Pantastic: Just show me an ad or interview with a shrink that said/says SSRIs are a miracle cure for depression or would make “everything better” for depressed patients and I’ll acknowledge error.
As for the shill gambit, I’ve seen multiple posters in this thread using it. Not telling anyone what to do, but it’s virtually always uncalled for and sleazy to boot. It’s been aimed at me more times than I can count.
My understanding from Whitaker is that SSRI’s —like most psych meds—have good short-term efficacy but that the brain-environment compensates. In the case of SSRIs, the brain begins producing less serotonin to compensate for the interference in uptake, and/or generates more uptake receptors. Either way, you end up with roughly the same amount of serotonin as you used to have before you went on the SSRI. Of course now you’re dependent on the SSRI to maintain that original level.
Can you cite any human studies on serotonin levels in people on long-term SSRI therapy?
Or can you even cite a study that correlates serotonin levels with depression in people that haven’t taken SSRI’s?
Peter Kramer’s “Listening to Prozac” was a very influential work that promoted the use of SSRI anti-depressants in healthy individuals. In doing so, it exaggerated the effectiveness and downplayed the side effects of these drugs.
Maybe none of the advertising at that time used the actually words “miracle cure”. They mostly just showed really sad people in dark dramatic lighting turning into happy shiny well-lit people after taking a pill. Those commercials were very effective. Maybe they shouldn’t have been, but they were.
Most posters here cannot take this logical step. You end up on 100 mg of something and don’t know exactly what it’s doing. (Which is exactly what you might think if it worked for a while and the effect decayed.)
So at some point you might want to get off. You will need to be on an SSRI with a long half life. If you’re not on one already you need to cross over to one. Then it takes time tapering the dose down, while you may be in some condition of distress and transition. This is all part of the SSRI experience too.
drad_dog and some others in this thread evidently don’t have the slightest notion of what people experiencing major depression go through.
It is a horrible disease and potentially life-threatening.
For a very long time its victims suffered with no way out, except the often vain hope that things would get better in time.
SSRIs are one tool in an imperfect toolbox. Should patients know of their drawbacks, including difficulty for some in weaning off them? Sure, same as patients should know risks/benefits of any medical intervention. Anecdotes from strangers on the Internet with axes to grind should be treated with at least as much skepticism as the medical profession and drug companies.
As for “Listening to Prozac”, I haven’t read the book. Apparently it was taken by some as an unqualified endorsement of the drug, but according to the following article Kramer’s book displayed considerable ambivalence on the subject, notably on pharmacology’s threat to traditional psychoanalytic approaches. There was considerable resentment in the profession about the idea that drugs could relatively rapidly alleviate a condition that shrinks believed should be approached by a slow process under their tutelage. Having general practitioners prescribe these drugs also shrank psychiatrists’ power.
This is totally off base, and ignorant. Have you read what I posted at all? You cite my name and are agreeeing with what I said but you still have to scapegoat me.
So somehow on this thread I must be called a scientologist, or a lunatic or a scam artist, or a conspiracist, if I try to say that people should know some prudential things before you take a drug.
You are against this. Great. You really should explain yourself.
Drug discontinuation is a serious problem for those who are in it. It isn’t just benzos, and it can result in permanent disablity for work, depending on when it happens in your life.
Ok, now you have told us.
Now you can stop ranting everything else about doctors, psychiatrists, SSRIs, disability-causing SSRI discontinuation.
Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, as I said.
Whitaker, in Anatomy of an Epidemic, was writing about antipsychotics, not SSRIs. Antipsychotics are a far different animal. Important distinction.
As critics of Whitaker’s conclusions have stated, correlation does not equal causation.
I agree with him that antipsychotics are very often misused. They also can be used judiciously to improve quality of life.
I know whereof I speak. Been there, done that.
I have read Whitaker’s books, attended his keynotes, spoken with him, have the t-shirt. He shouldn’t be the last word or the only word.
Actually I said it and was ignored. I said it pages and years ago but the response was fear, ignorance and ad hominem attack. Like it is now.
People on the “Just shut up!” train? What is the motivation? You usually end up sounding and saying the same things to stifle debate and discussion.
Nothing I said was ‘ad hominem’, I was speaking only to ideas, never about you. Read it again.
How can we ‘discuss and debate’ without putting forth our ideas?
Or is it discussion only if your ideas are agreed with? And not challenged by debate?
Anatomy of an Epidemic covers SSRI’s as well as anti-psychotics.
Since it was published in 2010, it is not current with newer SSRIs nor the on-going practice of the art and science of psychiatry today.
I have been told to shut up many times in this thread, by ad hominem attackers and also by you, in case you forgot already. It’s a pile on to silence debate. On the other hand I don’t tell anyone to shut up.
The only “idea” I’ve seen in response is knee jerk irrational defenses of the purity of the medical profession which is basically another chaotic human enterprise with a lot of errors and misbehavior like the others.
It is misleading to call psychiatry a science. It is trial and error, esp in the realm of pharma.
What part is art and what part is science?
The art is knowing what part is science and what part is human to human and how to apply it to the person asking you to help them. You would know it when you saw it.
Since you think a broken bone is remotely equivalent to a brain disorder along with your constant mis- representation between ssri’s, benzodiazepines, and anti-psychotics is the reason I believe that you have a self-serving bias or just a bias in general against the medical profession.
That is true. But what the book documents is a long-standing trajectory. Loosely summarized, the combo of psychiatric profession and pharma companies embraced the overall notion that the meds used to control symptoms must actually be fixing a physiological deficit in the brain chemistry. It turns out there’s no evidence to support that hypothesis. And by and large, the brain appears to react to foreign chemicals that modify brain neurochemistry by adjusting the number of sites the release or reabsorb a given chemical, or in some similar fashion, so that over time it has accommodated for the chemical.
You’re right, there are new SSRI’s on the scene now. But there’s really no reason to assume they’d be exceptions to this general rule.