far more difficult than drug development in other therapeutic areas. The reason is that animal models of CNS diseases are just not predictive of human efficacy. While our muscular, digestive, skeletal and cellular physiology is very similar to many animals, our brain physiology is very different. Of course, our brain function is largely what differentiates us from animals. Because of this, drugs treating diseases of the brain will ALWAYS be very difficult to develop and understand”
That’s all very fine Nathan..
But.. maybe pharma should begin by making drugs for REAL brain disorders..
NOT emotional ones related to the “human condition”..
Maybe that would be a start?…
The CNS drugs like Anti-psychotics and SSRI’s are “behaviour modification” drugs and “mood influencing” pills ..
They have noting to do with science and everthing to do with arrogance, deception and snake oil…
The psychiatric drugs in particular are as crude as blunt instuments ..
Unfortunately for most, this tinkering can have very dire consequences ..
Where is the justification for it?..
So far, I have seen absoultely none..
HorusCat
truthman,
Are you in England? Just wondering, because you said “advert.” I just entertained my son with all the different English-isms I know, because he asked what a bonnet was.
I get equally frustrated with you because you conflate different issues and you place all blame on pharma while ignoring the other elephants in the room:
1. What GSK has done with Paxil is particular to GSK. You tar all of pharma with the Paxil brush. Zoloft can have withdrawal symptoms, and as soon as we became aware of it, we talked about it. Actually, from the beginning we counseled tapering off the drug slowly, over the course of several weeks. The same is true about the suicidal/agitated behavior signal. It emerged with Paxil, and we immediately acknowledged it and talked to our physicians about it. We weren’t selling Zoloft for depression in kids; it is indicated for OCD only.
2. The fact that I take an SSRI and am a drug rep doesn’t render my opinion any less credible than yours. You too have a bias in the way you see things. You and I are actually in agreement about SOME of the causes of mental illness; whereas much of the secular, reductionist world would find what you say laughable.
3. Pharma is not responsible for the materialist, reductionist approach that medicine currently has toward the brain. This began long before pharma, with Darwin, rationalism, the scientific method and the ejection of religion from public discourse. Seeing the brain as just a mush of chemicals and electricity is the logical endpoint of a process that began with the Enlightenment, actually, and gained steam with the scientific advances of the past two centuries. Pharma is the RESULT of this process. Having said that, I don’t think it is snake oil–nor do I think it is a panacaea. Rather, it is a tool on the workbench. I think I have argued consistently for judicious use of psychotropics; it is you who put words in my mouth by suggesting I think everyone should take these meds.
4. Much of the overuse of psychotropic drugs is not driven by drug reps telling doctors to drug their patients, nor even by DTC adverts telling people they are sick–it is driven by people who don’t understand why they are bored, restless, unhappy and empty–but they aren’t willing to do the hard work necessary to feel better. They want an instant fix that requires no introspection, no sacrifice, no acknowledgement of the sacred and transcendent. This is true not just with mental illness, but all illness. That is why we treat disease so much, because people don’t work on their health. Why do Americans take so many statins and anti-hypertensives? Because we are the most overweight developed country on earth!
5. Epilepsy is not mental illness. Nor, actually, is it a single illness. It can be controlled with AEDs about 60% of the time. Your brother’s occasional “fit” here in the States would render him virtually unemployable, because he could not drive. If he had an infant, he would be unable to bathe it, because during one of his “fits,” the infant might drown. Long-term seizures also lead to short-term memory deficits and cognitive dysfunction. Perhaps that is meaningless to you, but others may view their particular situations differently. There are plenty of alternatives to levitiracetam; your brother maybe should find a neurologist who will try them. Most people don’t get mood effects with Keppra; if they did, it would make my job much easier!
6. Of course an AED doesn’t “cure” epilepsy; epilepsy can’t be “cured”, although sometimes it remits spontaneously. Some people successfully discontinue AEDs after being seizure-free for a couple of years. Some people get surgery or VNS.
7. I don’t understand what you mean by “masking” epilepsy. Epilepsy is a quantifiable occurrence in the brain. It isn’t a mood or an emotion or a feeling–it is a physical event. That’s like saying lisinopril “masks” hypertension.
8. Risk/benefit vocabulary isn’t unique to pharma, nor any other industry. Risk/benefit analysis is what humans do every minute of their day. I just ran to Dairy Queen with my son. From the decision to go, to the route we took, to what we ate was a risk/benefit analysis. We all innately understand this process; it’s what keeps us alive.
AA
HC,
Thank you for your well wishes and for figuring out my post.
I also wish you luck with the Zoloft.
Remeron was prescribed as a sleep aid to counter the insomnia that the Zoloft I was taking at the time was causing.
I suspect the italics were due to my using the symbols in an attempt to set off quotes. I take no credit for the outcome as it was an accident (smile).
AA
AA
HC,
Thank you for your well wishes and for figuring out my post.
I also wish you luck with the Zoloft.
Remeron was prescribed as a sleep aid to counter the insomnia that the Zoloft I was taking at the time was causing.
I suspect the italics were due to my using the symbols in an attempt to set off quotes. I take no credit for the outcome as it was an accident.
AA
HorusCat
AA,
Thank you. All in all, I wake up happy most days. I think part of the secret was figuring out that the things that made me happiest were the everyday events–like that first cup of coffee in the morning and going to DQ with my kids. And figuring out that barring the worst things (being in a concentration camp; having my kids’ arms hacked off with machetes; making dirt cookies for them because that’s all we have to eat), happiness is all about attitude. I am by nature an Eeyore, trying to morph into a Tigger. Have a good day!
HC
AA
HC,
I like your strategy of figuring out what makes you the happiest.
You have a good day too.
AA
truthman30
HC “Rather, it is a tool on the workbench” ..
Indeed, Psychiatric Drugs .. Blunt instruments…
Like using rusty garden shears, whilst blindfolded to perform heart surgery ..
Drinkwaterandsleep
Just give people benzadrine instead. Paxil - The Evil Clown maker. Happy yet evil. It is normal to have emotions, and our society doesn’t allow for people to be naturally sad once in a while. It is considered weak or somehow bad society, like you are doing a disservice to others by feeling something. So “sadness” gets turned into a disease.
NR
Sorry to be so late to the party. Here’s something hilarious and just too sadly true. I know, contradictory but, read.
Pathology in the Hundred Acre Wood.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/163/12/1557
harpy
I take a
PILL-tiddley pom
It keeps me
STILL-tiddley pom,
It keeps me
STILL-tiddley pom
Not
fiddling.
Thank you, NR! I needed a laugh today.
sheila
I would like to tell everyone about my experience with taking Paxil. I am doing this so that you may make an informed decision should you decide to take this drug. I was not given that option because certain side effects, though known, have not been disclosed to the FDA, physicians, or consumers.
I was prescribed Paxil by my doctor during an especially stressful time in my life. I had no history of mental illness nor was I diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. I took this medicine, actually a very low dose, from 2001 – 2005. When I decided to stop taking it, I cut my dose back gradually and weaned myself off of it entirely.
I began having gastric distress. This began as I was cutting back on the Paxil and continued long after I quit taking it. I had diarrhea every day for 2-1/2 years. Just about everything I ate went right through me. This lasted all day long, every day. From my research, I have since learned that most of the serotonin in your body is located in your intestines, so it makes sense that if you take something that adjusts that serotonin level, then your intestines would be affected.
I will try to tell you how this has changed my life. It affects everything that I do, from what kind of job I have, where I go, vacations, where and what I can eat. I have had many tests run by specialists and there is no other cause for the diarrhea. I can also tell you that there have been some very embarrassing moments because of this.
About 2 months ago, as an experiment, I started taking the Paxil again. And guess what? The diarrhea stopped almost immediately. I found a blog called Paxil Progress, which is a blog for people who are trying to wean off of Paxil and it seems that my story is not unique at all. This drug causes bowel incontinence, bloating, horrible gas and pain along with the chronic diarrhea.
I wish I had known what this drug would do to me before I started taking it. Please do your homework. The doctors will not tell you about the side effects and withdrawal symptoms, nor will GlaxoSmithKline, the makers of Paxil. Can you guess why they don’t tell you? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$