SSRI's - Long Term Use?
Shannon Bradley McCain
KHorney wrote:
>
> Most SSRI's (prozac, zolof, paxil etc) are prescribed for years and
> years. The Rx procedure is to try another if the first doesn't "hit."
> Since these drugs are only researched for clinical trial periods of a
> few months, does anyone have any "hard" research data on the possible
> effects of long, long term use??
No, and I don't know that you'll find it. Look at Robert M. Julien's "A
Primer of Drug Action - 7th edition"
Its got a very comprehensive section on SSRIs, Tricyclics, et. al.
Also has very interesting info on other psychoactive drugs.
KHorney
Steve Work
KHorney wrote:
: Most SSRI's (prozac, zolof, paxil etc) are prescribed for years and
Prozac has only been on the market for 10 years, Zoloft for 5 years, and
less for the others. Where is the "hard" data on long-term use going to
come from?
Alan Harding
In article <5ufnoi$e...@thor.cmp.ilstu.edu>, KHorney <?@?.?> writes
>Most SSRI's (prozac, zolof, paxil etc) are prescribed for years and
>years. The Rx procedure is to try another if the first doesn't "hit."
>Since these drugs are only researched for clinical trial periods of a
>few months, does anyone have any "hard" research data on the possible
>effects of long, long term use??
Yesterday I invented a widget. Would you please explain to me your
method for finding out if it will stand up to long, long, term use,
without waiting a long, long, time. :)
BTW, do you have any particular reason to single out SSRIs for
questioning? No antidepressant (and scarcely any other medication) has
been around for a long, long time. Even the currently fashionable St
John's wort has only recently moved from herb to packaged drug!
[posted to depression ngs only]
--
anon...@anon.twwells.com
Al...@harding.demon.co.uk = Alan Harding = ahar...@netcomuk.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
Alan Harding
In article <lbzu7CAB...@harding.demon.co.uk>, Alan Harding
<Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <5ufnoi$e...@thor.cmp.ilstu.edu>, KHorney <?@?.?> writes
>>Most SSRI's (prozac, zolof, paxil etc) are prescribed for years and
>>years. The Rx procedure is to try another if the first doesn't "hit."
>>Since these drugs are only researched for clinical trial periods of a
>>few months, does anyone have any "hard" research data on the possible
>>effects of long, long term use??
>
>Yesterday I invented a widget. Would you please explain to me your
>method for finding out if it will stand up to long, long, term use,
>without waiting a long, long, time. :)
>
>BTW, do you have any particular reason to single out SSRIs for
>questioning? No antidepressant (and scarcely any other medication) has
>been around for a long, long time. Even the currently fashionable St
>John's wort has only recently moved from herb to packaged drug!
I just did a quick check and find that you answered your own question
back in May (copy below). Maybe that's how you do these tests; you have
a time machine!
No posts from you since early June, I hope that means you had too nice a
summer to bother with us druggies. :)
>From: KHorney
>Date: 1997/05/08
>Newsgroups: alt.support.depression
>
>As Dr. Breggin noted, there are long-term effects of using SSRIs (or
>related serotonin effecting drugs).
>
>Very reputable scientists have done research on the long-term effects
>of SSRIs.
>
>Dr. Preskorn says he has evidence that long-term use does indeed
>suggest the increased incidence of many , many major diseases,
>including cancer. He reports he has "sufficient evidence."
>
>Sorry there is not a www posting to refer you ( or rather that I am
>aware of) and you will have to get the original article (should be
>availble at most university libraries or through requesting a reprint
>article directly from Dr. Preskorn.
>
>Dr. Preskorn is a very noted psychiatrist and very respected research
>cientist, who publishes regularly in peer-reviewed medical journals.
>He is a professor at the Department of Psychiatry, University of
>Kansas School of Medicine and the Psychiatric Research Institute,
>Witchita KS.
>
>You can request article reprints from:
>Dr. Sheldon H. Preskorn, Department of Psychiatry, University of
>Kansas School of Medicine in Wichita, 1010 North Kansas, Witchita, KS
>67214
>
>Please secure and read:
>
>Preskorn, Sheldon H. M.D. and Magnus, Ryan D. M.D. Inhibition of
>hepatic p-450 isoenzymes by serotonin selective reuptake inhibitiors
>(SSRIs). In vitro and in vivo findings and their impications for
>patient care. In Psychopharmacology Bulletin 30 (2): 251-259, 1994.
>
>KHorney
Alan Harding
In article <5uivl1$e32$2...@e3000.supernews.com>, Nyssa of Traken
<jewa...@shell.webbernet.net> writes
>KHorney spewed forth:
>
>: Most SSRI's (prozac, zolof, paxil etc) are prescribed for years and
>: years. The Rx procedure is to try another if the first doesn't "hit."
>: Since these drugs are only researched for clinical trial periods of a
>: few months, does anyone have any "hard" research data on the possible
>: effects of long, long term use??
>
Care to name something you deem safe?
cp
In article <w0hbQqAN...@harding.demon.co.uk>, Alan Harding
<Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5uivl1$e32$2...@e3000.supernews.com>, Nyssa of Traken
> <jewa...@shell.webbernet.net> writes
> >KHorney spewed forth:
> >
> >: Most SSRI's (prozac, zolof, paxil etc) are prescribed for years and
> >: years. The Rx procedure is to try another if the first doesn't "hit."
> >: Since these drugs are only researched for clinical trial periods of a
> >: few months, does anyone have any "hard" research data on the possible
> >: effects of long, long term use??
> >
> >No, and on that basis, i deem them unsafe.
>
> Care to name something you deem safe?
Hostess fat-free Twinkies.
cp
Nyssa of Traken
: > >No, and on that basis, i deem them unsafe.
: >
: > Care to name something you deem safe?
Well lessee... I usually agree to try a drug if its been out about twenty or
thirty years, all of its long term affects are known, and people are surviving it
after they withdraw from it or stop using it.
I dont prefer another thalidomide incident, and i dont want another felbamate
incident either. So... my personal philosophy is to keep my nose outta new drugs
until they prove themselves safe in all respects, and then ill consider them for
my ailments.
Just my *personal* philosophy.
Jennifer
--
Sanders: 'We've been having fun.'
Doctor: 'Have you? Oh good. There's nothing quite like it, is there?'
-Doctor Who, 1982
'Kinda'
http://shell.webbernet.net/~jewade01
Ralf Dempsey
Nyssa of Traken <jewa...@shell.webbernet.net> wrote in article
<5ukt3b$g1$2...@usenet88.supernews.com>...
> : > >No, and on that basis, i deem them unsafe.
> : >
> : > Care to name something you deem safe?
>
> Well lessee... I usually agree to try a drug if its been out about twenty
or
> thirty years, all of its long term affects are known, and people are
surviving it
> after they withdraw from it or stop using it.
20-30 years? That would just about exclude every medication currently used.
Except for maybe the illegal ones.
Where do these people come from...geessshh
H. E. Shapere
In article <5ukt3b$g1$2...@usenet88.supernews.com>,
Nyssa of Traken <jewa...@shell.webbernet.net> wrote:
>Well lessee... I usually agree to try a drug if its been out about twenty or
>thirty years, all of its long term affects are known, and people are
>surviving it after they withdraw from it or stop using it.
I bet you wouldn't be talking like this if you had AIDS, certain types of
cancer - or severe major depression. As for your other criteria:
- Prozac is about 20 years old now, or nearing it. Remember that development,
research, and testing began many years before the drug was actually approved.
- "All" of the _e_ffects of a drug, long-term or short-term, are never known.
Everyone reacts a little differently to different drugs, especially ones which
have psychoactive effects. Hell, I had a completely undocumented reaction
just ten days ago to a 40-year-old drug.
- I suppose you're claiming you've read up on every drug you've ever used (or
for that matter that you have the knowledge of medicine/pharmacology to
interpret these data in a meaningful way)?
- I've never heard of anybody dying from going off an SSRI (or, for that
matter, even from overdosing on one, unless other drugs were also involved).
Why don't you go learn something about how medicines work (and thus how they
are likely to affect your body) instead of just assuming them to be unsafe.
>Just my *personal* philosophy.
Great. Then you don't need to proselytize about it.
-elizabeth
By the way, I have taken "sci.med.nutritian" off the cc: list for this thread.
You misspelled the name of the group, and in addition, this discussion is
irrelevant to that group.
Steve Work
H. E. Shapere (sha...@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
: - I've never heard of anybody dying from going off an SSRI (or, for that
: matter, even from overdosing on one, unless other drugs were also involved).
What if they discontinue an SSRI and a severe depression recurs and the
patient commits suicide?
Martin William Smith
Melissa Porter <hurt...@mindspring.com> writes:
> many of us don't *have* the luxury of waiting twenty or thirty
> years. many of us would be dead now if we hadn't taken a chance
> on antidepressants.
>
> just my personal philisophy also.
It's an interesting point, though. Have there been studies that show
long term suicide rates are lower for people who have used SSRIs?
martin
--
Martin Smith Email: m...@metis.no
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway Fax. : +47 330 35701
Nyssa of Traken
H. E. Shapere <sha...@athena.mit.edu> spewed forth:
: I bet you wouldn't be talking like this if you had AIDS, certain types of
: cancer - or severe major depression. As for your other criteria:
I have epilepsy and migraines.
Those have need for specialised drugs. I still rely on the tried and true.
: - I suppose you're claiming you've read up on every drug you've ever
used (or : for that matter that you have the knowledge of medicine/pharmacology to
: interpret these data in a meaningful way)?
Actually, i thoroughly research each and every drug i put into my body since it
has become my duty as an adult to do so.
And having both migraines and epilepsy, thats a lotta research.
I mean pharmacological research, not just side fx.
: - I've never heard of anybody dying from going off an SSRI (or, for that
: matter, even from overdosing on one, unless other drugs were also involved).
Dont get me started, this news group aint for flame wars.
: Why don't you go learn something about how medicines work (and thus how they
: are likely to affect your body) instead of just assuming them to be unsafe.
Actually i *do* that. Thoroughly.
And i still determine those medications to have yet to prove themselves to me.
: Great. Then you don't need to proselytize about it.
But defend it when it is attacked, i do need to.
: By the way, I have taken "sci.med.nutritian" off the cc: list for this thread.
: You misspelled the name of the group, and in addition, this discussion is
: irrelevant to that group.
I only replied. In the news reader 'tin,' it is the 'f' function. I did not
originate this thread.
Martin William Smith
Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Yesterday I invented a widget. Would you please explain to me your
> method for finding out if it will stand up to long, long, term use,
> without waiting a long, long, time. :)
You check the MTBF of each widget component. The smallest widget
component MTBF is a likely candidate for the MTBF of the widget. But
this doesn't work for determining the long term effects of drugs on
the human body.
> BTW, do you have any particular reason to single out SSRIs for
> questioning?
They have been hailed by some as magical silver bullet solutions.
Some drug companies make massive profits from them. Sometimes that
means a conflict of interest willing to ignore or not look for long
term problems.
Alan Harding
In article <slworkEG...@netcom.com>, Steve Work <slw...@netcom.com>
writes
>: matter, even from overdosing on one, unless other drugs were also involved).
>
>patient commits suicide?
So, if a diabetic stops taking insulin and dies, it's the withdrawal
from insulin which killed them, rather than the consequent lack of
insulin?
Depression is an illness with a high death rate. One of the main aims of
treating us depressos is to help us not kill ourselves from the despair
that is all too often part of our depression. Stop effective treatment
(which SSRIs are for most people who try them) and some of us will kill
ourselves who otherwise would not have done. It's not the treatment's
fault, but rather the factors which make us stop treatment, such as
people making claims about that treatment being (usually in some ill- or
un-defined way) "unsafe".
The thought that there's a slight probability that I might get some
unspecified illness, itself probably trivial by comparison to the
depression I have now is not going to stop *me* seeking the best
treatment I can get from those available now. However, anxiety is close
kin to depression, and not all depressives are as bloody-minded about
these scare-stories as I am, so there is a chance (perhaps with a higher
probability than the ones being talked up by those who argue that a drug
isn't properly tested till it's been seen what effects it has in the
grandchildren of those who took it) that this debate will kill at least
one person.
Sometimes I think it really isn't a nice world.
Alan Harding
In article <wglo1cd...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
<m...@metis.no> writes
>
>Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> Nyssa of Traken
>> <jewa...@shell.webbernet.net> writes
>> >KHorney spewed forth:
>> >
>> >: Most SSRI's (prozac, zolof, paxil etc) are prescribed for years and
>> >: years. The Rx procedure is to try another if the first doesn't "hit."
>> >: Since these drugs are only researched for clinical trial periods of a
>> >: few months, does anyone have any "hard" research data on the possible
>> >: effects of long, long term use??
>> >
>>
>> Care to name something you deem safe?
>
That will keep you alive for weeks. And now, for months ... ?
Alan Harding
In article <wgoh68d...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
>> method for finding out if it will stand up to long, long, term use,
>> without waiting a long, long, time. :)
>
>You check the MTBF of each widget component. The smallest widget
>component MTBF is a likely candidate for the MTBF of the widget. But
>this doesn't work for determining the long term effects of drugs on
>the human body.
MTBFs are mathematical constructs, not observations; they're a way of
giving advertising agencies something to put in their puff. There's a
well-established MTBF for humans already, of three-score years and ten.
Would you say that it's existence meant I should use it to calculate an
amended MBTF for someone using a medication?
What I asked was how can I *find out* (that is, observe, get evidence,
measure, *get the facts*, rather than merely speculate, to whatever
degree of mathematical rigour) how long my widget will last without at
least testing samples to destruction (which is itself a mathematical
(statistical) exercise -- full knowledge would only come when every
single widget has been worn out or failed and its entire history
examined for external factors which might have contributed to its
premature demise, an impossible task).
>> BTW, do you have any particular reason to single out SSRIs for
>> questioning?
>
>They have been hailed by some as magical silver bullet solutions.
I have yet to see anyone claim SSRIs are more effective than any other
antidepressant. That's not to say that no-one has, just that *I* haven't
seen anyone do so. SSRIs do have more tolerable side-effects than
earlier ADs, but that's not what you say is claimed for them.
>Some drug companies make massive profits from them. Sometimes that
>means a conflict of interest willing to ignore or not look for long
>term problems.
That applies to anyone selling anything, including opinions. :)
BobNewsGrp
Martin William Smith wrote:
>
> Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > Nyssa of Traken
> > <jewa...@shell.webbernet.net> writes
> > >KHorney spewed forth:
> > >
> > >: Most SSRI's (prozac, zolof, paxil etc) are prescribed for years and
> > >: years. The Rx procedure is to try another if the first doesn't "hit."
> > >: Since these drugs are only researched for clinical trial periods of a
> > >: few months, does anyone have any "hard" research data on the possible
> > >: effects of long, long term use??
> > >
> > >No, and on that basis, i deem them unsafe.
> >
> > Care to name something you deem safe?
>
> Clean water.
>
> --
> Martin Smith Email: m...@metis.no
> P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet Tel. : +47 330 35700
> N-3194 HORTEN, Norway Fax. : +47 330 35701
Don't forget your scuba gear
Martin William Smith
Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <slworkEG...@netcom.com>, Steve Work <slw...@netcom.com>
> writes
> >H. E. Shapere (sha...@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
> >
> >: - I've never heard of anybody dying from going off an SSRI (or, for that
> >: matter, even from overdosing on one, unless other drugs were also involved).
> >
> >What if they discontinue an SSRI and a severe depression recurs and the
> >patient commits suicide?
>
> So, if a diabetic stops taking insulin and dies, it's the withdrawal
> from insulin which killed them, rather than the consequent lack of
> insulin?
But diabetes is always a physical disease with a specific pathology.
That isn't true for depression.
> Depression is an illness with a high death rate.
What is the death rate? I don't think your statement is correct. If
the high incidence of depression is real, then a lot more people would
be dying, wouldn't they?
> One of the main aims of treating us depressos is to help us not kill
> ourselves from the despair that is all too often part of our
> depression. Stop effective treatment (which SSRIs are for most
> people who try them) and some of us will kill ourselves who
> otherwise would not have done. It's not the treatment's fault, but
> rather the factors which make us stop treatment, such as people
> making claims about that treatment being (usually in some ill- or
> un-defined way) "unsafe".
>
> The thought that there's a slight probability that I might get some
> unspecified illness, itself probably trivial by comparison to the
> depression I have now is not going to stop *me* seeking the best
> treatment I can get from those available now. However, anxiety is close
> kin to depression, and not all depressives are as bloody-minded about
> these scare-stories as I am, so there is a chance (perhaps with a higher
> probability than the ones being talked up by those who argue that a drug
> isn't properly tested till it's been seen what effects it has in the
> grandchildren of those who took it) that this debate will kill at least
> one person.
>
> Sometimes I think it really isn't a nice world.
It isn't a nice world, and it isn't a measure of depression to think
so. How one chooses to view depression, as a disease or as something
else, ought to be the choice of the depressed person, at least until
it becomes a disease with a pathology defined by pathologists.
Henry Shaw
Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no> wrote in article
<wgbu27e...@brage.metis.no>...
> Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > In article <slworkEG...@netcom.com>, Steve Work
<slw...@netcom.com>
> > writes
> > >H. E. Shapere (sha...@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
> > >
> > >: - I've never heard of anybody dying from going off an SSRI (or, for
that
> > >: matter, even from overdosing on one, unless other drugs were also
involved).
> > >
> > >What if they discontinue an SSRI and a severe depression recurs and
the
> > >patient commits suicide?
> >
> > So, if a diabetic stops taking insulin and dies, it's the withdrawal
> > from insulin which killed them, rather than the consequent lack of
> > insulin?
>
> But diabetes is always a physical disease with a specific pathology.
> That isn't true for depression.
>
Huh...Whats it matter what the reason for the depression is. Duh..
> > Depression is an illness with a high death rate.
>
> What is the death rate? I don't think your statement is correct. If
> the high incidence of depression is real, then a lot more people would
If its real? Yea...10 million people or more a year in the US are lying
their asses off just so they have a good reason to kill themselves. Maybe
it's just a big scam to make money for cemeteries . Martin has uncovered
these thieving people and exposed their hideous scheme to make people
believe that there really is such a silly thing as depression. Lets all
give martin a hand.
> be dying, wouldn't they?
Oh..no..no one ever commits suicide because they are depressed Martin.
What a silly notion..(ROFL)
>
> > One of the main aims of treating us depressos is to help us not kill
> > ourselves from the despair that is all too often part of our
> > depression. Stop effective treatment (which SSRIs are for most
> > people who try them) and some of us will kill ourselves who
> > otherwise would not have done. It's not the treatment's fault, but
> > rather the factors which make us stop treatment, such as people
> > making claims about that treatment being (usually in some ill- or
> > un-defined way) "unsafe".
> >
> > The thought that there's a slight probability that I might get some
> > unspecified illness, itself probably trivial by comparison to the
> > depression I have now is not going to stop *me* seeking the best
> > treatment I can get from those available now. However, anxiety is close
> > kin to depression, and not all depressives are as bloody-minded about
> > these scare-stories as I am, so there is a chance (perhaps with a
higher
> > probability than the ones being talked up by those who argue that a
drug
> > isn't properly tested till it's been seen what effects it has in the
> > grandchildren of those who took it) that this debate will kill at least
> > one person.
> >
> > Sometimes I think it really isn't a nice world.
>
> It isn't a nice world, and it isn't a measure of depression to think
> so. How one chooses to view depression, as a disease or as something
> else, ought to be the choice of the depressed person, at least until
Yea..why let scientific fact have anything to do with it.
> it becomes a disease with a pathology defined by pathologists.
I wonder what scientists, researchers and doctors have been working on for
hundreds of years.Surely not depression and defining it's nature. Maybe
these Doctors were really at the golf course and just told everyone they
had been researching depression issues. Those dirty dogs. Martin has
uncovered another scam. Lets give martin another hand.
>
> martin
>
> --
> Martin Smith Email: m...@metis.no
> P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet Tel. : +47 330 35700
> N-3194 HORTEN, Norway Fax. : +47 330 35701
Norway? And I thought the US had one of the worst educational system in
world. Guess I was wrong.
>
kimmer
On 5 Sep 1997, Martin William Smith wrote:
>Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> In article <slworkEG...@netcom.com>, Steve Work <slw...@netcom.com>
>> writes
>> >H. E. Shapere (sha...@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
>> >
>> >: - I've never heard of anybody dying from going off an SSRI (or, for that
>> >: matter, even from overdosing on one, unless other drugs were also involved).
>> >
>> >What if they discontinue an SSRI and a severe depression recurs and the
>> >patient commits suicide?
>>
>> So, if a diabetic stops taking insulin and dies, it's the withdrawal
>> from insulin which killed them, rather than the consequent lack of
>> insulin?
>
>But diabetes is always a physical disease with a specific pathology.
>That isn't true for depression.
>
In some cases, yes. But not always. There are "recent studies" which
show that in many cases, depression is related to hormonal imbalances,
abnormal brain structures, etc. Of course, I do have to grant that
depression does not have a specific pathology. (I wish I could
remember where I saw those studies...grr. my memory's evaporating on
me.)
< rest snipped, because I have no knowledgable responses to it >
kimmer
who is feeling much better, thank you, now that her
homicidal instincts toward <detested category of the day:
intolerances> has resulted in fear and trembling among them
Alan Harding
In article <wgbu27e...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
>> Depression is an illness with a high death rate.
>
>What is the death rate? I don't think your statement is correct. If
>the high incidence of depression is real, then a lot more people would
>be dying, wouldn't they?
The first figure I can lay my eyes on is from the National Institute of
Mental Health (the USA being the nation) which gives a figure of 15% of
those who suffer from major or clinical depression killing themselves.
We aren't talking the blues here!
marco anglesio
Martin William Smith (m...@metis.no) wrote:
: Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
: > So, if a diabetic stops taking insulin and dies, it's the withdrawal
: > from insulin which killed them, rather than the consequent lack of
: > insulin?
:
: But diabetes is always a physical disease with a specific pathology.
: That isn't true for depression.
Actually, there are specific physiological markers for depression
(cortisol suppression). But that's neither here nor there; lack of
information does not equal contradiction, just like ignorance (which,
IIRC, you have in spades) doesn't equal argument.
: > Depression is an illness with a high death rate.
:
: What is the death rate? I don't think your statement is correct. If
: the high incidence of depression is real, then a lot more people would
: be dying, wouldn't they?
The DSM-IV cites a mortality rate between ten and fifteen percent for
major depressive disorder. Not everyone who is depressed satisfies the
conditions for major depressive disorder. Not everyone who satisfies the
conditions for a major depressive episode satisfies the conditions for
major depressive disorder. This figure is for major depressive disorder.
: It isn't a nice world, and it isn't a measure of depression to think
: so. How one chooses to view depression, as a disease or as something
: else, ought to be the choice of the depressed person, at least until
: it becomes a disease with a pathology defined by pathologists.
It is a disorder (not a disease) with a well-defined symptomology,
epidemiology, and pathology. Come on, Martin, we aren't talking about
ennui or malaise here. Mal au coeur is not depression. And you went
through the motions of this argument before back in May of 1996, which
makes you a one-note piano at best and dangerously obsessive at worst.
By the way, quit cross-posting to sci.med. Followups reset.
m.
---
marco anglesio angl...@democracy.queensu.ca democracy.queensu.ca/~anglesio
I've seen more culture in a cup of pasteurized yoghurt.
Patrick
>> : - I've never heard of anybody dying from going off an SSRI (or, for that
>> : matter, even from overdosing on one, unless other drugs were also
> involved).
Dying from quitting an SSRI??? Hopefully not. I did get pretty sick twice
from going off SSRI's.....First time was when I went off paxil.....my pdoc had
me do a 3 day taper, with the idea of starting serzone. I got damn sick for 2
weeks. Barfing, the runs, dizziness, muscle aches, that wonderful "whooshing"
sensation (am I the only one ever to have the "whooshing" sensation)???
Second time was this recent June. I went off the max dose of effexor after a
two week taper. Again had 2 weeks of flu-like symptoms as above. Much milder
this time however......
Patrick
H. E. Shapere
Martin William Smith wrote:
>
> Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > So, if a diabetic stops taking insulin and dies, it's the withdrawal
> > from insulin which killed them, rather than the consequent lack of
> > insulin?
>
> But diabetes is always a physical disease with a specific pathology.
> That isn't true for depression.
Diabetes is a complicated condition which can be caused by a number of
different factors, including lifestyle and genetics. Same for depression.
As for "physical" versus "psychological" depression, physical conditions (such
as neurotransmitter imbalances) can influence a person's mental state, and
emotionally charged experiences (such as traumatic events) can influence a
person's brain chemistry. The division between "biological" and
"psychological" depression is ludicrous; most depression is probably caused by
a combination of both factors. There is _always_ a biochemical cause for
depression, as emotions are regulated by chemicals.
I'm really sick of hearing people who have no clue about mental illness trying
to make blanket statements about what it is or isn't, or claiming that it's
somehow "different" from other illness.
> > Depression is an illness with a high death rate.
>
> What is the death rate? I don't think your statement is correct. If
> the high incidence of depression is real, then a lot more people would
> be dying, wouldn't they?
15% is the number I've heard quoted; I don't know if that is untreated
depression only, or if it is all depression, treated or untreated. The death
rate for alcoholism is similar, I think (there is some overlap, of course, and
alcoholics are at risk for automobile accidents and hepatic disease as well as
suicide). I can look this up when I get my books unpacked (I'm in the middle
of a move).
About 25% of people will have an episode of some type of depression at some
point in their lives, although it may be mild (this is still clinical
depression). A lot fewer suffer from recurrent depression (defined by the
occurrence of at least three episodes of major depression), which is more
dangerous.
> It isn't a nice world, and it isn't a measure of depression to think
> so. How one chooses to view depression, as a disease or as something
> else, ought to be the choice of the depressed person, at least until
> it becomes a disease with a pathology defined by pathologists.
Depression is a disease, treated by medical doctors and sometimes by
psychologists or social workers. Psychiatrists are far better trained than
pathologists are not trained to diagnose mental illness.
-e
Martin William Smith
dpdr...@REMOVE-THISexecpc.com (Eye of the Storm) writes:
> >> It isn't a nice world, and it isn't a measure of depression to think
> >> so. How one chooses to view depression, as a disease or as something
> >> else, ought to be the choice of the depressed person, at least until
> >> it becomes a disease with a pathology defined by pathologists.
>
No, it says the choice of whether to view it as a disease or
something else should belong to the depressed person, not to the
doctor.
Martin William Smith
BobNewsGrp <bobne...@aol.com> writes:
> Martin William Smith wrote:
<all the stuff I wrote that Bod didn't like deleted>
> Dear Mr. Smith,
>
> You are quite obviously someone who has never experienced clinical
> depression. And since you are merely ignorant, and not malicious, I
> won't wish it on you.
Sorry I don't meet your tough standards, Bob. What is clinical
depression? I've had major depression more than once. I guess you're
saying yours is bigger than mine, or maybe just that the two are not
the same. Fine with me, then what are the differences? What is the
pathologists' description of clinical depression?
Martin William Smith
Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <wgbu27e...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
> <m...@metis.no> writes
> >Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >> Depression is an illness with a high death rate.
> >
> >What is the death rate? I don't think your statement is correct. If
> >the high incidence of depression is real, then a lot more people would
> >be dying, wouldn't they?
>
> The first figure I can lay my eyes on is from the National Institute of
> Mental Health (the USA being the nation) which gives a figure of 15% of
> those who suffer from major or clinical depression killing themselves.
> We aren't talking the blues here!
For the record, you referred to the blues, not me.
Aids has a high death rate. Cancer of the pancreas has a high death
rate. There are two points. 15% is, arguably, not a high death rate,
and committing suicide while depressed is not known to have the same
cause and effect relationship as does dying from aids or cancer of the
pancreas. So the statement "Depression is an illness with a high
death rate" probably ought not to appear in a support group for
depression.
Martin William Smith
sha...@athena.mit.edu (H. E. Shapere) writes:
> Martin William Smith wrote:
> >
> > Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > > So, if a diabetic stops taking insulin and dies, it's the withdrawal
> > > from insulin which killed them, rather than the consequent lack of
> > > insulin?
> >
> > But diabetes is always a physical disease with a specific pathology.
> > That isn't true for depression.
>
> Diabetes is a complicated condition which can be caused by a number of
> different factors, including lifestyle and genetics. Same for
> depression.
But it's not the same. Diabetes has a pathology. Two pathologies, I
guess. If depression has one, or many, they have not been defined by
pathologists.
> As for "physical" versus "psychological" depression, physical
> conditions (such as neurotransmitter imbalances) can influence a
> person's mental state, and emotionally charged experiences (such as
> traumatic events) can influence a person's brain chemistry. The
> division between "biological" and "psychological" depression is
> ludicrous; most depression is probably caused by a combination of
> both factors. There is _always_ a biochemical cause for depression,
> as emotions are regulated by chemicals.
Who says "There is _always_ a biochemical cause for depression, as
emotions are regulated by chemicals", other than lots of people who
make a living treating depression and, as a result, lots of people who
are treated for depression? Of course brain chemistry is always
involved. The brain operates by brain chemistry.
> I'm really sick of hearing people who have no clue about mental
> illness trying to make blanket statements about what it is or isn't,
> or claiming that it's somehow "different" from other illness.
You say you are "sick of hearing people who have no clue about mental
illness trying to make blanket statements about what it is or isn't".
But you just made blanket statements about what it is or isn't.
It is different from other illnesses on at least two counts. First,
it is mental. All other illnesses are physical. Second, it does not
have a definition in pathology. All other illnesses do. These
differences may not be important to you, depending on how you decide
to deal with the problem. Nevertheless, they are fundamental
differences.
> > > Depression is an illness with a high death rate.
> >
> > What is the death rate? I don't think your statement is correct. If
> > the high incidence of depression is real, then a lot more people would
> > be dying, wouldn't they?
>
> 15% is the number I've heard quoted; I don't know if that is untreated
> depression only, or if it is all depression, treated or untreated. The death
> rate for alcoholism is similar, I think (there is some overlap, of course, and
> alcoholics are at risk for automobile accidents and hepatic disease as well as
> suicide). I can look this up when I get my books unpacked (I'm in the middle
> of a move).
Don't dig it out. Leave the boxes until later. I hate moving. 15%
is at least a popular figure. And it shows there is hope. Even
people who believe depression causes suicide would be foolish to bet
on suicide given those odds.
> About 25% of people will have an episode of some type of depression at some
> point in their lives, although it may be mild (this is still clinical
> depression). A lot fewer suffer from recurrent depression (defined by the
> occurrence of at least three episodes of major depression), which is more
> dangerous.
I'm one of those who had the minimal three episodes of major
depression. I'm also one who no longer sees it as an illness. Go
figure.
> > It isn't a nice world, and it isn't a measure of depression to think
> > so. How one chooses to view depression, as a disease or as something
> > else, ought to be the choice of the depressed person, at least until
> > it becomes a disease with a pathology defined by pathologists.
>
> Depression is a disease, treated by medical doctors and sometimes by
> psychologists or social workers. Psychiatrists are far better trained than
> pathologists are not trained to diagnose mental illness.
Pathologists don't diagnose disease. They are concerned with defining
its cause, origin, and nature. They don't define these things for
mental illness, presumably because they are unable to find suitable
definitions. I think that is important.
Martin William Smith
>
> Martin William Smith (m...@metis.no) wrote:
> : Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
> : > So, if a diabetic stops taking insulin and dies, it's the withdrawal
> : > from insulin which killed them, rather than the consequent lack of
> : > insulin?
> :
> : But diabetes is always a physical disease with a specific pathology.
> : That isn't true for depression.
>
> (cortisol suppression). But that's neither here nor there;
It's not neither here nor there. It is of fundamental importance.
What percentage of people who are depressed have this marker? What
percentage of people who are not depressed have this marker?
> lack of information does not equal contradiction, just like
> ignorance (which, IIRC, you have in spades) doesn't equal argument.
The ad hominem argument doesn't belong here.
> : > Depression is an illness with a high death rate.
> :
> : What is the death rate? I don't think your statement is correct. If
> : the high incidence of depression is real, then a lot more people would
> : be dying, wouldn't they?
>
> The DSM-IV cites a mortality rate between ten and fifteen percent for
> major depressive disorder. Not everyone who is depressed satisfies the
> conditions for major depressive disorder. Not everyone who satisfies the
> conditions for a major depressive episode satisfies the conditions for
> major depressive disorder. This figure is for major depressive
> disorder.
So Alan's statement that "Depression is an illness with a high death
rate," is, if not false, at least inaccurate and misleading, and
doesn't belong in a support group for depressed people.
> : It isn't a nice world, and it isn't a measure of depression to think
> : so. How one chooses to view depression, as a disease or as something
> : else, ought to be the choice of the depressed person, at least until
> : it becomes a disease with a pathology defined by pathologists.
>
> It is a disorder (not a disease) with a well-defined symptomology,
> epidemiology, and pathology. Come on, Martin, we aren't talking about
> ennui or malaise here.
Now you attribute statements to me that I did not make. I said
nothing about ennui or malaise. I said, thinking the world is not a
nice place is not a measure of depression. For a great many people,
the world is not a nice place. Some of them are depressed. On the
other hand, for a great many people, the world *is* a nice place.
Some of them are depressed too.
> Mal au coeur is not depression. And you went through the motions of
> this argument before back in May of 1996, which makes you a one-note
> piano at best and dangerously obsessive at worst.
I don't even know what mal au coer means, so I'm quite sure I have
never used the term. But I'm honored you have kept a diary of my
posts. Maybe it will be valuable some day, but I don't think so.
But this argument is about Alan's statement that depression has a high
death rate. Since you and others have now produced statistics and
explanations that demonstrate otherwise, that argument is over, and we
can agree that people who say depression has a high death rate in a
support group for depressed people could be seen as "a one-note piano
at best and dangerously obsessive at worst."
I assume your reference to me as being "one note" refers to my belief
that depression is not a one note illness, ie that we will eventually
find that some depressions have a physical cause and some do not. I
think what you dislike is my further belief that most do not.
> By the way, quit cross-posting to sci.med. Followups reset.
Sorry, I didn't mean to. I certainly didn't start it. I don't read
sci.med. My apologies again.
H. E. Shapere
In article <wgafhqe...@brage.metis.no>,
Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no> wrote:
>I've had major depression more than once. I guess you're saying yours is
>bigger than mine, or maybe just that the two are not the same. Fine with me,
>then what are the differences? What is the pathologists' description of
>clinical depression?
Pathologists don't define depression; psychiatrists and psychologists do.
I believe you when you say you've had depression. That doesn't make you an
expert on it; don't try to pretend you are.
-elizabeth
DawnDTD
My truth is.....
Who cares what the long term affects are. I'm on Paxil and Klonopin (been
on everything) I'm doing great and don't look too far into the future. I
would take anything if I could be sure that I wouldn't have another episode
of depression.
Nyssa of Traken
H. E. Shapere <sha...@athena.mit.edu> spewed forth:
: If you mean merely "drugs that are indicated for those disorders,"
: anticonvulsants (phenytoin, gabapentin, divalproex, lamotrigine, clonazepam,
You left out my drug of choice, tegretol.
I already know its other uses, i need not be lectured on them.
: phenobarbitol, etc. - these are variously also used for anxiety, mood
: stabilization, certain neuropathies, insomnia, vtach, and RLS as well as the
: various types of seizure disorders, and divalproex is in fact FDA-approved for
: migraines) and antimigraine medications (sumatriptan, propranolol (also used
I use verapamil for migraines, also used for hypertension and angina pectoris,
designed after the opium alkaloid papaverine, a vasodilator with no established
clinical applications as of yet. (a little history for those who seem to think
ithat i dont do any research)
: for hypertension, angina, various cardiovascular emergencies, essential
: tremor, and specific phobias as well as migraines), ergot alkaloids, NSAIDs,
: etc.) are just as "specialized" as the latest antiretroviral. (Incidentally,
: AZT is active against Epstein-Barr, hepatitis B, salmonella, e. coli, and
: other viral and bacterial infections, as well as HIV. Similarly, many
: oncological meds have other indications.)
*applause*
: Anyway, I don't get why you're so concerned with flaming about the SSRIs since
: it's just your "personal opinion" and you don't have any condition for which
: they're indicated. Prozac and other SSRIs are quite "tried and true" for the
: conditions for which they are indicated, which yours aren't. (Although I
: think they are doing research into the use of SSRIs for migraines, this is
: still tentative. The use of SSRIs for depression, OCD, and panic disorder, on
: the other hand, is not at all tentative but has been researched thoroughly -
: though apparently not by you.)
Someone made a perfect summation of my feelings by asking if long term studies had
been done yet, and i took the opportunity to express my feelings, provoked by the
earlier post. I thought by adding that it was my personal theory that it would
avoid such flames and let me express my own feelings without being jumped on by
every SSRI activist in the nation. Guess i was wrong.
: If I were you I would be more concerned about using an SSRI as an epileptic
: (since they do lower the seizure threshold to varying degrees) than about what
: year they were approved by the FDA.
Of this fact i am well aware. My seizure disorder began by mixing a pain reliever,
U.ltram (tramadol) with a tricyclic antidepressant, nortriptyline, per doctors
orders, and thus i have this disorder now. I knew there was some danger but the
doctor, a neurologist assured me that it was safe. If you look at the bottom of
Ultram's package insert, there is a big box with WARNING! etc printed on it,
warning about the seizure risk. Live and learn i guess.
: You should consider researching drugs that you are considering taking as well,
: and not passing judgment on the safety of drugs that you have not researched.
: And I mean pharmacological research, not just side effects or date of FDA
: approval.
You misunderstand me. I dont just research the ones i personally use. I am
fascinated by drugs, so i read about everything i can. I even have terrible late
charges at the library for having their PRD out so long.
: And if you are not considering taking them (and as far as I can tell, you
: never had reason to consider taking an SSRI) and thus haven't done any
: research on them, you shouldn't try to make guesses as to their safety.
Like i said, youre judging me, withouut knowing me.
: Clever way of avoiding the facts - "don't get me started." You're not one of
: those Peter Breggin groupies, are you? As for flame wars - you seem to have
: started one.
Ive no need to read any extremists' books. I make my own decisions. And i only
wanted to avoid answering that one because my mood that night wasnt one
appropriate for replying to it.
: Who "attacked" you that you felt a need to burst out with a lecture on the
: purported (by you) unsafety of SSRIs?
I lectured no one with a simple statement to the effect that i deem SSRIs
dangerous because no long term studies had been done nor were possible to be done.
Like i said, i made a one sentence reply to a question, and got attacked. So here
we are.
: >I only replied. In the news reader 'tin,' it is the 'f' function. I did not
: >originate this thread.
: defensive, aren't we?
Actually honest, not defensive.
Martin William Smith
I apologize if I have unwittingly given you the impression that I am
an expert on depression. I am not. The fact that pathologists have
no definition for depression means that, at this point, there is a
fundamental difference between depression and all illnesses for which
pathologists do have definitions. That difference is at least worth
thinking about, especially if one has depression.
Alan Harding
In article <wg7mcue...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
<m...@metis.no> writes
>Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> In article <wgbu27e...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
>> <m...@metis.no> writes
>> >Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> >> Depression is an illness with a high death rate.
>> >
>> >What is the death rate? I don't think your statement is correct. If
>> >the high incidence of depression is real, then a lot more people would
>> >be dying, wouldn't they?
>>
>> The first figure I can lay my eyes on is from the National Institute of
>> Mental Health (the USA being the nation) which gives a figure of 15% of
>> those who suffer from major or clinical depression killing themselves.
>> We aren't talking the blues here!
>
>For the record, you referred to the blues, not me.
Just making sure we're talking about the same thing. :)
>Aids has a high death rate. Cancer of the pancreas has a high death
>rate. There are two points. 15% is, arguably, not a high death rate,
What is your criterion for a *high death rate* then? I think a three in
twenty chance of dying is high, especially when applied to me!
>and committing suicide while depressed is not known to have the same
>cause and effect relationship as does dying from aids or cancer of the
>pancreas.
The lack of knowledge of the processes involved is your hangup, not
mine. I find it hard to believe that you are seriously arguing that
major depression does not cause people to kill themselves, and yet you
must be for the next of your sentence to follow ...
>So the statement "Depression is an illness with a high
>death rate" probably ought not to appear in a support group for
>depression.
I'm sorry that you have been upset by my saying it in two of them. I
still consider it to be true though. I look forward to you starting to
try to persuade me otherwise.
[posted to depression ngs only]
Alan Harding
In article <wgwwktd...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
<m...@metis.no> writes
>sha...@athena.mit.edu (H. E. Shapere) writes:
>> In article <wgafhqe...@brage.metis.no>,
>> Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no> wrote:
>>
>> >I've had major depression more than once. I guess you're saying yours is
>> >bigger than mine, or maybe just that the two are not the same. Fine with
>me,
>> >then what are the differences? What is the pathologists' description of
>> >clinical depression?
>>
>> Pathologists don't define depression; psychiatrists and psychologists do.
>>
>> I believe you when you say you've had depression. That doesn't make you an
>> expert on it; don't try to pretend you are.
>
>I apologize if I have unwittingly given you the impression that I am
>an expert on depression. I am not. The fact that pathologists have
>no definition for depression means that, at this point, there is a
>fundamental difference between depression and all illnesses for which
>pathologists do have definitions. That difference is at least worth
>thinking about, especially if one has depression.
Why? It does not change the symptoms, which are what are used to define
any illness/disease/disorder/whatever, and what we have to suffer from.
Alan Harding
In article <wg90xae...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
<m...@metis.no> writes
>dpdr...@REMOVE-THISexecpc.com (Eye of the Storm) writes:
>> >> so. How one chooses to view depression, as a disease or as something
>> >> else, ought to be the choice of the depressed person, at least until
>> >> it becomes a disease with a pathology defined by pathologists.
>>
>
>No, it says the choice of whether to view it as a disease or
>something else should belong to the depressed person, not to the
>doctor.
It may have been *meant* to say that, but since pathologists are
doctors, and you have granted them your authority to label depression a
disease (which a lot of doctors already do, without your permission), I
find it hard to read it to that way.
Personally, I agree that it's for the depressed person to put their own
label on depression; I've even been known in my lighter moments to refer
to mine as a hobby. However, what we choose to call it is unlikely to
affect what the medical profession call it, and they don't need to find
pathology to call things diseases; they can do it on symptoms, as they
always have done.
[posted to depression ngs only]
--
Alan Harding
In article <wg4t7yd...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
<m...@metis.no> writes
>>
>> Martin William Smith (m...@metis.no) wrote:
>> : Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> : > So, if a diabetic stops taking insulin and dies, it's the withdrawal
>> : > from insulin which killed them, rather than the consequent lack of
>> : > insulin?
>> :
>> : But diabetes is always a physical disease with a specific pathology.
>> : That isn't true for depression.
>>
>> Actually, there are specific physiological markers for depression
>> (cortisol suppression). But that's neither here nor there;
>
>It's not neither here nor there. It is of fundamental importance.
>What percentage of people who are depressed have this marker? What
>percentage of people who are not depressed have this marker?
>
>> lack of information does not equal contradiction, just like
>> ignorance (which, IIRC, you have in spades) doesn't equal argument.
>
>The ad hominem argument doesn't belong here.
>
>> : > Depression is an illness with a high death rate.
>> :
>> : What is the death rate? I don't think your statement is correct. If
>> : the high incidence of depression is real, then a lot more people would
>> : be dying, wouldn't they?
>>
>> The DSM-IV cites a mortality rate between ten and fifteen percent for
>> major depressive disorder. Not everyone who is depressed satisfies the
>> conditions for major depressive disorder. Not everyone who satisfies the
>> conditions for a major depressive episode satisfies the conditions for
>> major depressive disorder. This figure is for major depressive
>> disorder.
>
>So Alan's statement that "Depression is an illness with a high death
>rate," is, if not false, at least inaccurate and misleading, and
>doesn't belong in a support group for depressed people.
Nice! Accuse Marco of using faulty logic in his post, then solicit his
opposition to my statement, and all in a post he isn't going to read,
since you haven't posted it to the newsgroup he posted it from. (I am
assuming, of course, that you have not emailed him a copy and are going
to provide a summary of his response?) Definitely dirty debating
technique, in whatever language.
BTW, your clipping of Marco from the headers was an interesting point
too, though I'm sure you'll say it was accidental.
Martin William Smith
Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <wg90xae...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
> <m...@metis.no> writes
> >dpdr...@REMOVE-THISexecpc.com (Eye of the Storm) writes:
> >> >> It isn't a nice world, and it isn't a measure of depression to think
> >> >> so. How one chooses to view depression, as a disease or as something
> >> >> else, ought to be the choice of the depressed person, at least until
> >> >> it becomes a disease with a pathology defined by pathologists.
> >>
> >> So things do not exist until a doctor tells us they exist?
> >
> >No, it says the choice of whether to view it as a disease or
> >something else should belong to the depressed person, not to the
> >doctor.
>
> It may have been *meant* to say that, but since pathologists are
> doctors, and you have granted them your authority to label depression a
> disease (which a lot of doctors already do, without your permission), I
> find it hard to read it to that way.
I haven't granted anybody anything. Diseases have pathology. It is
the pathologists' job to define the cause, origin, and nature of
disease. They are unable to do this for depression, and have been
unable to do it for a very long time. Perhaps one day they will be
able. Until then, the problem is worth considering if one is
depressed.
> Personally, I agree that it's for the depressed person to put their own
> label on depression; I've even been known in my lighter moments to refer
> to mine as a hobby. However, what we choose to call it is unlikely to
> affect what the medical profession call it, and they don't need to find
> pathology to call things diseases; they can do it on symptoms, as they
> always have done.
martin
Martin William Smith
Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <wgwwktd...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
> <m...@metis.no> writes
> >sha...@athena.mit.edu (H. E. Shapere) writes:
> >> In article <wgafhqe...@brage.metis.no>,
> >> Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I've had major depression more than once. I guess you're saying yours is
> >> >bigger than mine, or maybe just that the two are not the same. Fine with
> >me,
> >> >then what are the differences? What is the pathologists' description of
> >> >clinical depression?
> >>
> >> Pathologists don't define depression; psychiatrists and psychologists do.
> >>
> >> I believe you when you say you've had depression. That doesn't make you an
> >> expert on it; don't try to pretend you are.
> >
> >I apologize if I have unwittingly given you the impression that I am
> >an expert on depression. I am not. The fact that pathologists have
> >no definition for depression means that, at this point, there is a
> >fundamental difference between depression and all illnesses for which
> >pathologists do have definitions. That difference is at least worth
> >thinking about, especially if one has depression.
>
> Why? It does not change the symptoms, which are what are used to define
> any illness/disease/disorder/whatever, and what we have to suffer
> from.
Why? Because the methods we choose to deal with the problem differ
depending on how we choose to view the problem.
Martin William Smith
Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <wg7mcue...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
> <m...@metis.no> writes
> >Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >> In article <wgbu27e...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
> >> <m...@metis.no> writes
> >> >Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >>
> >> >> Depression is an illness with a high death rate.
> >> >
> >> >What is the death rate? I don't think your statement is correct. If
> >> >the high incidence of depression is real, then a lot more people would
> >> >be dying, wouldn't they?
> >>
> >> The first figure I can lay my eyes on is from the National Institute of
> >> Mental Health (the USA being the nation) which gives a figure of 15% of
> >> those who suffer from major or clinical depression killing themselves.
> >> We aren't talking the blues here!
> >
> >For the record, you referred to the blues, not me.
>
> Just making sure we're talking about the same thing. :)
>
> >Aids has a high death rate. Cancer of the pancreas has a high death
> >rate. There are two points. 15% is, arguably, not a high death rate,
>
> What is your criterion for a *high death rate* then? I think a three in
> twenty chance of dying is high, especially when applied to me!
It isn't applied to you. The only way you can become one of the three
in twenty (assuming all three are suicides) is if you choose to commit
suicide. The link between suicide and depression is statistical. It
has not been shown to be causal.
I said 15% is *aruably* not high. Part of my argument would certainly
be the choice aspect of suicide.
> >and committing suicide while depressed is not known to have the same
> >cause and effect relationship as does dying from aids or cancer of the
> >pancreas.
>
> The lack of knowledge of the processes involved is your hangup, not
> mine. I find it hard to believe that you are seriously arguing that
> major depression does not cause people to kill themselves, and yet you
> must be for the next of your sentence to follow ...
>
> >So the statement "Depression is an illness with a high
> >death rate" probably ought not to appear in a support group for
> >depression.
>
> I'm sorry that you have been upset by my saying it in two of them. I
> still consider it to be true though. I look forward to you starting to
> try to persuade me otherwise.
I can't say more, I guess, except that deciding to believe depression
Causes suicide, ie one does not have a choice, is a bad philosophical
move.
Martin William Smith
Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Nice! Accuse Marco of using faulty logic in his post, then solicit his
> opposition to my statement, and all in a post he isn't going to read,
> since you haven't posted it to the newsgroup he posted it from. (I am
> assuming, of course, that you have not emailed him a copy and are going
> to provide a summary of his response?) Definitely dirty debating
> technique, in whatever language.
>
> BTW, your clipping of Marco from the headers was an interesting point
> too, though I'm sure you'll say it was accidental.
I didn't clip anything from the header. The news program wouldn't
allow me to reply to Marco's article, because of some kind of macro
error I didn't understand, so I had to write my response as if it was
a new message. If Marco's attribution line went missing in the
process, I apologize.
The reason it wasn't posted to sci.med is because Marco demanded that
I not post a response there. I assumed that meant he would see it in
the support group. No, I didn't send one to him by email. You
certainly can if you want to, since it was primarily meant for him.
I didn't accuse Marco of faulty logic, did I? He read from the DSM-IV
quoting the 15% suicide rate for *major* depression. Your statement,
which said only that "Depression is an illness with a high death
rate," did not include the "major" qualification. Neither did it
provide the 15% number, which, as I've said elsewhere, is arguably not
high, and involves choice.
Alan Harding
In article <wgsovhc...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith>> In article <wgwwktd...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
>> <m...@metis.no> writes
>> >sha...@athena.mit.edu (H. E. Shapere) writes:
>> >> In article <wgafhqe...@brage.metis.no>,
>> >> Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I've had major depression more than once. I guess you're saying yours is
>> >> >bigger than mine, or maybe just that the two are not the same. Fine with
>> >me,
>> >> >then what are the differences? What is the pathologists' description of
>> >> >clinical depression?
>> >>
>> >> Pathologists don't define depression; psychiatrists and psychologists do.
>> >>
>> >> I believe you when you say you've had depression. That doesn't make you an
>> >> expert on it; don't try to pretend you are.
>> >
>> >I apologize if I have unwittingly given you the impression that I am
>> >an expert on depression. I am not. The fact that pathologists have
>> >no definition for depression means that, at this point, there is a
>> >fundamental difference between depression and all illnesses for which
>> >pathologists do have definitions. That difference is at least worth
>> >thinking about, especially if one has depression.
>>
>> Why? It does not change the symptoms, which are what are used to define
>> any illness/disease/disorder/whatever, and what we have to suffer
>> from.
>
>Why? Because the methods we choose to deal with the problem differ
>depending on how we choose to view the problem.
So, would say that if depression is called an illness that doctors would
treat it differently from the way they would treat it if it were called
a disorder? If this is your view, do you have any supporting evidence
for it? (I question whether I am interpreting your words correctly
largely because your meaning does seem to shift around whenever someone
tries to clarify it.)
John Palmer
On 3 Sep 1997 23:50:03 GMT, Nyssa of Traken
<jewa...@shell.webbernet.net> wrote:
>Well lessee... I usually agree to try a drug if its been out about twenty or
>thirty years, all of its long term affects are known, and people are surviving it
>after they withdraw from it or stop using it.
So, basically, you *NEVER* use any drug, at all, right? (Or,
you're lying to us. *OR*, you're too stupid to realize you're lying
to us.)
--
"Everything I needed to know in life, I learned in
kidnergarten. Like, always check for extraneous roots
when squaring to remove the radicals."
John Palmer
On 06 Sep 1997 19:25:38 +0200, Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no>
wrote:
>BobNewsGrp <bobne...@aol.com> writes:
>> Martin William Smith wrote:
>
><all the stuff I wrote that Bod didn't like deleted>
>
>> Dear Mr. Smith,
>>
>> You are quite obviously someone who has never experienced clinical
>> depression. And since you are merely ignorant, and not malicious, I
>> won't wish it on you.
>
>Sorry I don't meet your tough standards, Bob. What is clinical
>depression? I've had major depression more than once.
Hey, shit-for-brains: don't criticize people's terminology while
misusing your own. You had a "major depressive episode", and
"clinical depression" in the somewhat-technical-venacular means
"depression, as is referred to clinically". So saying "I dropped an
apple pie and I couldn't eat it, BOY am *I* depressed! I guess I'll
have to buy another one" is a statement *NOT* referring to clinical
depression.
Susan R. Fischer
Peanuts, popcorn, Cracker Jacks,
step right up and meet Martin the Norwegian spammer.
See the only man alive to have successfully received
a monkey brain transplant in a scientific experiment gone amuck!
He walks he talks..he eats bananas.
Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no> wrote in article
<wgpvqlc...@brage.metis.no>...
John Palmer
On 05 Sep 1997 18:39:29 +0200, Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no>
wrote:
>Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> So, if a diabetic stops taking insulin and dies, it's the withdrawal
>> from insulin which killed them, rather than the consequent lack of
>> insulin?
>
>But diabetes is always a physical disease with a specific pathology.
>That isn't true for depression.
Ah, but for the days of Carl Lydick. . . but never mind. You
probably don't know him. Please, describe all forms of diabetes that
may or may not require insulin. Describe how this is inherently
different from depression.
>> Depression is an illness with a high death rate.
>
>What is the death rate?
People who die while suffering from depression, who demonstrably
wouldn't have died without it, die from it. You go get the figures,
since you're so sure you can.
>I don't think your statement is correct. If
>the high incidence of depression is real, then a lot more people would
>be dying, wouldn't they?
Which "high incidence" of depression are you talking about? I
haven't seen any such statement raised in this conversation.
>> Sometimes I think it really isn't a nice world.
>
>It isn't a nice world, and it isn't a measure of depression to think
>so.
Er, it most certainly is. It's not the *ONLY* measure, but it's
*A* measure.
> How one chooses to view depression, as a disease or as something
>else,
Gee, it has physical symptoms, measureable correlations with
other incidents of the same symptoms, and responds to similar
treatments. . . couldn't think of it as a DISEASE, that would ruin
moron-mouth's day. . .
> ought to be the choice of the depressed person,
Certainly; a person can view the grand canyon as "future site of
the world's biggest pay-outhouse", but that doesn't make it very
productive.
> at least until
>it becomes a disease with a pathology defined by pathologists.
Translation: until moronmouth is *FORCIBLY* shut up by huge
advances in neuroscience.
Alan Harding
In article <wgpvqlc...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
<m...@metis.no> writes
>
>I didn't accuse Marco of faulty logic, did I?
Yes.
You also clipped it from your reply (it was still present in my
response). I am becoming less than impressed with your methods.
marco anglesio
Martin William Smith (m...@metis.no) wrote:
: Aids has a high death rate. Cancer of the pancreas has a high death
: rate. There are two points. 15% is, arguably, not a high death rate,
Fifteen percent to an epidemiologist is an incredibly high death rate.
m.
---
marco anglesio angl...@democracy.queensu.ca democracy.queensu.ca/~anglesio
I've seen more culture in a cup of pasteurized yoghurt.
Alan Harding
In article <01bcbbc1$421fe500$344bf5cd@greg>, "Susan R. Fischer"
<SF5...@aol.com> writes
>
>Peanuts, popcorn, Cracker Jacks,
>step right up and meet Martin the Norwegian spammer.
>See the only man alive to have successfully received
>a monkey brain transplant in a scientific experiment gone amuck!
>He walks he talks..he eats bananas.
This is grossly unfair! Just because he has a Norwegian account it
doesn't mean he's Norwegian. I mean, why drag Norway into it? And
shouldn't it be troll rather than spammer? :)
Alan Harding
In article <5uuvv9$i...@news2.zippo.com>, marco anglesio <anglesio@jeff-
lab.queensu.ca> writes
>Martin William Smith (m...@metis.no) wrote:
>: Aids has a high death rate. Cancer of the pancreas has a high death
>: rate. There are two points. 15% is, arguably, not a high death rate,
>
>Fifteen percent to an epidemiologist is an incredibly high death rate.
Yes, but epidemiologists don't have to be pathologists, do they? Martin
only seems to want to pay attention to pathologists. :)
Nyssa of Traken
John Palmer <jpal...@ix.netcom.com> spewed forth:
: On 3 Sep 1997 23:50:03 GMT, Nyssa of Traken
: <jewa...@shell.webbernet.net> wrote:
: >Well lessee... I usually agree to try a drug if its been out about twenty or
: >thirty years, all of its long term affects are known, and people are surviving it
: >after they withdraw from it or stop using it.
: So, basically, you *NEVER* use any drug, at all, right? (Or,
: you're lying to us. *OR*, you're too stupid to realize you're lying
: to us.)
I dont need personal insults, ok?
I take tegretol, verapamil, and fiorinal as needed. Oh yeah, and meclizine for
motion sickness. I personally suffer from epilepsy, migraines, and occasional
depression. And motion sickness.
Tried and true. No 'experimental' tags involved. No patents even. No new drugs.
Again, as i have stated in the past, my personal philosophy.
Not intended to force this on anyone, just state how i feel.
Jennifer
--
Sanders: 'We've been having fun.'
Doctor: 'Have you? Oh good. There's nothing quite like it, is there?'
-Doctor Who, 1982
'Kinda'
http://shell.webbernet.net/~jewade01/davison.html
H. E. Shapere
In article <kVrO4MA5...@harding.demon.co.uk>,
Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <wgpvqlc...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
><m...@metis.no> writes
(snip)
>I am becoming less than impressed with your methods.
Only "becoming?" Gosh! You're a tolerant one. :)
-elizabeth
marco anglesio
Alan Harding (Al...@harding.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <5uuvv9$i...@news2.zippo.com>, marco anglesio <anglesio@jeff-
: lab.queensu.ca> writes
: >Martin William Smith (m...@metis.no) wrote:
: >: Aids has a high death rate. Cancer of the pancreas has a high death
: >: rate. There are two points. 15% is, arguably, not a high death rate,
: >
: >Fifteen percent to an epidemiologist is an incredibly high death rate.
:
: Yes, but epidemiologists don't have to be pathologists, do they? Martin
: only seems to want to pay attention to pathologists. :)
Most of the epidemiologists (Benny Zee et al. at the Canadian Center for
Cancer Research) I know can scare the living shit out of pathologists by
saying "fifteen percent mortality" :). That's very high.
The extremely high mortality ranges that HIV, pancreatic cancer, and the
like have are horrible, but they have rather low morbidity. Major
Depressive Disorder, IIRC, has a rather high morbidity - not so high as
the common cold but still quite high at 3-5% of population.
Good to see you again, Alan.
statistician-boy, posting from sci.med.pharmacy
Nyssa of Traken
Organization: Terminus, Inc.
Distribution:
Sarah Harrison <pat...@camelot.bradley.edu> spewed forth:
: I have epilepsy also. When I was told to go on Depakote for it, I was
: told of the side effects and also that one person's liver had broken down
: as a result. I decided to take the drug, with regular blood tests to
: check my liver, and I haven't had a seizure in over 6 years (and I've
: been off the Depakote for about a year now). If I'd waited until it'd
: been tested for 20-30 years I'd still be having seizures, and probably
I dont care for depakote, but again, thats my opinion.
: wouldn't be able to trust myself to drive. Tell me, do you still have
: seizures? Wouldn't a slight risk be worth not having them anymore?
I had a particularly nasty grand mal last night, but it was my fault- i stayed up
for almost two days straight, have been under enormous stress trying to find a
job, and should have known ,since my seizures make themselves known when i am
deprived of sleep (thats how they found the disorder in the first place - sleep
deprived EEG) that it was going to happen. I just came off Dilantin, which i had
to abandon due to gingival hpyerplasia, a not all too uncommon side effect.
Dilantin was my choice drug but alas, one must sacrifice sometimes.
: As for my depression, I'd much rather take a slight risk on the medication
: not being safe than go through the hell I've gone through for the past ten
: years before seeking treatment.
Depends on the person. Ive gotten a seizure dosorder through tricyclic
antidepressants, and i know how it is for a drug not to be safe. I guess ive just
grown overcautious. But, like i tell my cousins who go out and get dark sun tans,
in 40 years, when my skin is still smooth, and yours is leather, i can say i told
you so. If i were that kind of person of course :)
: And there probably won't be another thalidomide incident, as women
: wanting to become pregnant are first weaned off their antidepressant so
: the baby won't be affected.
No, but felbamate was much the same sort of incident, only with an anticonvulsant
instead of offspring. My aunt is damaged permanently from felbamate, from the fact
that her doctor didnt tell her it was experimental and didnt take her off it even
when it was recalled. And she has TLE is both temporal lobes, completely
inoperable, and cant find a seizure med to work for her. I just want to be
careful, and personally avoid any *more* damage from drugs that doctors assure me
are safe.
Bob, Bonnie or Sam
> Dear Mr. Smith,
>
> You are quite obviously someone who has never experienced clinical
> depression. And since you are merely ignorant, and not malicious, I
> won't wish it on you.
>
Amen
H. E. Shapere
In article <5uv3do$b22$5...@e3000.supernews.com>,
Nyssa of Traken <jewa...@shell.webbernet.net> wrote:
>Tried and true. No 'experimental' tags involved. No patents even. No new
>drugs. Again, as i have stated in the past, my personal philosophy. Not
>intended to force this on anyone, just state how i feel.
Prozac, etc. are also "tried and true." They are not "experimental." The US
FDA has stringent standards for the testing of a drug. The SSRIs are _safer_
than older antidepressants and just as effective.
I have no idea why you're so vehement about insisting that you won't take an
SSRI, anyway. You don't seem to have any need for one.
-e
John Palmer
On 06 Sep 1997 19:45:03 +0200, Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no>
wrote:
>
>Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> The first figure I can lay my eyes on is from the National Institute of
>> Mental Health (the USA being the nation) which gives a figure of 15% of
>> those who suffer from major or clinical depression killing themselves.
>> We aren't talking the blues here!
>
>For the record, you referred to the blues, not me.
Totally irrelevant; he was undoubtedly pointing out that you
seemed to be downplaying the danger of depression.
>
>Aids has a high death rate. Cancer of the pancreas has a high death
>rate. There are two points. 15% is, arguably, not a high death rate,
I'm sure people who know 85% of depressed people agree with you
to some extent. I'm sure that people who know the other 15% would
like to smack you upside the head and ask what the heck you're talking
about.
Would *YOU* like to gamble on a 15% chance of dying for no
payback?
>and committing suicide while depressed is not known to have the same
>cause and effect relationship as does dying from aids
Just curious: do you know of anyone who has actually died from
*AIDS*, and not from a disease that killed that person due to greatly
reduced immunity?
> or cancer of the
>pancreas. So the statement "Depression is an illness with a high
>death rate" probably ought not to appear in a support group for
>depression.
Er, removing all circumstances besides depression, you have a 15%
chance of dying; depression certainly has a high death rate. Stating
that it DOESN'T is just another version of the "It's all in your head;
stop being so negative".
John Palmer
On 07 Sep 1997 20:19:13 +0200, Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no>
wrote:
>
>It isn't applied to you. The only way you can become one of the three
>in twenty (assuming all three are suicides) is if you choose to commit
>suicide. The link between suicide and depression is statistical. It
>has not been shown to be causal.
Wonderful. Shit-for-brains doesn't know the law of large
numbers, yet thinks he can apply it.
>
>I said 15% is *aruably* not high. Part of my argument would certainly
>be the choice aspect of suicide.
I'd bet you (notice how a sentient being refuses to commit on a
point on which he has no evidence) that many die of self neglect.
Severe depression will lead to lack of care taken of oneself,
including eating.
>I can't say more, I guess, except that deciding to believe depression
>Causes suicide, ie one does not have a choice, is a bad philosophical
>move.
So you basically do not believe that depression causes impaired
cognition, eh? (Hint: read they symptomology.)
Alan Harding
In article <5uvdo5$3...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, "H. E. Shapere"
<sha...@athena.mit.edu> writes
Most of the time. It does wear off though. :)
Martin William Smith
Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <wglo18c...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
> <m...@metis.no> writes
> >angl...@jeff-lab.queensu.ca (marco anglesio) writes:
> >> Martin William Smith (m...@metis.no) wrote:
> >> : Aids has a high death rate. Cancer of the pancreas has a high death
> >> : rate. There are two points. 15% is, arguably, not a high death rate,
> >>
> >> Fifteen percent to an epidemiologist is an incredibly high death
> >> rate.
> >
> >I agree, but that applies to diseases that cause death. It has not
> >been shown that depression causes suicide.
>
> It has not been shown that making statements like that one causes
> homicidal mania. Not yet.
I don't think even Marco, who disagrees with me on a profound level,
would claim that a causal link between depression and suicide has been
found. A disease that causes death is one for which the cause and
effect chain can be shown. For example, heart disease causes death by
restricting blood supply to the point where not enough oxygen gets to
the body to sustain life. That is a causal link between the disease
and death.
People commit suicide. You say there is a causal link between
depression and suicide. To make that claim is to say the person who
commits suicide does not have a choice. I say the person chooses to
commit suicide. It might even be a valid choice, but you say it is
not a choice at all.
It puts you in an interesting moral position, because by claiming that
a person's suicide is caused by something other than the person, you
must claim that a depressed person cannot rationally choose to commit
suicide, or not to commit suicide. Which means that depressed people
must be deemed to be out of control. It is a small step from there to
incarceration of depressed people.
But I have the impression you don't see the ramifications of your
fundamental philosophy.
Martin William Smith
Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Martin William Smith writes
> >Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >> Why? It does not change the symptoms, which are what are used to define
> >> any illness/disease/disorder/whatever, and what we have to suffer
> >> from.
> >
> >Why? Because the methods we choose to deal with the problem differ
> >depending on how we choose to view the problem.
>
> So, would say that if depression is called an illness that doctors would
> treat it differently from the way they would treat it if it were called
> a disorder? If this is your view, do you have any supporting evidence
> for it? (I question whether I am interpreting your words correctly
> largely because your meaning does seem to shift around whenever someone
> tries to clarify it.)
I don't see any point to calling it a disorder. In fact, it seems
rather arrogant. Disorder means lack of order, but I wouldn't
describe depression as lack of order. I would start to describe it as
a very strict order different from the desired one. When I was
depressed, my mind and body were not in disorder. They were stuck in
an order I believed I could not change. I was in misery beyond
compreshension by normal people. I'm not surprised they would see me
as being in disorder, but it did nothing to help me.
The question relates to whether to call it an illness or not. You
want to call it an illness. I don't have a problem with that if you
don't also insist that everyone else call it an illness too. For me
it isn't an illness. Illnesses are physical and have a lesion that is
described in pathology. Depression doesn't fit well into that model.
For many people with depression, I think it is useful not to think of
the problem as an illness. That decision should be left to the
depressed person, if he will take it. But whenever I visit this
newsgroup, which is supposed to be a support group for depressed
people, I see virtually nothing but biological determinism. Religious
belief in the medical model has become a prerequisite for posting
here. Any deviation from the litany cannot be tolerated.
Martin William Smith
angl...@jeff-lab.queensu.ca (marco anglesio) writes:
> Martin William Smith (m...@metis.no) wrote:
> : Aids has a high death rate. Cancer of the pancreas has a high death
> : rate. There are two points. 15% is, arguably, not a high death rate,
>
> Fifteen percent to an epidemiologist is an incredibly high death
> rate.
I agree, but that applies to diseases that cause death. It has not
been shown that depression causes suicide.
martin
Alan Harding
In article <wglo18c...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
<m...@metis.no> writes
>angl...@jeff-lab.queensu.ca (marco anglesio) writes:
>> Martin William Smith (m...@metis.no) wrote:
>> : Aids has a high death rate. Cancer of the pancreas has a high death
>> : rate. There are two points. 15% is, arguably, not a high death rate,
>>
>> Fifteen percent to an epidemiologist is an incredibly high death
>> rate.
>
>I agree, but that applies to diseases that cause death. It has not
>been shown that depression causes suicide.
It has not been shown that making statements like that one causes
homicidal mania. Not yet.
--
Alan Harding
In article <wgiuwcc...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
<m...@metis.no> writes
>Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> In article <wglo18c...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
>> <m...@metis.no> writes
>> >angl...@jeff-lab.queensu.ca (marco anglesio) writes:
>> >> Martin William Smith (m...@metis.no) wrote:
>> >> : Aids has a high death rate. Cancer of the pancreas has a high death
>> >> : rate. There are two points. 15% is, arguably, not a high death rate,
>> >>
>> >> Fifteen percent to an epidemiologist is an incredibly high death
>> >> rate.
>> >
>> >I agree, but that applies to diseases that cause death. It has not
>> >been shown that depression causes suicide.
>>
>> It has not been shown that making statements like that one causes
>> homicidal mania. Not yet.
>
>would claim that a causal link between depression and suicide has been
>found. A disease that causes death is one for which the cause and
>effect chain can be shown. For example, heart disease causes death by
>restricting blood supply to the point where not enough oxygen gets to
>the body to sustain life. That is a causal link between the disease
>and death.
>
>People commit suicide. You say there is a causal link between
>depression and suicide. To make that claim is to say the person who
>commits suicide does not have a choice. I say the person chooses to
>commit suicide. It might even be a valid choice, but you say it is
>not a choice at all.
You've done it again! You've elicited Marco's putative support for your
position and reduced the chances of him catching you out doing so by not
posting to the newsgroup he posted from. You really are contemptible,
aren't you? (Or are you going to blame this on your copy of GNU emacs as
you did when you removed his name from a previous post of yours? I
notice you did the deed two posts back when Marco had chosen to include
sci.med.pharmacy in the cross-postings again.)
Do you always try to win debates by exasperating your opponents into
nauseated silence?
With what little patience I can still summon, may I say that I think it
likely that anyone who approaches the evidence with anything like an
open mind would decide that there was a causal link between depression
and suicide.
You, however, seem to have chosen to exclude all evidence except that of
pathology, which is to say, to exclude almost all the evidence used to
discover, identify or diagnose, not just depression, but almost all
illnesses. (I suppose there may be a symptomless illness, but I can't
think of one.) That attitude seems to me to be that of someone denying
the existence of gravity until informed of the discovery of a graviton.
We obviously disagree on the fundamental premise of *what is evidence?*,
with you dismissing the vast body accepted by medical science. I suggest
that until you choose to explain why you have adopted your unusually
restricted subset of data, there is no point in attempting a logical
discussion.
Until then, I propose to stand to one side and mock you, amicably, of
course. As our American readers might put it, enjoy! :)
Judith V.
been following this thread but not real carefully. however, this post is
extremely well-written and clear, and it is difficult to argue with. it is
hard to find a balance between (1) making people responsible for their own
well-being (which i think is crucial), (2) helping them to overcome
obstacles to mental/physical health, and (3) helping them to find enough
financial success to be self-sufficient.
it brings to my mind ideas from another thread, "why do we help others?" i
help others because i believe i can. i believe (on a good day) that i have
something of value to share, which may help some other people to deal with
their own problems. ultimately, if i (and everyone else who wants to help
others) can help someone else to deal with their problems well, the person
receiving the help will have lots of benefits: improved mental and physical
health; the ability to have supportive, healthy relationships (in addition
to ASD); the ability to work and be financially self-sufficient. it
benefits me, by strengthening my own self-esteem (wow! something good
happened and i played a part in it!). it benefits society, because every
person who feels good about him/herself is less likely to hurt someone else
(themselves, their family or children, neighbors, strangers); also because
the more people are working, the stronger becomes the economy.
this is an argument i've also heard in relation to categorizing alcoholism
as a disease. doing so lessens the control of the drinker over their
actions; i have a disease, drinking too much is a symptom. on the other
hand, how much control DO alcoholics have over their life/actions? very
little if they are blasted from morning till night.
bottom line--there are no right and wrong answers in dealing with the
problems life throws at us. we have to make our own choices, and use the
resources we have to make our own lives better. but i'll be damned if i'm
going to stand by and watch someone hurt themselves and the people around
them without at least trying to intervene. i lost my sister to ovarian
cancer last year. she knew about it for a couple years before she did
anything to treat it, because she wanted to get pregnant. i didn't know
she had cancer; she hid that from me. i just knew she wanted to have a
baby. so i supported her. i thought she was smarter adn better adjusted
than me because she was stable, had a steady job and relationship. i
wanted her to like me, and i was afraid if i got angry with her choice she
would like me even less (we weren't overly close). and now she's gone, and
she's never coming back. and i would so much rather have her here, and
have her hate me and never, ever talk to me and say mean things about me
behind my back, than have her gone.
> I don't think even Marco, who disagrees with me on a profound level,
> would claim that a causal link between depression and suicide has been
> found. A disease that causes death is one for which the cause and
> effect chain can be shown. For example, heart disease causes death by
> restricting blood supply to the point where not enough oxygen gets to
> the body to sustain life. That is a causal link between the disease
> and death.
>
> People commit suicide. You say there is a causal link between
> depression and suicide. To make that claim is to say the person who
> commits suicide does not have a choice. I say the person chooses to
> commit suicide. It might even be a valid choice, but you say it is
> not a choice at all.
>
> It puts you in an interesting moral position, because by claiming that
> a person's suicide is caused by something other than the person, you
> must claim that a depressed person cannot rationally choose to commit
> suicide, or not to commit suicide. Which means that depressed people
> must be deemed to be out of control. It is a small step from there to
> incarceration of depressed people.
>
> But I have the impression you don't see the ramifications of your
> fundamental philosophy.
>
Martin William Smith
Alan Harding <Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Martin William Smith writes:
> >I don't think even Marco, who disagrees with me on a profound level,
> >would claim that a causal link between depression and suicide has been
> >found. A disease that causes death is one for which the cause and
> >effect chain can be shown. For example, heart disease causes death by
> >restricting blood supply to the point where not enough oxygen gets to
> >the body to sustain life. That is a causal link between the disease
> >and death.
> >
> >People commit suicide. You say there is a causal link between
> >depression and suicide. To make that claim is to say the person who
> >commits suicide does not have a choice. I say the person chooses to
> >commit suicide. It might even be a valid choice, but you say it is
> >not a choice at all.
>
> You've done it again! You've elicited Marco's putative support for your
> position and reduced the chances of him catching you out doing so by not
> posting to the newsgroup he posted from. You really are contemptible,
> aren't you? (Or are you going to blame this on your copy of GNU emacs as
> you did when you removed his name from a previous post of yours? I
> notice you did the deed two posts back when Marco had chosen to include
> sci.med.pharmacy in the cross-postings again.)
"By the way, quit cross-posting to sci.med. Followups reset."
-- Marco Anglesio to Martin Smith in <5upvg5$4...@news1.zippo.com>
I don't understand why you are pursuing this line, but above is
Marco's request to me not to post in sci.med groups. I apologized for
my error and have tried to comply with the direction since then. His
request is quite correct, since in this thread we are not discussing
scientific aspects of medications.
I have also apologized for my error in not attributing Marco's article
correctly. I don't often make such mistakes. I gave an explanation.
If Marco cross posts out of sci.med and requests that followups not be
sent to sci.med, then I assume he will read one of the other groups if
he wants to see the responses to his article.
> Do you always try to win debates by exasperating your opponents into
> nauseated silence?
I seldom win debates. This isn't a debate.
> With what little patience I can still summon, may I say that I think it
> likely that anyone who approaches the evidence with anything like an
> open mind would decide that there was a causal link between depression
> and suicide.
Do you mean that a depressed person has no choice about committing
suicide? If so, what other decisions is the depressed person
incapable of making? If there are no others, how is depression so
selective as to only take over the one decision? If it takes over
other decisions, are you saying the depressed person is out of
control? If so, is society then justified if it acts on your belief
that you are out of control and confines you against your will?
A person with an open mind should think about these questions.
Alan Harding
In article <wgg1rfd...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
<m...@metis.no> writes
Again!
Martin, the rest of us are using different rules. We're playing water
polo, and you've insisted on bringing your horse and mallet with you.
Since you insist on observing such things, please stop cross-posting to
alt.support.depression Follow-ups set accordingly.
(I hope I got in before someone from soc.support.depression.treatment
realised their opportunity! :)
s...@prophet.pharm.pitt.edu
> A person with an open mind should think about these questions.
I only wish the questions of personal control and choice were so simple
that having an open mind was all it might take to answer them.
Do you believe that you have total control over all aspects of your
external and internal worlds?? Do you believe that you have total control
over all of your feelings, thoughts, and actions?? Are your actions the
only things that should matter to you or to anyone else??
Sincerely
Stewart
--
The Metaphor Man
s...@prophet.pharm.pitt.edu
anon...@anon.twwells.com
Bev Thornton
This is hilarious! I've always ignored this thread and just looked at it
to see why it is so big.
Martin William Smith (m...@metis.no) wrote:
: I don't see any point to calling it a disorder. In fact, it seems
: rather arrogant. Disorder means lack of order, but I wouldn't
Many words have multiple meanings. It is easy to confuse a common meaning
with an operational definition of a word.
Have you ever talked to a therapist about thinking in absolutes?
: compreshension by normal people. I'm not surprised they would see me
: as being in disorder, but it did nothing to help me.
It isn't meant to help you, it's meant to make it easier for clinicians
to know that they are talking about the same thing.
: it isn't an illness. Illnesses are physical and have a lesion that is
: described in pathology. Depression doesn't fit well into that model.
That's your definition of the word, that's all.
: For many people with depression, I think it is useful not to think of
: the problem as an illness. That decision should be left to the
: depressed person, if he will take it. But whenever I visit this
Well sure, it isn't useful to think of it as something requiring a
lesion. Try a different definition of the word.
: newsgroup, which is supposed to be a support group for depressed
: people, I see virtually nothing but biological determinism. Religious
Your view is distorted if all you see is biological determinism.
: belief in the medical model has become a prerequisite for posting
: here. Any deviation from the litany cannot be tolerated.
No, that's not it. However, on both groups there is a tendency to jump on
misinformation because it could be dangerous to some of us. Also,
when someone writes about depression using romantic notions of self and
being they tend to incite argument as the world is two centuries past
such thinking. Also, such thinking lends itself well to the cognitive
distortions we tend to suffer.
Don't worry though, this will all make sense when the brain/mind
connection is finally figured out. Then the pathologists will be able to
define the pathology of depression. They kind of need that sort of thing
in order to do their work.
It will be one hell of a complicated pathology. You see, mental
what-evers deal not only with the biological self but with the symbolic
self as well, a two-way street. Better start studying now.
--
bev
aa...@fan.nb.ca
John Palmer
On 7 Sep 1997 20:39:20 GMT, Nyssa of Traken
<jewa...@shell.webbernet.net> wrote:
>John Palmer <jpal...@ix.netcom.com> spewed forth:
>: On 3 Sep 1997 23:50:03 GMT, Nyssa of Traken
>: <jewa...@shell.webbernet.net> wrote:
>
>: >Well lessee... I usually agree to try a drug if its been out about twenty or
>: >thirty years, all of its long term affects are known, and people are surviving it
>: >after they withdraw from it or stop using it.
>
>: So, basically, you *NEVER* use any drug, at all, right? (Or,
>: you're lying to us. *OR*, you're too stupid to realize you're lying
>: to us.)
>
>I dont need personal insults, ok?
Well, if you say something idiotic (like "all of its long term
effects are known", expect me to treat you like an idiot.
>Tried and true. No 'experimental' tags involved. No patents even. No new drugs.
And all with "long term effects as yet unknown, unseen, or
considered negligible". *ALL* effects from *ANYTHING* is *NEVER*
known.
Martin William Smith
(John Palmer) writes:
"*ALL* effects from *ANYTHING* is *NEVER* known."
I hope we can all agree on that at least.
Actually, I think it would be better stated as: For any particular
treatment, it cannot be known that all its effects are known.
The way John has stated it could be false. All the effects of a
particular treatment might in fact be known, but that fact cannot be
known. It is an undecidable question.
Simply Steve
On 08 Sep 1997 21:25:56 +0200, Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no>
wrote:
>(John Palmer) writes:
> "*ALL* effects from *ANYTHING* is *NEVER* known."
>
>I hope we can all agree on that at least.
>
>Actually, I think it would be better stated as: For any particular
>treatment, it cannot be known that all its effects are known.
>
>The way John has stated it could be false. All the effects of a
>particular treatment might in fact be known, but that fact cannot be
>known. It is an undecidable question.
>
>martin
Point being?
Simply Steve
Alan Harding
True, true. But where are we going to find one of those in this thread?
uhs0274.ecc.ns...@ohsu.edu
In article <19970907033...@ladder01.news.aol.com> daw...@aol.com (DawnDTD) writes:
>From: daw...@aol.com (DawnDTD)
>Subject: Re: SSRI's - Long Term Use?
>Date: 7 Sep 1997 03:31:51 GMT
>My truth is.....
>Who cares what the long term affects are. I'm on Paxil and Klonopin (been
>on everything) I'm doing great and don't look too far into the future. I
>would take anything if I could be sure that I wouldn't have another episode
>of depression.
Amen to that.
Luckily, I have not seen any concrete evidence of life threatening long term
side effects to date.
This is also my truth (I was fortunate enough to have excellent results from
the first drug I tried- Zoloft, 3 years and counting. . .) I cannot speak for
anyone else, but my quality of life is so dramatically improved that I would
continue with the drug even in the face of serious long term effects. I know
deep in my heart, I would not be here today without it. I would rather have
had my 3 "good" years than a full lifetime of severe depression.
just my 2 cents,
BR
Martin William Smith
Steve asked:
> Martin William Smith wrote:
>
> >(John Palmer) writes:
> > "*ALL* effects from *ANYTHING* is *NEVER* known."
> >
> >I hope we can all agree on that at least.
> >
> >Actually, I think it would be better stated as: For any particular
> >treatment, it cannot be known that all its effects are known.
> >
> >The way John has stated it could be false. All the effects of a
> >particular treatment might in fact be known, but that fact cannot be
> >known. It is an undecidable question.
> >
> >martin
>
> Point being?
...that for any particular treatment, it cannot be known that all its
effects are known.
martin
Alan Harding
In article <wg7mcqd...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
<m...@metis.no> writes
... yet again.
Er, Martin, you seem to have misinterpreted, as a request that you email
me, the request I made for you to stop cross-posting into asd (which I
cunningly disguised as a request that you not cross-post into asd, so
you may not have noticed it; it was the request that you stop cross-
posting into asd).
It wasn't. It was a request that you don't cross-post into asd.
You are, of course, entitled not to pay any attention to my request that
you not cross-post in asd, as am I entitled not to delete your emails
unread before replying to them (I don't suppose my reading them will
make much difference to what you read from my replies; what I've said in
my posts hasn't affected what you've read from them, after all). That
is, if I reply to them at all.
BTW, would you mind not cross-posting into asd? Please?
The folks who use alt.support.survivors.prozac have some interesting
ideas; perhaps you could go there and fail to pay any attention to what
they have to say? I'm fairly sure they'll pay no attention to your
message (whatever that is -- you still haven't explained it -- not that
I want you to post it here on asd, of course -- indeed, I'd like you to
stop cross-posting into asd; or have I already mentioned that?). If you
do pop over there, let me know, and I'll re-subscribe just for the
entertainment value. :)
Now, what was it you said I shouldn't post to depression support groups?
Oh yes, depression kills. It does, you know. Whether or not *you* choose
to believe it.
bjmc...@stutz.iupui.edu
: Er, Martin, you seem to have misinterpreted, as a request that you email
: me, the request I made for you to stop cross-posting into asd (which I
: cunningly disguised as a request that you not cross-post into asd, so
: you may not have noticed it; it was the request that you stop cross-
: posting into asd).
: It wasn't. It was a request that you don't cross-post into asd.
: You are, of course, entitled not to pay any attention to my request that
: you not cross-post in asd, as am I entitled not to delete your emails
: unread before replying to them (I don't suppose my reading them will
: make much difference to what you read from my replies; what I've said in
: my posts hasn't affected what you've read from them, after all). That
: is, if I reply to them at all.
: BTW, would you mind not cross-posting into asd? Please?
Here here!! Of course now he's sending me email as well, but I'm just
deleting them at this point. Speaking of points, does ANYBODY besides
Mr. norway have ANY idea what his point is? My vote: to be argumentative
and abbrasive (congratulations on the success of that, btw).
--
Barry J. McCabe
bjmc...@cord.iupui.edu
'the sunflower conspiracy'
http://cord.iupui.edu/~badrian/sunflower.html
Alan Harding
In article <wg7mcqd...@brage.metis.no>, Martin William Smith
<m...@metis.no> writes
... and includes sci.med.pharmacy amongst those he posts to, despite his
unwillingness to do so on the two occasions so far in this thread where
he has elicited Marco's putative support for his cause. Strange that.
John Palmer
On 07 Sep 1997 09:05:50 +0200, Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no>
wrote:
>I apologize if I have unwittingly given you the impression that I am
>an expert on depression.
No, the problem was that you came across as if you CONSIDERED
yourself an expert. That you were not an expert was quite clear from
the getgo.
John Palmer
On 08 Sep 1997 21:25:56 +0200, Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no>
wrote:
>
>(John Palmer) writes:
> "*ALL* effects from *ANYTHING* is *NEVER* known."
>
>I hope we can all agree on that at least.
>
>Actually, I think it would be better stated as: For any particular
>treatment, it cannot be known that all its effects are known.
>
>The way John has stated it could be false. All the effects of a
>particular treatment might in fact be known, but that fact cannot be
>known. It is an undecidable question.
Well, it depends on how you say "known". To some, it's
impossible to "know" that it's tuesday if it's monday; you can only
"believe to the point of certainty" that it's tuesday.
DawnDTD
Anyone who has gone through depression would probably say that
"depression" is life threatening and without our meds we probably wouldn't
make it. I've had 3 episodes in 10 years, I am 27, too young to give up on
life, but I have to have my meds....and long term affects....well, I have
to live day by day and not think too far ahead into the future....I'm alive
now that's what matters......
Martin William Smith
bjmc...@stutz.iupui.edu () writes:
> Alan Harding wrote most of this:
> : Er, Martin, you seem to have misinterpreted, as a request that you email
> : me, the request I made for you to stop cross-posting into asd (which I
> : cunningly disguised as a request that you not cross-post into asd, so
> : you may not have noticed it; it was the request that you stop cross-
> : posting into asd).
>
> : It wasn't. It was a request that you don't cross-post into asd.
>
> : You are, of course, entitled not to pay any attention to my request that
> : you not cross-post in asd, as am I entitled not to delete your emails
> : unread before replying to them (I don't suppose my reading them will
> : make much difference to what you read from my replies; what I've said in
> : my posts hasn't affected what you've read from them, after all). That
> : is, if I reply to them at all.
>
> : BTW, would you mind not cross-posting into asd? Please?
>
> Here here!! Of course now he's sending me email as well, but I'm just
> deleting them at this point.
I'll defend what remains of my good name here. I sent email to you in
response to your email to me, in which you asked questions of me that I
assumed you wanted answered.
And the expression is hear! hear!, not here here.
> Speaking of points, does ANYBODY besides Mr. norway have ANY idea
> what his point is? My vote: to be argumentative and abbrasive
> (congratulations on the success of that, btw).
The point of this thread is the following. For any particular
treatment, it cannot be known that all its effects are known.
Brad Watkins
Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no> wrote in article
<wgbu229...@brage.metis.no>...
Funny, I thought the purpose of this thread was to see how long it takes 50
different posters to finally figure out what a complete and utter moron
Martin Smith is. Martin Smith is a prime example of what can happen if you
don't use child safety seats.
DawnDTD
I don't understand this whole conversation.....depression...kind of
alive....medicine that might help me not kill myself...BUT wait...hummmm
long terms affects...NO WAY... who cares...sorry dude but I guess we have
different diseases......plenty of people with depression are educated on
the drugs, but it just doesn't matter, at times, it's life or
death.....FYI, my grandfather is a pdoc....
bjmc...@stutz.iupui.edu
: > And the expression is hear! hear!, not here here.
No, HERE HERE! Damnit, I'm in the US, not Norway.
: Funny, I thought the purpose of this thread was to see how long it takes 50
: different posters to finally figure out what a complete and utter moron
: Martin Smith is. Martin Smith is a prime example of what can happen if you
: don't use child safety seats.
I love Martin Smith, will you marry me Martin??
: > Martin Smith Email: m...@metis.no
: > P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet Tel. : +47 330 35700
: > N-3194 HORTEN, Norway Fax. : +47 330 35701
: >
Martin William Smith
"Brad Watkins" <bwat...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no> wrote in article
> > > Speaking of points, does ANYBODY besides Mr. norway have ANY idea
> > > what his point is? My vote: to be argumentative and abbrasive
> > > (congratulations on the success of that, btw).
> >
> > The point of this thread is the following. For any particular
> > treatment, it cannot be known that all its effects are known.
>
> different posters to finally figure out what a complete and utter moron
> Martin Smith is. Martin Smith is a prime example of what can happen if you
> don't use child safety seats.
The most important aspect of sticking to the point is that the result
does not depend on whether Martin is complete and utter moron. The
purpose of this thread is the clarification of the following point:
For any particular treatment, it cannot be known that all its effects
are known.
martin
--
H. E. Shapere
In article <5up6to$c...@camelot.bradley.edu>,
Sarah Harrison <pat...@camelot.bradley.edu> wrote:
>I have epilepsy also. When I was told to go on Depakote for it, I was
>told of the side effects and also that one person's liver had broken down
>as a result. I decided to take the drug, with regular blood tests to
>check my liver, and I haven't had a seizure in over 6 years (and I've
>been off the Depakote for about a year now). If I'd waited until it'd
>been tested for 20-30 years I'd still be having seizures, and probably
>wouldn't be able to trust myself to drive. Tell me, do you still have
>seizures? Wouldn't a slight risk be worth not having them anymore?
Congrats on finding a med that controlled your seizures with such success,
Sarah. :) When I was taking Depakote (in an unsuccessful attempt to augment my
antidepressant) they had me do regular liver function tests, too. Also
complete blood counts and valproate levels (to make sure I stayed in the
therapeutic range).
>As for my depression, I'd much rather take a slight risk on the medication
>not being safe than go through the hell I've gone through for the past ten
>years before seeking treatment.
For a lot of people who got really awful side effects from tricyclics or
didn't want to give up their favourite foods to take MAOIs (or who weren't
functioning at a level where they were capable of following the diet
reliably), Prozac offered an alternative. I recall when Prozac came out
people were so excited because its relative freedom from side effects made it
easier to try an antidepressant. The pro-therapy/anti-meds folks said it was
being overprescribed and used for people who didn't really "need" to be on
meds. (It's probably true that people with milder depression were willing to
tolerate Prozac where they wouldn't have tolerated the older meds - it's not
so much a question of "need" as it is a cost/benefit analysis: for a lot of
people with mild-to-moderate depression, the side effects of the older drugs
weren't worth the benefits. The SSRIs also turned out to be effective for
other things like OCD and panic disorder (for both of which it's especially
useful to have minimal side effects, since people who get panic attacks are
often sensitive to physical discomfort and people with OCD sometimes obsess
about health and physical symptoms).
>And there probably won't be another thalidomide incident, as women
>wanting to become pregnant are first weaned off their antidepressant so
>the baby won't be affected.
Yeah...the FDA has pregnancy categories which describe the risks a woman's
med may have to her fetus. Here are the categories:
category A - reliable studies of pregnant women on the drug have shown that
there is no statistically significant risk to the fetus. these drugs are safe
to take while pregnant.
category B - either (1) animal studies have shown fetal risk but human
studies have shown no risk, or (2) animal studies have shown no fetal risk and
human studies are unavailable. these drugs are probably safe to take while
pregnant.
category C - studies in animals either have not been conducted or have shown
risk to the fetus, and human studies are unavailable. benefits of the drug
should be weighed against the possible risk. [this is the "duh, i dunno"
category.] generally it's advised to avoid these drugs at least during the
first trimester, if possible.
category D - investigational and marketing data have shown a risk to the
fetus, but the potential benefits of the drug may be weighed against this
risk.
category X - animal or human studies, or investigational/marketing data, show
that the risk to the fetus is clearly greater than any possible benefit to the
woman. (this is things like the birth control pill and other estrogens and
progestins, whicn cause severe fetal abnormalities or miscarriage.)
Most of the psych meds are category C, unfortunately (including most of the
newer meds, Nardil and Parnate, some of the tricyclics, most antihistamines
used for insomnia or anxiety, most psychostimulants, and all of the older
antipsychotics). Some noteworthy exceptions:
category B: Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft, Luvox, maprotiline, clozapine,
risperidone, amobarbitol, Ambien, Cylert, BuSpar
category D: amitriptyline, imipramine, nortriptyline, secobarbitol,
pentobarbitol, Dalmane, Valium, Librium, Paxipam, Xanax, Ativan, meprobamate,
lithium, valproate (Depakote/Depakene)
category X: Restoril, Halcyon
Note that since most of the benzodiazepines are category D, it's probably ill-
advised to take any of the ones that are category C (e.g., Klonopin) while
pregnant.
The preferred mood stabilizer drugs to use during pregnancy are Tegretol and
Lamictal, since these are category C; however, Lamictal has not been evaluated
in humans. It can deplete folate in both the woman and the fetus, so taking
folate supplements is a good idea.) Tegretol has been tentatively linked to a
number of fetal abnormalities, and it does cross the placenta. However,
sudden discontinuation of Tegretol is risky for the fetus as well as for the
woman.
About SSRIs: in a study done of 228 pregnant women taking Prozac, there was no
significant difference in rates of miscarriage or major birth anomalies.
However, Prozac-exposed infants were more likely to have three or more minor
anomalies than other infants. Taking Prozac during the 3rd trimester appeared
to increase the rate of premature delivery and low birth weight/length. To
minimize the possibility of these symptoms, the recommended time to stop the
Prozac would probably be about 5 months into the pregnancy. I don't know of
any other studies of SSRIs in pregnant women.
There have also been studies done of some drugs in breastfeeding women.
Prozac, for example, can cause increased heart and respiration rates in the
breastfed infant, and can make the baby more irritable. These effects don't
necessarily have any relationship to the pregnancy category.
-elizabeth
H. E. Shapere
(sci.med.pharmacy removed)
This thread reminds me of a discussion I had once with some people, some of
whom were drug addicts (including alcohol), about whether or not addiction
should be called a "disorder" in the same way as we consider depression a
disorder.
Some arguments given:
Ayes:
- some people seem to be more susceptible to drug addiction than others.
- addiction, like depression, often can be treated by medications (such as
bupropion, desipramine, Prozac) or by therapy (especially cognitive therapy,
which often involves not so much "curing" the illness as learning to cope
with situations that are problematic for people with the illness).
- addiction is influenced by events in a person's life just as depression is.
although people with "normal" lives can become addicted, they are less
likely to than people with childhood traumas, people in poverty, etc.
(similarly, although some people are genetically predisposed to depression,
some may have depression brought on by a life event, and the predisposed
people are more likely to become depressed if their lives are unhappy.)
- the APA (which puts out the DSM-IV) says so.
Nays:
- addicts made a choice to first start using.
- people who don't use drugs can sometimes get "addicted" to things like
food, sex, shopping, etc.
- addiction is a symptom of illnesses like bipolar disorder, ADD, depression,
anxiety, etc., not an illness in itself. (people can also become addicted
without having any of these disorders, just as people can have a depressed
mood or poor concentration without being clinically depressed (i.e.,
diagnosable with a major depressive episode, dysthymia, etc.).)
- the DSM-IV says a lot of pretty strange things. (in the past, the APA has
defined homosexuality as a disease, for example.)
(There were probably more than this...these are just the ones I can remember
off the top of my head.)
I'm curious what people here think...I haven't formed an opinion, myself.
-elizabeth
Martin William Smith
One of the more controversial aspects centers around whether addiction
actually exists. The question in this case is whether the term
addiction refers to loss of control. That drugs cause physical
changes in the body is not disputed, so if those changes are all that
is meant by addiction, then the argument ends. But, as in the suicide
problem, a causal link between these changes and loss of control has
not been proved, and controlled drinking programs are based on the
idea that there is no such link, at least in many cases.
Samson
In article <5v51u1$h...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, sha...@athena.mit.edu
(H. E. Shapere) wrote:
> the FDA has pregnancy categories which describe the risks a woman's
> med may have to her fetus. Here are the categories:
[...]
> category B: Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft, Luvox, maprotiline, clozapine,
> risperidone, amobarbitol, Ambien, Cylert, BuSpar
> category D: amitriptyline, imipramine, nortriptyline, secobarbitol,
> pentobarbitol, Dalmane, Valium, Librium, Paxipam, Xanax, Ativan, meprobamate,
> lithium, valproate (Depakote/Depakene)
> category X: Restoril, Halcyon
>
> Note that since most of the benzodiazepines are category D, it's probably
> ill-
> advised to take any of the ones that are category C (e.g., Klonopin) while
> pregnant.
>
> The preferred mood stabilizer drugs to use during pregnancy are Tegretol and
> Lamictal, since these are category C; however, Lamictal has not been evaluated
> in humans. It can deplete folate in both the woman and the fetus, so taking
> folate supplements is a good idea.) Tegretol has been tentatively linked to a
> number of fetal abnormalities, and it does cross the placenta. However,
> sudden discontinuation of Tegretol is risky for the fetus as well as for the
> woman.
Just a comment, and maybe a question.
The categorization is a function of _both_ benefit to the woman _and_ harm
to the fetus. In the standard references, specific abnormalities are
associated with carbamazepine from controlled studies in animals, and from
epidemiological studies in humans. There is suggestive evidence of harm to
the fetus by clonazepam based on animal studies, but no specific
abnormalities mentioned for humans. In the case of diazepam, there is
"suggestive" evidence of fetal harm, but the emphasis in placing it in
category D seems to be on the fact that an anxiolytic is much less likely
to be "necessary" for the woman than an anticonvulsant, not on any greater
danger to the fetus.
(Restoril (temazepam) is in category X, on the basis of animal research no
more ominous than that that placed clonazepam in C, but since hypnotics
are always "elective" treatments, it is just not considered worth the
risk.)
What abnormalities in humans if any have been associated with
benzodiazepine use during pregnancy?
John Palmer
On 10 Sep 1997 03:22:19 GMT, sha...@athena.mit.edu (H. E. Shapere)
wrote:
>(sci.med.pharmacy removed)
>
>This thread reminds me of a discussion I had once with some people, some of
>whom were drug addicts (including alcohol), about whether or not addiction
>should be called a "disorder" in the same way as we consider depression a
>disorder.
Well, "should" ends up being a philosophical issue. . . always
keep that in mind. The best you'll get is that "there seems to be
more good coming out of considering it a disorder than not" or vice
versa.
John Palmer
On 10 Sep 1997 14:48:56 +0200, Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no>
wrote:
> But, as in the suicide
>problem, a causal link between these changes and loss of control has
>not been proved, and controlled drinking programs are based on the
>idea that there is no such link, at least in many cases.
Note that there is no causal link between cigarette smoking and
various health problems either. . . simply the strong correlation that
exists in addiction problems and depression/suicide.
Do you work for a tobacco company? If not, maybe they have an
opening in their disinformation section. . .
John Palmer
On 10 Sep 1997 18:40:38 +0200, Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no>
wrote:
>
>jpal...@ix.netcom.com (John Palmer) writes:
>> On 10 Sep 1997 14:48:56 +0200, Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no>
>>
>> Note that there is no causal link between cigarette smoking and
>> various health problems either. . . simply the strong correlation that
>> exists in addiction problems and depression/suicide.
>
>Certainly there is a causal link. Repeated breathing of cigarette
>smoke into the lungs. But that isn't a causal link to loss of
>control. They aren't in the same category.
Er, no, there has been no causal link found, only a very strong
correlation. Are you really this bad at reading?
>
>> Do you work for a tobacco company? If not, maybe they have an
>> opening in their disinformation section. . .
>
>I wouldn't work for a tobacco company in any department. It would be
>unethical, according to my ethics.
Got it. You only lie to people for free.
Jacquelin Hyde
--------------B010599C28DF0CF6322231F9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> For any particular treatment, it cannot be known that all its effects
> are known.
>
Very true. For instance we don't know what effect your treatment of us
or our treatment of you will have in the future. Maybe this will be the
last straw and one of us will go off the deep end. Ahhh....you gotta
love those laws of chaos.
Allegra
--------------B010599C28DF0CF6322231F9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>For any particular treatment, it cannot be known that all its effects
are known.</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Very true. For instance we don't know what effect your treatment
of us or our treatment of you will have in the future. Maybe this
will be the last straw and one of us will go off the deep end. Ahhh....you
gotta love those laws of chaos.
<P>Allegra</HTML>
--------------B010599C28DF0CF6322231F9--
Martin William Smith
(John Palmer) writes:
> Martin Smith wrote:
> >jpal...@ix.netcom.com (John Palmer) writes:
> >> On 10 Sep 1997 14:48:56 +0200, Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no>
> >>
> >> Note that there is no causal link between cigarette smoking and
> >> various health problems either. . . simply the strong correlation that
> >> exists in addiction problems and depression/suicide.
> >
> >Certainly there is a causal link. Repeated breathing of cigarette
> >smoke into the lungs. But that isn't a causal link to loss of
> >control. They aren't in the same category.
>
> Er, no, there has been no causal link found, only a very strong
> correlation. Are you really this bad at reading?
You say "er" a lot, John. I always wonder about people who
deliberately stumble over their words in print.
I was referring to the clogging of the lungs with ash and soot and tar
from smoking. The ash and soot and tar definitely come from the
cigarette smoke, and as it builds up in the lungs, it definitely
hinders breathing. That certainly is a health problem.
If you were only talking about cancer of the lungs, you should have
been more specific.
> >> Do you work for a tobacco company? If not, maybe they have an
> >> opening in their disinformation section. . .
> >
> >I wouldn't work for a tobacco company in any department. It would be
> >unethical, according to my ethics.
>
> Got it. You only lie to people for free.
I don't think you have any grounds for this accusation. If you want
to send email with your specific charges and the evidence to support
them, then if I can see where I have lied, I'll apologize for it. Of
course you can publish your case here, if you want, but like your ad
hominem attacks, it doesn't belong here.
Martin William Smith
Jacquelin Hyde writes:
> Martin Smith wrote, although it certainly wasn't his idea:
> > For any particular treatment, it cannot be known that all its effects
> > are known.
> >
> Very true. For instance we don't know what effect your treatment of us
> or our treatment of you will have in the future. Maybe this will be the
> last straw and one of us will go off the deep end. Ahhh....you gotta
> love those laws of chaos.
A profound insight. However, I haven't been dishing out any of the
treatment I think you mean, that being of the ad hominem variety, so
that would mean I'm the only one at risk.
Martin William Smith
jpal...@ix.netcom.com (John Palmer) writes:
> On 10 Sep 1997 14:48:56 +0200, Martin William Smith <m...@metis.no>
> > But, as in the suicide
> >problem, a causal link between these changes and loss of control has
> >not been proved, and controlled drinking programs are based on the
> >idea that there is no such link, at least in many cases.
>
> various health problems either. . . simply the strong correlation that
> exists in addiction problems and depression/suicide.
Certainly there is a causal link. Repeated breathing of cigarette
smoke into the lungs. But that isn't a causal link to loss of
control. They aren't in the same category.
> Do you work for a tobacco company? If not, maybe they have an
> opening in their disinformation section. . .
I wouldn't work for a tobacco company in any department. It would be
unethical, according to my ethics.
martin
H. E. Shapere
In article <wgafhla...@brage.metis.no>,
>are known.
It can't be "known" absolutely, but it can be known...well, beyond a
reasonable doubt. (Not that anyone is suggesting that Martin is reasonable.)
-elizabeth
marco anglesio
Brad Watkins (bwat...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Funny, I thought the purpose of this thread was to see how long it takes 50
: different posters to finally figure out what a complete and utter moron
: Martin Smith is. Martin Smith is a prime example of what can happen if you
: don't use child safety seats.
No, no, not at all. Martin goes through this discussion, calling varying
amounts of attention to himself, every twelve to sixteen months or so. I
wouldn't call him brain-damaged (since he obviously is not) so much as in
love with the sound of his own voice (since he obviously is).
And followups reset. Again.
m.
---
marco anglesio angl...@democracy.queensu.ca democracy.queensu.ca/~anglesio
I've seen more culture in a cup of pasteurized yoghurt.