weaning off of trazadone
Clearbrook
almost twenty years and i am tired of being on it. It is one of the
most addicting antidepressants, and also caused so much weight gain.
I'm tired of being so heavy and the only way to get the weight off is
to get off the trazadone. I lost 10 pounds of water weight in two days
when I went down one level already. Is anyone else addicted to an
anti depressant?
Linda
http://www.prozactruth.com/trazodone.htm
"The bestselling book, How to Get Off Psychiatric Drugs Safely details
how to eliminate Trazodone side effects, how to safely taper off
Trazodone, what to do if you have already started to taper off
Trazodone and are suffering and what you can do if you went off
Trazodone too fast and are suffering the Trazodone side effects"
How To Get Off Psychiatric Drugs Safely
There Is Hope. There Is A Solution.
By James Harper
https://www.createspace.com/3370470
It's extremely rare for a prescription drug user and/or abuser to
admit they are addicted to prescription drugs.
'er'Prescription drug users and/or abusers rarely admit their addicted
to their prescription drugs.
medss I'm not.
But, I've been reading and posting to this
Nom dePlume
news:57dde36d-bd2e-40a3...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
When you say you are addicted to Trazadone, what do you mean? How can you
tell?
--
Nom dePlume, Ph.D.
Why, yes, in fact, I am a rocket scientist.
Find my book, Medicines for Mental health, and free drug information, at
www.MentalMeds.org
=====
Clearbrook
> "Clearbrook" <clearbroo...@q.com> wrote in message
of drug, it is addicting. most physch drugs are addicting.
Nom dePlume
"Clearbrook" <clearb...@q.com> wrote in message
news:fff2d425-605c-4491...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 15, 11:24 pm, "Nom dePlume" <m...@mentalmeds.org> wrote:
> "Clearbrook" <clearbroo...@q.com> wrote in message
>
> news:57dde36d-bd2e-40a3...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I am taking myself off of trazadone because I have been on it for
> > almost twenty years and i am tired of being on it. It is one of the
> > most addicting antidepressants, and also caused so much weight gain.
> > I'm tired of being so heavy and the only way to get the weight off is
> > to get off the trazadone. I lost 10 pounds of water weight in two days
> > when I went down one level already. Is anyone else addicted to an
> > anti depressant?
>
> When you say you are addicted to Trazadone, what do you mean? How can you
> tell?
> =====
Anytime you suffer extreme withdrawl symptoms from stopping any type
of drug, it is addicting. most physch drugs are addicting.
---
I see what you mean, but doctors usually define drug addiction to include a
strong desire to get pleasure from the drug, not just have withdrawal
symptoms. I agree that antidepressants can produce withdrawal symtpoms when
discontinued (Effexor is notorious in this regard), but wouldn't use the
word "addictive" to describe these medications. For example, people don't
take antidepressants to get high.
Clearbrook
What other word would you use? since they cause withdrawl when a
person stops taking them?
Larry Hoover
On Nov 16, 3:20 pm, "Nom dePlume" <m...@mentalmeds.org> wrote:
> What other word would you use? since they cause withdrawl when a
> person stops taking them?
The proper term is dependency.
Lar
Linda
An Orwellian or euphemistic sort of word, of course.
Carl Y2K
for 19years.
After being on trazodone and ambein and remron for months I went from
240lbs to now 372 the last I checked last month. I tried going to a
nutrients and diet cannot lose anything. My insomnia is to bad to go off
of ambein and trazodone and lorazepam.
Clearbrook
> "Clearbrook" <clearbroo...@q.com> wrote in message
Dependency is just a softer word for addiction, LOL!!
Nom dePlume
"Clearbrook" <clearb...@q.com> wrote in message
news:555753ec-a1f6-4755...@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
===
"Discontinuation syndrom" is another term.
There are many drugs for which discontinuation produces unpleasant effects
after long use. For example,
- Terminating ibuprofen can produce headaches.
- Terminating Ambien can produce insomnia.
Saying that a medication is addictive because you feel withdrawal effects is
an overstatement. Addiction implies cravings, and often involves increasing
tolerance to the drug. Neither of these is true for Trazadone and other
antidepressants.
Larry Hoover
On Nov 16, 8:36 pm, "Larry Hoover" <larryhoo...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > The proper term is dependency.
> Dependency is just a softer word for addiction, LOL!!
No it's not. Dependency is one component of addiction, but there is more to
addiction than just dependency.
I am dependent on caffeine. So long as I get a my standard daily two cups, I
do not experience withdrawal, and the dependency is totally benign. I remain
responsive to caffeine though, so I have no tolerance to it. If I go about
36 hours without caffeine, though, I experience a severe caffeine withdrawal
headache, which is resonsive to ibuprofen. If I go 3 full days without
caffeine, the whole dependency thing is abolished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_dependence
Lar
invalid
<me...@mentalmeds.org> wrote:
>
>
>"Clearbrook" <clearb...@q.com> wrote in message
>news:fff2d425-605c-4491...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>On Nov 15, 11:24 pm, "Nom dePlume" <m...@mentalmeds.org> wrote:
>> "Clearbrook" <clearbroo...@q.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:57dde36d-bd2e-40a3...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >I am taking myself off of trazadone because I have been on it for
>> > almost twenty years and i am tired of being on it. It is one of the
>> > most addicting antidepressants, and also caused so much weight gain.
>> > I'm tired of being so heavy and the only way to get the weight off is
>> > to get off the trazadone. I lost 10 pounds of water weight in two days
>> > when I went down one level already. Is anyone else addicted to an
>> > anti depressant?
>>
>> When you say you are addicted to Trazadone, what do you mean? How can you
>> tell?
>
>> =====
>Anytime you suffer extreme withdrawl symptoms from stopping any type
>of drug, it is addicting. most physch drugs are addicting.
>
>---
>I see what you mean, but doctors usually define drug addiction to include a
>strong desire to get pleasure from the drug, not just have withdrawal
>symptoms.
Doctors do no such thing.Where on earth do you get such a crazy idea
from?
http://www.addictionsandrecovery.org/definition-of-addiction.htm
The Medical Definition of Addiction
The medical definition of addiction has seven criteria. This
definition is based on the criteria of American Psychiatric
Association (DSM-IV) and the World Health Organization (ICD-10).(1)
Answer the following seven yes or no questions.
Most questions have more than one part, because everyone behaves
differently in addiction. You only need to answer yes to one part for
that question to count as a positive response.
Tolerance. Has your use of drugs or alcohol increased over time?
Withdrawal.
When you stop using, have you ever experienced physical or emotional
withdrawal? Have you had any of the following symptoms: irritability,
anxiety, shakes, sweats, nausea, or vomiting?
Difficulty controlling your use.
Do you sometimes use more or for a longer time than you would like? Do
you sometimes drink to get drunk? Do you stop after a few drink
usually, or does one drink lead to more drinks?
Negative consequences.
Have you continued to use even though there have been negative
consequences to your mood, self-esteem, health, job, or family?
Putting off or neglecting activities.
Have you ever put off or reduced social, recreational, work, or
household activities because of your use?
Spending significant time or emotional energy.
Have you spent a significant amount of time obtaining, using,
concealing, planning, or recovering from your use? Have you spend a
lot of time thinking about using? Have you ever concealed or minimized
your use? Have you ever thought of schemes to avoid getting caught?
Desire to cut down.
Have you sometimes thought about cutting down or controlling your
use? Have you ever made unsuccessful attempts to cut down or control
your use?
If you answered yes to at least 3 of these questions, then you meet
the medical definition of addiction.
> I agree that antidepressants can produce withdrawal symtpoms when
>discontinued (Effexor is notorious in this regard), but wouldn't use the
>word "addictive" to describe these medications. For example, people don't
>take antidepressants to get high.
Who cares what your personal idiosyncratic definition of addiction is?
The facts remain the same.
You are not a doctor, you are a seriously disturbed mental patient and
it would pay you to remember that from time to time.
Larry Hoover
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
news:11i7g5lid5lj6hq6p...@4ax.com...
> Who cares what your personal idiosyncratic definition of addiction is?
>
> The facts remain the same.
This is all about you now. Nobody else is involved.
Did you not notice that there must be three affirmative responses? Physical
or psychological dependency is just one criterion.
Your post also excluded the other part of the definitions, the differential
diagnosis part. I will give a paraphrased version, but it states that in the
case of prescribed medication, the responses to the questionnaire must not
be better explained by the underlying disorder being treated. So, in the
instance of antidepressant treatment failure, as an example, the desire to
stop using the drug is better explained by the underlying depression
re-emerging. And so on.
I have a degree which includes specific training in this subject matter. I
am qualified to discuss this subject. Not that it matters, because any
reader could determine this for themselves from primary sources, but it
apparently matters to you.
Lar
Linda
Rubbish.
The personal histories of many Americans includes a chapter where they
were prescribed a prescription drug(s) for dubious reason(s), a
chapter where they learned they were addicted to the prescription drug
(s) they had been prescribed for dubious reason(s), a chapter where
they kicked their addiction to the prescription drug(s) they had been
prescribed for dubious reason(s), and, one or more chapters about
their life long struggle to remain addiction free of prescription drug
(s) once they kicked those prescription drug(s).
The self-interest of prescription drug manufacturers, prescription
drug prescribers, and, all current prescription drug users is such
that each possesses a powerful motive for pitting the personal stories
of tens of millions of Americans prescription drug addicts and/or
former addicts against the skewed, self-serving, and non-factual
logi-science of "addiction" concocted to DENY the personal histories
of the millions of Americans prescribed prescription drugs for dubious
reasons, and, which they become addicted to, and, which they find
nearly impossible to kick, and, which they engage in a life long
struggle to remain addiction free if and whey they succeed in kicking
their prescription drug habit.
>
> I have a degree which includes specific training in this subject matter. I
> am qualified to discuss this subject.
The right to one's personal story is an INALIENABLE right.
Nothing gives prescription drug manufacturers, prescription drug
prescribers and/or you and other prescription drug addicts the right
to violate the inalienable right of others to their personal story by
pitting their personal story against the pseudo-logi-science which
prescription drug makers, prescription drug prescribers, and you and
other prescription drug junkies concoct to deny the personal stories
of the many Americans who are/were prescribed addicting prescription
drugs for dubious reasons, and, who didn't learn that the
prescription drugs they had been prescribed were/are addicting until
after they had/have become addicted, and, who went through hell to
kick their prescription drug addiction, and, who have to struggle
and fight to remain addiction free of prescription drugs for the rest
of their natural life.
Larry Hoover
"Linda" <indomi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0168bd48-be0a-487d...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Pay attention, Linda. Some terminology has very precise definition(s). You
don't get to abuse the definitions and retain credibility at the same time.
Not that anyone ever thought of you as credible.
Lar
invalid
You seem to be under the odd impression that a support group is a
venue for you you to relive your failed academic career in some
fashion.
It isn't, and YOU don't get to sit in judgment on the "credibility"
of folk posting in search of kindred spirits and fellow suffers.
Take your pomposity and sneers to a sci group instead of tormenting
those in mental anguish and hijacking their cries for help.
A bit too challenging huh?
Larry Hoover
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:43:28 -0500, "Larry Hoover"
> <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Linda" <indomi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:0168bd48-be0a-487d...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>Pay attention, Linda. Some terminology has very precise definition(s). You
>>don't get to abuse the definitions and retain credibility at the same
>>time.
>>Not that anyone ever thought of you as credible.
>
> You seem to be under the odd impression that a support group is a
> venue for you you to relive your failed academic career in some
> fashion.
You seem to be under the odd impression that a support group is a venue to
lie, dissemble, distort, and preach.
> A bit too challenging huh?
I was right about the definitions. You were wrong. Linda is wrong.
Truth is a bit too challenging, eh?
invalid
<larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
>news:0mbhg554om38l7f0s...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:43:28 -0500, "Larry Hoover"
>> <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Linda" <indomi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:0168bd48-be0a-487d...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>Pay attention, Linda. Some terminology has very precise definition(s). You
>>>don't get to abuse the definitions and retain credibility at the same
>>>time.
>>>Not that anyone ever thought of you as credible.
>>
>> You seem to be under the odd impression that a support group is a
>> venue for you you to relive your failed academic career in some
>> fashion.
>
>You seem to be under the odd impression that a support group is a venue to
>lie, dissemble, distort, and preach.
Posting the criteria of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-IV)
and the World Health Organization (ICD-10) in a discussion on
addiction does none of those things k00k!
>> A bit too challenging huh?
>
>I was right about the definitions. You were wrong. Linda is wrong.
Sure
And the World Health Organization is wrog, as is the APA and,in fact ,
ANYONE who disagrees with you-right?
>Truth is a bit too challenging, eh?
Post-editing and truth with a capital T!
Teh badges of the k00k!
Larry Hoover
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:48:23 -0500, "Larry Hoover"
> <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>You seem to be under the odd impression that a support group is a venue to
>>lie, dissemble, distort, and preach.
>
> Posting the criteria of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-IV)
> and the World Health Organization (ICD-10) in a discussion on
> addiction does none of those things k00k!
That's really mature. How old are you?
You had said: "Doctors do no such thing.Where on earth do you get such a
crazy idea from?"
In fact, you don't know what doctors do, or you wouldn't have prefaced your
post the way you did. You are ignorant of how it is done. You are a
layperson claiming that simply misreading diagnostic criteria proves your
point. It does not do so.
Don't twist the truth. You left out critical aspects of the APA/WHO
criteria, and ignored ones that you yourself posted. It's anything but a
simplistic process.
>>Truth is a bit too challenging, eh?
>
> Post-editing and truth with a capital T!
Did you not read what I said? You left out one of the critical aspects of
diagnosis, the differential diagnosis part. And you conflated one positive
response as proof of your misguided concept, when your own reference stated
that three positive responses must be true for the diagnosis to stand, but
one which is still dependent on differential diagnostic criteria, which
would exclude the diagnosis outright, notwithstanding the number of positive
responses. Here's what I said:
"Did you not notice that there must be three affirmative responses? Physical
or psychological dependency is just one criterion.
Your post also excluded the other part of the definitions, the differential
diagnosis part. I will give a paraphrased version, but it states that in the
case of prescribed medication, the responses to the questionnaire must not
be better explained by the underlying disorder being treated. So, in the
instance of antidepressant treatment failure, as an example, the desire to
stop using the drug is better explained by the underlying depression
re-emerging. And so on."
Lar
invalid
<larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
>news:k1qhg55cess1cr8ur...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:48:23 -0500, "Larry Hoover"
>> <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>You seem to be under the odd impression that a support group is a venue to
>>>lie, dissemble, distort, and preach.
>>
>> Posting the criteria of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-IV)
>> and the World Health Organization (ICD-10) in a discussion on
>> addiction does none of those things k00k!
>
>That's really mature. How old are you?
Old enough to recognize a self-obsessed k00k when I see one.
>You had said: "Doctors do no such thing.Where on earth do you get such a
>crazy idea from?"
>
>In fact, you don't know what doctors do, or you wouldn't have prefaced your
>post the way you did. You are ignorant of how it is done. You are a
>layperson claiming that simply misreading diagnostic criteria proves your
>point. It does not do so.
Blah blah blah
" doctors usually define drug addiction to include a
strong desire to get pleasure from the drug"
They do no such thing do they?
>
>Don't twist the truth. You left out critical aspects of the APA/WHO
>criteria, and ignored ones that you yourself posted. It's anything but a
>simplistic process.
So illuminate us as to exactly where " doctors usually define drug
addiction to include a strong desire to get pleasure from the drug"!
>
>>>Truth is a bit too challenging, eh?
>>
>> Post-editing and truth with a capital T!
>
>Did you not read what I said? You left out one of the critical aspects of
>diagnosis, the differential diagnosis part. And you conflated one positive
>response as proof of your misguided concept, when your own reference stated
>that three positive responses must be true for the diagnosis to stand, but
>one which is still dependent on differential diagnostic criteria, which
>would exclude the diagnosis outright, notwithstanding the number of positive
>responses.
None of which amounts to," doctors usually define drug addiction to
include a strong desire to get pleasure from the drug...does it?
> Here's what I said:
>
>"Did you not notice that there must be three affirmative responses? Physical
>or psychological dependency is just one criterion.
Why on earth should I not notice what I deliberately posted?
None of the criteria include "a strong desire to get pleasure from the
drug."..do they?
>Your post also excluded the other part of the definitions, the differential
>diagnosis part. I will give a paraphrased version, but it states that in the
>case of prescribed medication, the responses to the questionnaire must not
>be better explained by the underlying disorder being treated. So, in the
>instance of antidepressant treatment failure, as an example, the desire to
>stop using the drug is better explained by the underlying depression
>re-emerging. And so on."
Trazadone withdrawal problems are well documented and your convoluted
twisted spin has no bearing on that.
http://www.steadyhealth.com/Trazodone_withdrawal_symptoms_t62445.html
Some cases of withdrawal effects were seen with Trazadone even when
tapered, so very slow tapering is advised for this drug.
The problems you�re experiencing are the right ones (withdrawal
effects I mean). Trazadone can cause both physical and psychological
symptoms.
Psychological include: agitation, crying spells, irritability,
overactivity, aggression, memory problems, confusion, lowered mood,
etc and physical may range from gastrointestinal to flu-like, sleeping
disorders including both insomnia and possibly night mares or vivid
dreams, sensory problems and motor disorders like tremor, loss of
balance, muscle stiffness, and abnormal movements.
Larry Hoover
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
> None of which amounts to," doctors usually define drug addiction to
> include a strong desire to get pleasure from the drug...does it?
I never said that, and my comment which began, "This is all about you now.
Nobody else is involved." was intended to limit the discussion to your post
only.
I wasn't addressing the earlier comment. I was addressing you.
Antidepressants are not addictive. End stop. It doesn't matter that the
prior poster had a less accurate reason to conclude that, he was still
correct. Antidepressants are not addictive.
Lar
invalid
The facts have been known for years.
That *you* choose to remain in denial, in the face of the actual
experience of those stopping antidepressants, is your own
psychological problem and no more than that.
Antidepressants addictive for some
http://www.anxiety-and-depression-solutions.com/articles/news/081106_antidepressants.php
In the nearly 20 years since Prozac hit the market, many patients have
reported extreme reactions to discontinuing their antidepressants. Two
of the best-selling � Paxil and Effexor � have led to so many
complaints that some doctors avoid prescribing them to patients.
Richard C. Shelton, a Vanderbilt University psychiatrist said, �It�s
not that we never use it, but in the end I will tend not to prescribe
Effexor or Paxil.� Shelton has received grant support from both drugs�
manufacturers and consulted for a number of other pharmaceutical
companies.
Patients have reported experiencing a variety of symptoms, sometimes
within hours of stopping their medication. They can suffer from
flu-like nausea, muscle soreness, uncontrollable crying, diarrhea and
dizziness. Some patients report having �brain zaps,� bizarre and
briefly overwhelming electrical sensations in the back of the head.
While not exactly painful, they can be briefly disorienting and scary
to patients who aren�t sure what�s happening. There are case reports
of people who have just discontinued antidepressants showing up in
hospital ERs, thinking they are having a seizure.
Philip Ninan, vice president of neuroscience at Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
(the maker of Effexor) said managing discontinuation symptoms is
relatively easy if a patient knows about them. He noted that Wyeth had
made efforts to educate both patients and doctors.
But there are surprisingly few doctors who know enough about SRI
(serotonin reuptake inhibitor) discontinuation to effectively manage
it. A 1997 survey of English doctors found that 28% of psychiatrists
and 70% of general practitioners had no idea that patients might have
problems when stopping an antidepressant. It�s possible that awareness
has increased since then, but the subject is so little studied that no
conclusive research has been performed.
The prevalence of discontinuation symptoms is equally mysterious.
Studies place the rate at anywhere from 17% to 78% for the most
problematic drugs.
Researchers aren�t even completely sure what causes the symptoms. It
may be related to the fact that the brain chemical affected by most
antidepressants on the market today, serotonin, does a lot more than
just regulate mood. It is also involved in sleep, digestion, balance
and other physiological processes. So, when you alter the brain�s
serotonin system, the whole body can be affected.
Some doctors have been able to minimize withdrawal symptoms in
patients quitting Paxil or Effexor by gradually switching them to
Prozac, then tapering them off the more easily discontinued drug.
Critics of the pharmaceutical industry purport that drug makers
downplay the severity of drug discontinuation symptoms. The
prescribing information provided to doctors warns that patients
occasionally experience mild symptoms when they stop taking SRIs, but
imply that tapering the drugs can prevent problems. Medical journals
often describe the ill effects of stopping the medications as �mild
and short-lived,� and usually avoidable if the dose is tapered.
Alan Schatzberg, chairman of the department of psychiatry and
behavioral sciences at Stanford University�s School of Medicine said
he doesn�t think the drugs are difficult to discontinue. �The vast
majority of people aren�t that sensitive,� he said.
He recently chaired a Wyeth-sponsored panel of physicians that offered
guidelines for managing �antidepressant discontinuation syndrome,�
which is the preferred medical term for what otherwise might be called
withdrawal. He has also served as a consultant to several other drug
companies.
Karen Menzies, an attorney who has been involved in litigation over
the problem of discontinuation symptoms said that terms like
�antidepressant discontinuation syndrome� demonstrate the industry�s
efforts to downplay the problem. �Withdrawal is the word that is used
in Europe,� she said.
Drug companies counter that antidepressants cannot cause withdrawal
because, technically, they are not addictive. Even so, many patients
who have gone through the experience say that it feels like withdrawal
to them. Some report being unable to work, drive, socialize or do
other everyday things, sometimes for weeks.
Anonymous
> Larry Hoover wrote...
>
>> Linda wrote...
>>
>> Pay attention, Linda. Some terminology has very precise
>> definition(s). You don't get to abuse the definitions
>> and retain credibility at the same time. Not that
>> anyone ever thought of you as credible.
>
Proof of the failed academic career?
Or are you just making it up as you go along again?
> It isn't, and YOU don't get to sit in judgment on the
> "credibility" of folk posting in search of kindred
> spirits and fellow suffers.
And you don't get to sit in judgment of those who disagree
with your putrid views.
BTW, this newsgroup isn't for kindred spirit searches.
> Take your pomposity and sneers to a sci group instead
> of tormenting those in mental anguish and hijacking
> their cries for help.
Take your putrid views to a ng that caters to kooks.
That's where you and your ilk belong.
> A bit too challenging huh?
Meet your own challenge before you start challenging
others, hypocrite.
invalid
wrote:
>BTW, this newsgroup isn't for kindred spirit searches.
It's for anonymous obscene trolls,such as yourself, to babble about
anal sex -right?
Wrong.
invalid
wrote:
>invalid wrote:
>> Larry Hoover wrote...
>>
>>> Linda wrote...
>>>
>>> Pay attention, Linda. Some terminology has very precise
>>> definition(s). You don't get to abuse the definitions
>>> and retain credibility at the same time. Not that
>>> anyone ever thought of you as credible.
>>
>> You seem to be under the odd impression that a support
>> group is a venue for you you to relive your failed
>> academic career in some fashion.
>Take your putrid views
here's an example of putrid troll.
Oh look it's pervy old you!
Path: news.bananasplit.info!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news
From: Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org>
Newsgroups: alt.support.depression.medication
Subject: Re: Non-compliance
Message-Id: <2009101321265...@www.ecn.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:26:53 +0200 (CEST)
Mail-To-News-Contact: ab...@dizum.com
Organization: mail...@dizum.com
Mmmousemaid wrote:
> Dr. Ivan Goldberg.... he is e-mail friendly.
You don't need e-mail friendliness.
You need a big hard cock up your ass.
You know it will calm you down.
Larry Hoover
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
>>Antidepressants are not addictive. End stop. It doesn't matter that the
>>prior poster had a less accurate reason to conclude that, he was still
>>correct. Antidepressants are not addictive.
>
> The facts have been known for years.
>
> That *you* choose to remain in denial, in the face of the actual
> experience of those stopping antidepressants, is your own
> psychological problem and no more than that.
Why are you such a friggin' ass?
> Antidepressants addictive for some
No. All signs of physical dependency, which is but one criterion of
potential addiction. Recall your prior post?
> Drug companies counter that antidepressants cannot cause withdrawal
> because, technically, they are not addictive.
Even with the spin your biased source has put on it, even they can't avoid
acknowledging that antidepressants are not addictive. Withdrawal is a
sequela of dependency. Discontinuation syndrome was coined, IMHO, purely
because of fuckwits like yourself who can't read and understand at the same
time.
Lar
invalid
<larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
>news:8dgjg55trh1qnh96b...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:06:56 -0500, "Larry Hoover"
>> <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>>Antidepressants are not addictive. End stop. It doesn't matter that the
>>>prior poster had a less accurate reason to conclude that, he was still
>>>correct. Antidepressants are not addictive.
>>
>> The facts have been known for years.
>>
>> That *you* choose to remain in denial, in the face of the actual
>> experience of those stopping antidepressants, is your own
>> psychological problem and no more than that.
>
>Why are you such a friggin' ass?
>
>> Antidepressants addictive for some
>
>No. All signs of physical dependency, which is but one criterion of
>potential addiction. Recall your prior post?
>
>> Drug companies counter that antidepressants cannot cause withdrawal
>> because, technically, they are not addictive.
>
>Even with the spin your biased source has put on it, even they can't avoid
>acknowledging that antidepressants are not addictive. Withdrawal is a
>sequela of dependency. Discontinuation syndrome was coined, IMHO, purely
>because of fuckwits like yourself who can't read and understand at the same
>time.
"terms like �antidepressant discontinuation syndrome� demonstrate the
Larry Hoover
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
news:njujg59r1li5ntkeq...@4ax.com...
> "terms like "antidepressant discontinuation syndrome" demonstrate the
> industry's efforts to downplay the problem. "Withdrawal is the word
> that is used in Europe,"
People associate withdrawal with addiction, when it is not restricted to
addiction. It is the result of dependence.
Blah. Blah.
I prefer a primary source because that is what I was taught to rely upon.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/163/5/764
The revision of DSM-III was the result of a great deal of work by a
committee set up by APA in the 1980s. This committee worked over several
years and coordinated its efforts with the World Health Organization. The
result was the completely revised diagnostic classification published in
1987 known as DSM-III-R. This was an important contribution to the mental
health field because it provided a clear way of defining addiction as
compulsive drug-seeking behavior using criteria that turned out to have
excellent interrater reliability and applicability to all forms of drug
addiction. The classification was adopted with only minor changes in DSM-IV.
One of us (C.O.) was a member of the committee who attended every one of the
committee meetings throughout the 1980s. There was good agreement among
committee members as to the definition of addiction, but there was
disagreement as to the label that should be used. The proponents of the term
"addiction" believed that this word would convey the appropriate meaning of
the compulsive drug-taking condition and would distinguish it from
"physical" dependence, which is normal and can occur in anyone who takes
medications that affect the CNS. Those who favored the term "dependence"
felt that this was a more neutral term that could easily apply to all drugs,
including alcohol and nicotine. The committee members argued that the word
"addiction" was a pejorative term that would add to the stigmatization of
people with substance use disorders. A vote was taken at one of the last
meetings of the committee, and the word "dependence" won over "addiction" by
a single vote.
Experience over the past two decades has demonstrated that this decision was
a serious mistake. The term "dependence" has traditionally been used to
describe "physical dependence," which refers to the adaptations that result
in withdrawal symptoms when drugs, such as alcohol and heroin, are
discontinued. Physical dependence is also observed with certain psychoactive
medications, such as antidepressants and beta-blockers. However, the
adaptations associated with drug withdrawal are distinct from the
adaptations that result in addiction, which refers to the loss of control
over the intense urges to take the drug even at the expense of adverse
consequences. For example, research has shown that when opiates are
administered to a naive animal, adaptation begins to occur after the first
dose so that the second dose has a discernibly decreased effect from the
first. After several days of taking the medication, abrupt cessation
produces a withdrawal syndrome varying with the duration of treatment and
the dose level. This is an expected pharmacological response, and although
it may occur among addicts, it is quite distinct from compulsive
drug-seeking behavior. This has resulted in confusion among clinicians
regarding the difference between "dependence" in a DSM sense, which is
really "addiction," and "dependence" as a normal physiological adaptation to
repeated dosing of a medication. The result is that clinicians who see
evidence of tolerance and withdrawal symptoms assume that this means
addiction, and patients requiring additional pain medication are made to
suffer. Similarly, pain patients in need of opiate medications may forgo
proper treatment because of the fear of dependence, which is self-limiting
by equating it with addiction.
The authors are now in the planning stages for DSM-V. There will be careful
reviews of the criteria, but in the case of substance use disorders, the
medical world drastically needs a change in labeling. Addiction is a
perfectly acceptable word. It is used by the American Society of Addiction
Medicine, the American Association of Addiction Psychiatrists, the American
Journal on Addictions, and the oldest journal in the field, simply known as
Addiction. It is clear that any harm that might occur because of the
pejorative connotation of the word "addiction" would be completely
outweighed by the tremendous harm that is now being done to the patients who
have had needed medication withheld because their doctors believe that they
are addicted simply because they are dependent.
We urge APA to consider these patients as well as the numerous clinicians in
other fields who look to DSM for the classification of mental disorders. The
current labeling is not only confusing and misleading, but it contributes to
suffering.
DSM-IV Substance Dependence Criteria
Addiction (termed substance dependence by the American Psychiatric
Association) is
defined as a maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically
significant impairment
or distress, as manifested by three (or more) of the following, occurring
any time in the same
12-month period:
1. Tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
(a) A need for markedly increased amounts of the substance to achieve
intoxication or
the desired effect
or
(b) Markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the
substance.
2. Withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following:
(a) The characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance
or
(b) The same (or closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid
withdrawal
symptoms.
3. The substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period
than intended.
4. There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or
control substance use.
5. A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the
substance (such as
visiting multiple doctors or driving long distances), use the substance (for
example,
chain-smoking), or recover from its effects.
6. Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up
or reduced because
of substance use.
7. The substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent
physical or
psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by
the
substance (for example, current cocaine use despite recognition of
cocaine-induced
depression or continued drinking despite recognition that an ulcer was made
worse by
alcohol consumption).
Nomen Nescio
> Larry Hoover wrote...
>
>> Linda wrote...
>>
>> Pay attention, Linda. Some terminology has very precise
>> definition(s). You don't get to abuse the definitions
>> and retain credibility at the same time. Not that
>> anyone ever thought of you as credible.
>
> You seem to be under the odd impression that a support
> group is a venue for you you to relive your failed
> academic career in some fashion.
Proof of the failed academic career?
Or are you just making it up as you go along again?
> It isn't, and YOU don't get to sit in judgment on the
> "credibility" of folk posting in search of kindred
> spirits and fellow suffers.
And you don't get to sit in judgment of those who disagree
with your putrid views.
BTW, this newsgroup isn't for kindred spirit searches.
Linda
> "Linda" <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0168bd48-be0a-487d...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pay attention, Linda. Some terminology has very precise definition(s).
Pay attention, Hoover.
Neither, pharmaceutical corporations, nor the whores, oops, I
mean the mal-practitioners of medicine pharmaceutical corporations
bought and paid for, nor the dope fiends whom pharmaceutical
corporations and mal-practitioners of medicine enable to obtain a
quasi-legal supply of dope get to HI-JACK the definition of addiction
to further their own malicious, sinister, money-making or predatory
agendas.
Lots of innocent people were/are misprescribed addicting
antidepressants, more often than not, for dubious reasons.
Lots of innocent people learned via the school of hard knocks they
had unwittingly become addicted to the addicting antidepressants they
had been misprescribed for dubious reasons.
Lots of innocent people experienced living hell, not for a day,
not for a week, not for a month, but, for a year or more, to KICK
their addiction to the addicting antidepressant(s) they had been
misprescribed for dubious reasons..
YET, two decades + after these innocent peoples lives had been turned
upside down as a result of their having been misprescribed addicting
antidepressants for dubious reasons, and, an entire decade or more
AFTER these innocent people endured depths of horror no human being
ought ever have to endure, and, whose depths are unfathomable to any
who never personally experienced it in order to kick their addiction
to addiction antidepressants, these people have no choice but to do
whatever it takes to retain their memory of the myriad ways the
addicting AD's had turned their formerly drug free lives upside
down, and, their memory of the horrific and unfathomable suffering
they endured to KICK the prescribed AD's they unwittingly become
addicted to, in order to, remain prescription AD addiction free the
remainder of their natural lives.
Now, the drugged up life experiences of those who unwittingly became
addicted to addicting AD's misprescribed to them for dubious reasons
is probably comparable to the drugged up life experiences of everyone
who ever became addicted to any addicting drug.
What there exists no comparison whatsoever to is the truly horrific,
unfathomable, and unrelenting nightmare endured by any and all who
KICKED their addiction to addicting AD's, before their patents
expired, and, their manufacturers ceased denying the horrific
withdrawals occasioned by SSRI cessation.
Yet, 20+ years after such a persons life was turned upside down as a
result of their having been misprescribed addicting AD's for dubious
reasons, and, nearly 10 years after they endured horrific,
unfathomable, unrelenting, withdrawal and it's unholy aftermath,
such a person can still find themselves engaging in some stinking
thinking about the addicting AD's wherein the reality of having had
their formerly drug free life turned upside down for a decade or
more, and, the unfathomable horror and unrelenting agony, pain,
and nightmare they endured for well over a frigging year after they
KICKED the addicting AD doesn't figure into the stinking thinking they
are engaging in wrt the few positive aspects of munching down those
addicting AD's.
When the individual this happens to is also an individual who took
proactive measures to ensure they NEVER FORGET what they'd been
through on account of their having been misprescribed addicting AD's
for dubious reasons by virtue of their 10 year subscription to an
alternative discussion forum where they had to sludge through 10,000
crap articles published by malicious, sinister, mercenary, and or
predatory individuals in order to discover the pearls published by
ordinary people, life themselves, who also experienced what they had
experienced as a result of being misprescribed addicting AD's for
dubious reasons, you and the other dope fiends misusing that forum
to hype your dope can take your skewed, self-serving, and non-
factual biased "definition" of addiction and shove it way up your
lying, doped up, morally bankrupt arses.
Larry Hoover
On Nov 21, 11:43 am, "Larry Hoover" <larryhoo...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> "Linda" <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0168bd48-be0a-487d...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Pay attention, Linda. Some terminology has very precise definition(s).
> Pay attention, Hoover.
Whatever.
more) of the following, occurring any time in the same12-month period:
And then you have to do a differential diagnosis based on the original psych
diagnosis.
Lar
George Orwell
> Trazadone withdrawal problems are well documented...
proof that anti-depressants are addictive?
you got none.
all you got is more unproven allegations.
you are a loser!
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
Anonymous
> Trazadone withdrawal problems are well documented...
proof that anti-depressants are addictive?
you got none.
all you got is more unproven allegations.
http://tinyurl.com/yjs3g6r <--- invalid
George Orwell
you got none.
http://tinyurl.com/yjs3g6r <--- invalid
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
George Orwell
invalid
Anonymous
> here's an example of putrid troll.
> Oh look it's pervy old you!
oh look....more unproven allegations.
pity it doesn't help your cause.
anti-depressant withdrawal syndrome
does NOT qualify as addiction.
now go foam at the mouth some more.
Anonymous
George Orwell
Anonymous
> Neither, pharmaceutical corporations, nor the whores...
you'd know about whores.
oops, you are one.
invalid
wrote:
>Linda Marie Gore says:
You would have a tad more credibility if you stopped
confusing everyone with your mother.
Linda
> "Linda" <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:19b91ad8-b53c-4b06...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 21, 11:43 am, "Larry Hoover" <larryhoo...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > "Linda" <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:0168bd48-be0a-487d...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Pay attention, Linda. Some terminology has very precise definition(s).
> > Pay attention, Hoover.
>
> Whatever.
>
> http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/163/5/764
> The revision of DSM-III
Have you a reading comprehension problem, Hoover?
Neither, the thoroughly corrupt pharmaceutical industry, nor their
Whores, oops, I mean the mal-practitioners of medicine the
thoroughly corrupt pharmaceutical industry bought and paid for, nor
you and all their other dope fiends get to Hi-Jack ordinary english
words and their definitions to further your/their malicious,
sinister, money-making, and predatory agendas.
In ordinary english the definition of the word addiction is as
follows:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/addiction
a'd⋅dic⋅tion [uh-dik-shuhn]
–noun
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something
that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to
such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.
Origin:
1595–1605; < L addictiōn- (s. of addictiō) a giving over, surrender.
See addict, -ion
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Pharmaceutical Corporations, their Whores, oops, I mean the the
Mal--Practitioners of Medicine whom the Pharmaceutical Corporations
bought and paid for, and, Pharmaceutical Corporation's dope fiends
continue to face both criminal and civil conspiracy charges for having
recklessly endangered the Public's Health and Welfare by minting tens
of millions of involuntary addicts by substituting a skewed, self-
serving, non-factual, "theoretical" definition of addiction in place
of the true, broad, everyday, ordinary definition of addiction
understood by all.
The disease/medical model's skewed, self-serving, non-factual, and
purely theoretical definition does not jibe, square, or pass muster
with the subjective experience of the legions who have an involuntary
addiction to drugs marketed and prescribed as "antidepressants", most
especially, the drugs marketed and prescribed as antidepressants
despite the FDA Internal Reports repeated mention of Prozac possessing
the side effect profile of addicting stimulants.
.So, take the disease/medical model's skewed, self-serving, non-
factual, and purely "theoretical" definition of addiction and shove it
way up your lying, dope fiendish, felonious and tortious arse
Nomen Nescio
> here's an example of putrid troll.
> Oh look it's pervy old you!
more unproven allegations?
pity it doesn't help your cause.
anti-depressants are not addictive.
Nomen Nescio
> here's an example of putrid troll.
> Oh look it's pervy old you!
more unproven allegations?
pity it doesn't help your cause.
anti-depressant withdrawal syndrome does not qualify
as addiction.
Nomen Nescio
> Trazadone withdrawal problems are well documented...
proof that anti-depressants are addictive?
you got none.
all you got is more unproven allegations.
you are a loser!
Nomen Nescio
Larry Hoover
> Have you a reading comprehension problem, Hoover?
No, but it's patently obvious that you do. The medically correct definition
is what is used by pharmaceutical companies, regulators, and the medical
personnel who interact with actual patients. It is irrelevant what you think
the word addiction means, in this context. Read my earlier post, and try to
understand it. I know that's a challenge for you, but do your best. Okay?
Lar
Anonymous
> Nothing of significance.
LOL!
Par for the course.
You never have any proof.
All you have is whine.
You can't go toe-to-toe with Larry Hoover on the
false 'anti-depressants are addictive' issue.
After acquiring Wyeth for $67.3 billion, Pfizer reported
a 3rd quarter 2009 net profit of $2.88 billion, compared
with a net profit of $2.28 billion a year ago.
http://tinyurl.com/yjp8lsz
No go search for your 'kindred spirit' here:
http://tinyurl.com/yg2zy9d
George Orwell
LOL!
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
Anonymous
Anonymous
Nomen Nescio
George Orwell
> confusing everyone with your mother.
when it comes to credibility, you might want to be a bit
more focused on proving of your allegations rather than
making it up as you go along.
btw, ever take that course in understanding financial
statements at your local community college?
read this and weep: http://tinyurl.com/ycp3p5l
George Orwell
> So, take the disease/medical model's skewed, self-serving,
can you demonstrate this?
Anonymous
Anonymous
invalid
wrote:
>invalid the marxist whiner says:
Pfizer had sales of $11.62 billion in the quarter, down 3% from $11.97
billion a year ago.
The company said revenue was pulled down about 5% due to unfavorable
foreign exchange rates.
Sales were down across all five of Pfizer's business divisions, with
the worst decline being a 12% drop in the established products
business, which sells prescription drugs that have lost patent
protection.
Sales declined between 3% and 5% in businesses selling primary care,
specialty care and cancer drugs, as well as the division selling to
emerging markets such as China and India.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/shire-climbs-pfizer-falls-in-early-trading-2009-11-24
Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. which has reportedly been eyeing a
takeover of Protalix, saw its shares fall 2% to $18.22.
On Monday, a Pennsylvania jury awarded a user of Pfizer's hormone
therapy PremPro $28 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff
developed breast cancer after taking the product, which is used to
treat symptoms of menopause.
PEARL RIVER � The body of a New Jersey man was found in a car in the
parking lot of Pfizer in Pearl River at 3:35 p.m. Tuesday.
Orangetown police withheld details until his family could be notified.
Detective Lt. Jim Brown said the death appeared to be a suicide.
Though Pfizer had announced this month that the company would be
making substantial layoffs at the complex on Middletown Road,
investigators would not speculate as to whether that may have been a
contributing factor in this case.
invalid
<nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>invalid the marxist whiner says:
>> anon wrote:
>>
>>> Linda Marie Gore says:
>>>> Neither, pharmaceutical corporations, nor the whores...
>>> you'd know about whores.
>>>
>>> oops, you are one.
>>
>> You would have a tad more credibility if you stopped
>> confusing everyone with your mother.
>
>when it comes to credibility, you might want to be a bit
>more focused on proving of your allegations rather than
>making it up as you go along.
>
>btw, ever take that course in understanding financial
>statements at your local community college?
>
>read this and weep: http://tinyurl.com/ycp3p5l
Layoffs Sting Big Pharma
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/12/merck-drugs-pfizer-business-healthcare-layoffs.html
Merger-related cuts at Merck and Pfizer show how the mighty drug
industry has fallen.
.Pfizer is shuttering six research sites and cutting 20,000 jobs in
the wake of its $68 billion acquisition of Wyeth. The new, combined
company will employ fewer chemists than Pfizer alone did before the
deal, according to the research blog In The Pipeline.
Pfizer could not immediately verify this. Between them, Pfizer and
Merck are laying off as many people as are employed by Bristol-Myers
Squibb
One of the research sites Pfizer is closing is a gleaming $294 million
new lab in New London, Conn., that was supposed to be a showcase for
the company. In 1998, at the height of its glory, Pfizer announced
plans to build the New London lab on a site contaminated by an old
mill. State officials granted the company land at little or no cost.
Connecticut's governor said the lab was "proof that our business
climate is competitive again."
Land was seized from private homeowners to make way for the new
development. One stubborn homeowner sued and brought the case all the
way to the Supreme Court. She lost the case in a controversial 2005
decision.
Where her home once stood, there is a vacant lot. Now Pfizer is
leaving the lab vacant as well.
.
Linda
> "Linda" <indomitab...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ad09a949-779f-4c31...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Have you a reading comprehension problem, Hoover?
>
> is what is used by pharmaceutical companies, regulators, and the medical
Psychiatry isn't medicine, Hoover.
Psychiatry modeled itself on the medical model.
"What is the medical model?"
{....}.
"The medical model is not a scientific concept or theory. It cannot be
confirmed or falsified by facts. A model is a conceptual-linguistic
construction, a metaphor. The balsam wood model airplane is a metaphor
for a real airplane. It is not a real airplane. It is a representation
which highlights similarities and ignores differences. A fire in the
eyes may sparkle but it doesn't burn. The medical model is a metaphor
which portrays psychiatry, psychiatrists, and psychiatric {consumers}
in the language of medicine. Medicine does not need a medical model.
It is the standard on which psychiatry models itself, like the real
airplane is to the toy. The medical model projects the metaphors of
illness on to the {consumer} and the metaphors of medicine on to the
psychiatrist".
Ron Leifer, M.D.
Ethical Human Science and Services, December 27, 2000
http://www.iaapa.de/zwang/leifer.htm
> It is irrelevant what you think
> the word addiction means, in this context.
We aren't discussing what I think, Hoover.
We are discussing you and other dope fiend's attempt to Hi-Jack
discourse about addiction to stimulant(s) being marketed, prescribed,
and sold as "antidepressants", by, substituting the true, broad,
everyday, ordinary English definition of addiction with the false,
fake, skewed, non-factual, thoroughly political, purely
theoretical, and completely self-serving definition of addiction which
the "learned" Whores and Dope Fiends taking money and dope from
pharmaceutical corporations fabricated out of whole cloth.
To which I've responded by repeatedly imploring you to take your
skewed, self-serving, non-factual, and purely theoretical
"defintion" of addiction and shove it way up your lying, doped up,
felonious, and tortious ARSE.
Larry Hoover
GFY.
Anonymous
> Pfizer had sales of $11.62 billion in the quarter,
> down 3% from $11.97 billion a year ago.
> The company said revenue was pulled down about 5% due
> to unfavorable foreign exchange rates.
Given that the economy has been in the throws of the nation's
worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, Pfizer's
report of an increase in 3rd quarter profit of $.6 billion
over that of a year ago on a sales drop of $.35 billion
for the same period is a remarkable achievement, especially
when Pfizer's outlay of $68 million to purchase Wyeth is
added to the mix.
Once again you show your failure to comprehend financial
data.
> Pfizer is shuttering six research sites...
They bought Wyeth. It's called having excess capacity
during a recession, stupid.
> The body of a New Jersey man was found in a car in the
> parking lot of Pfizer...
Must be Pfizer's fault.
Yet another big pharma conspiracy.
Now go start a ng for your kindred spirits:
alt.support.paranoid.conspiracy.Pfizer
invalid
wrote:
>invalid the moron wrote:
No conspiracy theories needed.
Pfizer's outrageous role as eager parasitic recipients of corporate
welfare in exchange for payments via lobbyists are public and well
documented.
Bringing Pfizer to New London came at a heavy cost to taxpayers
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2671288/
NEW LONDON, Nov 21, 2009
-- It took a lot more than the promise of spiffed-up surroundings and
the desire of a top executive to help a struggling city to bring
Pfizer Inc. to New London.
It also took money. A lot of money.
Public records show that, since 2000, city and state taxpayers have
kicked in at least $160 million, through tax breaks, direct grants and
infrastructure improvements, to bring Pfizer and its new global
research center to a waterfront brownfield -- before the company
announced last week that it would pull out in 2011, just when the last
of its tax abatements are due to expire.
Those investments included the redevelopment project that would
eventually bring New London to national prominence and widespread
criticism: the razing and redevelopment of the Fort Trumbull
neighborhood that adjoined the brownfield site where Pfizer built its
glittering $295 million research headquarters.
State development officials made that redevelopment project a
condition of Pfizer's move into New London, documents show, long
before either the company's plans or the neighborhood's fate were made
public.
Those assurances also came years before New London residents had a
chance to vote, in 2000, on the Municipal Development Plan that
continues to govern the future of the 90-acre development area around
Pfizer's building.
In a confidential letter written in December 1997, the state
Department of Economic and Community Development pledged to
then-Pfizer executive George M. Milne that the state would provide a
vast package of incentives and improvement projects to "ensure
Pfizer's ability to select New London for a new Headquarters
operation."
The incentives included not only direct financial assistance, but also
a commitment to fund a "comprehensive, State-funded waterfront
improvement and development project" in the adjoining Fort Trumbull
neighborhood.
The letter also commits to using $8 million in initial funding to the
New London Development Corp. to acquire properties adjacent to
Pfizer's new site and the abandoned Naval Undersea Warfare Center
property on the Fort Trumbull peninsula, "as defined in the Pfizer
concept plan."
Contemporary notes and an organizational chart from a meeting of
state, NLDC and Pfizer officials from the same period show the intense
collaboration of private business and government agencies, including
discussion of how to deal with property owners who did not want to
leave their land.
"Those on Pequot Avenue that are holdouts will be treated differently
& separately from holdouts in the rest of the project in that they are
more critical to Pfizer development," reads one section of notes from
a Feb. 12, 1998, meeting about the project, a section that appears to
refer to properties purchased for the Pfizer site, not those later
taken by eminent domain in the fort neighborhood.
The notes were acquired from the DECD, pursuant to state open-records
laws, from the files of Peter Lent, then a principal on the New London
projects.
And despite statements from Pfizer over the years disavowing any role
in the Fort Trumbull development or its controversial eminent domain
case, it was no secret at the time of Pfizer's announcement.
Speaking to The Day that week, in March 1998, then-Gov. John G.
Rowland boasted of the state's pledge to spend millions renovating the
surrounding neighborhood in order to strike a deal with one of the
world's most successful pharmaceutical companies.
"They weren't about to build a major operation next to a garbage
site," Rowland said of the nearby Calamari scrapyard. Referring to the
rest of the project, he added, "They wanted a good quality of life. So
they wanted to know what was going to happen to the surrounding
property. It was an easy sell once they saw what was going to happen."
As the company prepares to depart, the people who helped strike that
deal on behalf of the city say they regret Pfizer's current plans, but
also express no reservations about the investment of public money to
help bring a private corporation to town. That investment, the
thinking went in the late 1990s, would help pull New London to its
feet after decades of slow decline.
"Yes, Pfizer was the catalyst to doing what Governor Rowland wanted to
do anyway, which was to revitalize the cities," said Steve Percy, a
real estate agent and a longtime executive board member of the NLDC,
which the state and city tasked with running the Fort Trumbull
project.
Current and former elected leaders also say much of the good in the
public investment around the fort and the Pfizer site has been
overlooked, and could help as Pfizer seeks a buyer for its building,
and the city and state seek a way forward at the unfinished Fort
Trumbull site.
"The city has benefited from having Pfizer in it," incoming Mayor Rob
Pero said, including the state's 40-percent share of Pfizer's tax
abatement, which was paid to the city, along with the 20 percent paid
by the company itself.
"Sixty percent of what we were getting was better than the nothing
that was there," Pero said.
Former councilor Elizabeth A. Sabilia recalled driving a startled
friend past the Calamari junkyard and the former mill site in the
years before Pfizer and the state paid to have the sites cleared and
cleaned.
"We've got to remember what that site looked like," she said, "and
what the infrastructure around that site looked like. It's easy to
forget.
"Even with the closure, it's not like New London got nothing out of
the deal. It's just a question of what kind of use New London's going
to get out of it now, which is a big -- a huge -- open question."
George Orwell
> Pfizer had sales of $11.62 billion in the quarter,
> down 3% from $11.97 billion a year ago.
> The company said revenue was pulled down about 5% due
> to unfavorable foreign exchange rates.
Given that the economy has been in the throws of the nation's
worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, Pfizer's
report of an increase in 3rd quarter profit of $.6 billion
over that of a year ago on a sales drop of $.35 billion
for the same period is a remarkable achievement, especially
when Pfizer's outlay of $68 million to purchase Wyeth is
added to the mix.
Once again you show your failure to comprehend financial
data.
> Pfizer is shuttering six research sites...
They bought Wyeth. It's called having excess capacity
during a recession, stupid.
> The body of a New Jersey man was found in a car in the
> parking lot of Pfizer...
Must be Pfizer's fault.
Yet another big pharma conspiracy.
Now go start a ng for your kindred spirits:
alt.support.paranoid.conspiracy.Pfizer
Anonymous
> Anon wrote:
>> Must be Pfizer's fault.
>> Yet another big pharma conspiracy.
>
> Pfizer's outrageous role as eager parasitic recipients
> of corporate welfare in exchange for payments via
> lobbyists are public and well documented.
Pfizer does what it needs to do to thrive.
Pfizer operates within the bounds of the laws made by
Congress and the legislatures of the states within which
it operates.
If you're not happy with Pfizer's behavior, then agitate
for a change in the law that's closer to your own
polyyannaish view of economics and business ethics.
> Bringing Pfizer to New London came at a heavy cost to
> taxpayers...
> It also took money. A lot of money... before the
> company announced last week that it would pull out in
> 2011, just when the last of its tax abatements are due
> to expire.
If elected officials made no provisions for Pfizer to act
differently when they struck their deal, then they have no
one to blame but themselves.
Without doubt, the struggling City of New London was in
an unequal bargaining position to begin with when its
officials cut their deal with Pfizer. They did so at
their own peril.