Unfavourable studies of antidepressants aren't published nearly enough
By John Amato Friday Jan 18, 2008 9:01amAn analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that studies of antidepressants that had positive results were more likely to be published in medical journals compared with those that had negative or questionable results. The findings showed that 94 percent of all published trials appeared to have positive results, while FDA reviews determined that 51 percent of all trials, both published and unpublished, had positive outcomes.
In the analysis, the researchers examined data for 74 antidepressant studies submitted to the FDA between 1987 and 2004. The results showed that 37 of the 38 trials the agency considered as having positive results were published, compared with 14 of the 36 trials that the FDA considered negative or questionable. Additionally, of the 14 negative or questionable studies that were published, 11 "conveyed a positive outcome" that was not justified by the FDA review, lead author Erick Turner stated...read on
Login or Register to post comments.
depressing.
Makes you wonder where the medical journals get their funding from, hmmmmmm?
Are you claiming that this is an evidence of bias? You do understand that this is the same argument global warming denialists use about climate change papers. Why do you want to perpetuate this frame?
The question is, why were the negative results rejected? What were the complaints by the review board? Is there a pattern there, and if so is it justified? Unless you look at this, this is a content-free post.
This is not new, good thing they are researching it further.
Anti-depressants and other pharmaceutical drugs literally ruined my life. I was on them since childhood and only recently stopped taking them after my doctor kept changing them around and adding new ones with increasing frequency. I was sleepless, agitated, etc. on these drugs and the doctor kept adding new ones to combat the side effects of the others. It has taken my brain almost a year to slowly recover and start to get my personality back. Looking back, it was a huge mistake to have believed in the bullshit. You get on one of these drugs and you end up on five more due to crazy side effects while Big Pharma keeps getting the BIG $$$$
Keep in mind, these doctors get huge kickbacks and they don't even understand how these drugs truly affect the brain. Especially long term.
Ever wonder what Britney Spears is on? Funny how she keeps testing positive only for pharmaceutical drugs.
One thing I found annoying in the piece is when the editor of The NRJM links this with "publication bias." This is not an example of what that term usually refers to. Publication bias is a bias towards significant results; as in: data which show statistically significant relationships or effects, as opposed to those that are consistent with the null hypothesis. The term is not usually used to refer to a bias in favor of a given interpretation.
Other than that, it's a decent summary of what many of us have known of and worried about for a long time. Funding is a necessary evil. It corrupts research, but also makes it possible.
we need a REAL FDA...
in a somewhat related item (our health):
Justices to Hear Cigarette, Drug Cases
Washington Post - 9 hours ago
By Robert Barnes The Supreme Court yesterday agreed to decide whether tobacco companies can be sued in state courts for deceptive advertising of "light" cigarettes and if drugmakers should be protected from some patient lawsuits.
Supreme Court Grants Appeal By Philip Morris in Lights Case Wall Street Journal
Supreme Court to consider shield for drug, cigarette firms Los Angeles Times
gee, i wonder what will come of this?
Serotonin and Depression: A Disconnect between the Advertisements and the Scientific Literature
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1...
This is good news for Tom Cruise and the rest of the Scientologists who reject psychiatry. KSW!
"An analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that studies of antidepressants that had positive results were more likely to be published in medical journals compared with those that had negative or questionable results."
Um, keep in mind this analysis doesn't necessarily imply any conspiracy. Journals are peer-reviewed by other researchers, which means that the 'negative' and 'questionable' results may have been deemed flawed for valid scientific reasons.
To put it another way, using my field of physics, I'm sure a study would show that 99% of all published papers on quantum mechanics confirm the theory at this stage, while a significant number of papers (mostly by crackpots) that claim to 'disprove' the theory don't get accepted. This isn't a 'conspiracy', it's reality: quantum mechanics is a valid theory, and the only way to 'find' a major hole is to make mistakes.
That isn't to say that it can't be a conspiracy concerning antidepressants, but that the information given doesn't automatically prove that it is...
Zoloft Nation. No wonder no one gets out in the streets and brings it to the leaders anymore.
-GSD
little davey @ 1:
My first thought as well!
And as to effectiveness, the drugs just have to be tested against placebos. The testing has been gutted so as to be totally useless. The FDA needs to get their power back. Or maybe testing could be privatized? I hear that solution works really well.
gg @ 10:
He's right, insofar as that is concerned. Scientific peer review at its best chooses evidence based on methodology that is consistent. Whether the theory matches up with reality...... Scientists are human, including doctors. Mistakes happen.
If that was the only information they don't wish to let you know about.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/261.html
Has nothing to do with journal Funding. Everything to do with who the reviewers are on the studies.
That really is to bad. I do have a question though, do any of you know if the drug Aderall, which is prescribed commonly for ADHD, is an anti depressant? If not, have any of you heard about it, use it, know people who use it? I am curious about this drug and the post kind of sort of gave me a chance to toss the question out there.
Thanks...
www.HyerStandard.com
Life without drugs is looking better and better. I guess I should stop.
vrk @ 15:
..And who writes the reviewers' checks!
Just Say No @ 5:
I think vrk should have read your post.
America is perhaps the most pro drug nation on the the planet. The so called "war on drugs" is just on the illegal drugs the politicians and big Pharma can't make money off of, which is why they are illegal. Big Pharma doesn't want the competition from the corner dealer and they want to jack up the prices they charge at the same time. The corner dealer cuts Big Pharma out of the equation so Big Pharma pushes the politicians to continue the war on drugs at taxpayer expense which is a costly miserable failure both in terms of incarceration rates and tax dollar waste.
Dutch Delight @ 4:
No it's not new. Things have been happening like this for years. Perhaps in this country since Industry became a real live person and had the rights of a person.
Untill we put industry under the the government and under us as citizens we will have sometimes needless items put out only to enrich Industry.
Do you all think that these compounds need to go out to everyone who has seen a commercial then hasselled her or his Doctor. The Doctors can't control it and the Drug companies won't control it so our government must. Take commercials off the air, it was illeagel in America untill the Reagan years to advertise a medicine. That's a good start. Who do you think pays for those ads? I think there are only one or two other nations in the industrialized nations that allows ads in the market place for the ultimate consumer for drugs. we should be like an industrialized once in a while, thats what we were once.
Step back and take a look. It's 'all about the money', and this aids in 'people control'. Isn't that right bushco? Be very afraid NOT to take pills. T.V. ads,their prices,SEE YOUR DR.!!!!....'Your getting sick,arn't you!' WARNING: 'Do NOT stop taking these pills!'. Pages of 'Side effects'. My girlfriend just died, taking 14 pills a DAY. Cemo,more cemo until she died. (She had great insurance...hmmmm) Tests,tests and more tests...$$$$$$$$. She lasted 1 1/2 years from first having some cancer. They should have given her a morphine drip and let her enjoy her last time here, instead they ran up a bill of 1/4 million and she suffered all the way.
Oh great. So antidepressants have a ~50/50 chance of working... heads it works, tails it makes things worse. I'd rather take my chances to Vegas, thank you very much.
I smoked some Zoloft onest, it made me want to rape and kill, then I went on to harder drugs. But then I found jeebus and now I am saved.
Every time I see one of the drug studies I can't help but notice it is usually funded by someone affiliated with that same company.
Anti-depressants? Hmmm...no surprise really. Doctors have always pushed miracle drugs thanks to some nice kickbacks from the pharmaceutical companies. I had a doctor years ago that always gave away any "new" cough syrups as the latest "miracle"....lol...they usually did squat, but that never stopped him!
40mg paxil and 400mg welbutron a day here...I tried just therapy for 2 years...had to do something else on top of it...they saved my life...side affects really suck, but they outweigh the benefits
Walker @ 3:
one must always report unfavourable results. that's how science works! having a hypothesis shot down in the face of indisputable data is part of the process of discovery. you aren't allowed to report only the findings that agree with your hypothesis!
my guess is: money is at work here, and it is subverting science.
The underlying human spirit is going to revolt against indentured servitude to the synthetic upper classes no matter what toys, trinkets, miracle drugs, and carrots they dangle out there and sell to the masses.
It's a little hard to believe that half the data qualified as outliers. That would be more laughable than the Laffer curve. Drug companies have been falsifying data for over twenty five years. Fucking worthless Red Ink Ronnie is responsible for this. Deregulation hit the FDA to the point where they think the ONLY dangerous drugs are pot, acid and mushrooms. Everything else is A-OK, as long as Merck, Pfizer and SmithKlineFrenchBeechamGlaxoWelcome get their dividends fo' d' massa.
bob @ 29:
At least on the TeeVee commercials they have the common decency to tell you at the end of the Drug Commercial . . . . "yes it can kill you". (What they don't say is it probably will kill you faster then if you just went natural)
Steven Dubovsky MD (THE mood disorder expert in the u.s.) has said the following: "We don't know how these drugs work, it's like kicking a television. They work temporarily and then new combinations must be tried".
From the time my son was in kindergarden I was PRESSURED to put my son on a course of, first Ritalin (every parent conference through 4th grade, the school psychologist said HIS daughter did great on it), then they said he should be on antidepressants until he went on to middle school.
I NEVER GAVE IN. My son was fine at home. Never had a problem concentrating or had temper problems or other behavior problems AT HOME. But he grew to resist GOING TO SCHOOL because of these assholes who thought nothing of prescribing psychiatric drugs to young children and teenagers. Many of my son's friends did take these drugs and MOST had violent episodes and thoughts of suicide.
One of my son's friends was on both Prozac and Acutane (for acne). He actually said to me one day, "If you knew the kind of thoughts I have you wouldn't let me in your house". Today at age 20 he shows he has MISSED DEVELOPMENTAL STEPS, is socially undeveloped, cannot maintain friendships nor has ever gone out with a girl. He's a good-looking robust guy who runs from relationships and just doesn't know how to relate to other people, and spends ALL of his free time at the computer.
Well, fortunately my son has never had to take any of these POPULAR drugs. But the schools made both of us feel like shit losers for not doing so. He just turned 20, attends college and has had a successful relationship just short of two years and is sought out for friendships. Sure, he's had his problems and rebellions, but they are human and not DRUG INDUCED.
Blue Buddha @ 23:
The odds are slightly better than Red/Black or Odd/Even on a double zero roulette wheel. The doctor that put me on Wellbutrin told me "this will work whether you 'believe' in or not." He lied. It didn't even help me quit SMOKING, which was the other use for which the drug was marketed. I somehow managed to get a handle on both the smoking and the manic-depression. I couldn't WAIT to get those drugs out of my system. It literally made my skin crawl. As to Ben, I'm glad it's helping you, but the day will come when the regimen no longer works. Then the Grateful Dead's long strange trip will seem like a walk in the park as your snake oil salesman tries the latest miracle cure which seems usually to be Zoloft by another name.
This makes me want to start drinking and smoking again.
crazytown @ 31:
One of my best friends was iatrogenically addicted to amphetamines back in the fifties, when he was in High School. A lethargic, overweight kid, he started getting straight A's, became a standout on the dive team and life looked good. Then they wouldn't give him speed any more. So he went from the Doctors, to the Bikers, to the Mexicans, to the home chemists, all in search of increasingly low quality drugs. He now is hearing voices in Lodi, CA, PRAYING like HELL to Jesus for it to stop. It never will until he is dead. The family business in my family is medicine. It was apparent to me as far back as the thalidomide business that the FDA wasn't doing its job. It kept me from going into medicine or pharmaceuticals, which, believe me, would have led me to a VERY comfortable life. I just couldn't swallow the lies of the AMA, FDA, and DEA.
unanimous wrote: "one must always report unfavourable results. that’s how science works! having a hypothesis shot down in the face of indisputable data is part of the process of discovery. you aren’t allowed to report only the findings that agree with your hypothesis!"
Not if the 'unfavorable' results are done using poor methodology. That's why there is a peer-review process. Plenty of utter nonsense and shoddy research is submitted to the journals. Peer-review is present to filter out research that is demonstrably poor.
Without further information, the NEJM article's observations could be applied to almost any scientific result. As a (hypothetical) for instance, "100% of published astronomy suggests that the Earth is not the center of the universe, as opposed to 90% of the total number of articles written." (The other 10% being biblical geocentrists.) Would such an observation represent a conspiracy against the geocentrists, or just an observation by the referees that their work is nonsense?
Again, this doesn't mean there isn't something fishy going on in the case of antidepressants, but it also doesn't mean there is.
If you actually read the NEJM article, the authors do not say that the drugs do not work.
First, they actually say that repeated meta-analyses have demonstrated that they are all better than placebo (p. 259), but that the DEGREE of superiority has been inflated by the published literature, which exaggerates the effect size.
Second, if you look at the table on page 257, then you see that some antidepressants have little or no FDA-reported negative results (e.g. escitalopram, duloxetine, prozac, paxil CR, and effexor XR).
Third, the antidepressants that have the most conflicting results are never used as first-line medications (e.g. wellbutrin and mirtazapine), and their lesser efficacy is one of the main reasons. The first-line medications, with the exception of zoloft, actually come across quite well, with around an artificial 10% increase in effect size in the published literature.
This just shows the importance of actually reading research articles intelligently and not mindlessly reading sensationalizing headlines. These medications are very helpful for millions of people, and although the prescribing practices of some physicians and business practices of some corporations are highly suspect, the research speaks for itself.
Matthew @ 16:
It's not an AD, it helps with tiredness and concentration. I know many overachieving college students who use it recreationally.
wisedup @ 22:
We've gone from citizens to consumers to commodities. Maybe it's time to reclaim our humanity and stop allowing ourselves to be so easily manipulated. Used to be when the government and/or corporations stuck it to us they at least had the grace and decency to use some lube. These days they're just ramming it in dry. Might be a good idea to stop bending over, try standing up and say "thanks but no thanks, we've had enough."
bob@34, good for you, man. Even good, intelligent doctors are on autopilot including our own, a personal friend for 33 years. I avoid going unless there is no other choice.
A CLIENT of mine, a young doctor with Kaiser called me after she had surgery and was panic-stricken and disassociating. "What's happening to me!".....
She was given post-op a newer antibiotic taken only once a day (starts with a "Z"). I told her to read the product flier and sure enough her experience was a "possible" side effect.
Well friends, her experience is way commonplace. Just trust YOURSELF. The FDA is NOT your friend.
There are people who would stab their own mother in the back for an extra penny.
They call this "cost-benefit analysis" or "market forces" or "rational self-interest";
I call it evil.
The European figured this out a while ago. They did not allow SSRI's (Zoloft, Prozac, etc) to be prescribed to children under 18. Then they raised it to 25. Now they are considering 30. I think the trend here states pretty clearly that they shouldn't be used at all unless in a clinical setting. I can tell you from personal experience and watching friends and family that they do not do what they claim.
Oh and did you know that most all of the school, mall shooters in the last 20 years were on one type of SSRI or another?
Matthew @ 16:
Adderall is an amphetamine psychostimulant. It is not an antidepressant. There is one ADHD medication that is classified as an antidepressant, and that drug is Atomoxetine. It is not very effective as an antidepressant, but it is effective for ADHD symptoms, particularly for those patients who are unable to take methylphenidate or amphetamines.
dguller @ 36:
Anti depressants are a sham. When Zoloft first came out, it was stated that it would only have to be used for 9 to 12 months, then the chemical imbalance would be corrected. Then it became you have to use this the rest of your life if you want to be happy.
We are being lied to by the pharmaceutical companies and the FDA and you will believe anything they tell you.
curtilingus @ 41:
Interesting. Do you know what doses they were on? For how long? What their compliance with medications was? Was there co-morbid substance abuse that interfered with the medications' effectiveness? Did they have psychological problems before they started medications?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are so many confounding variables in what you're describing that it is dogmatic to isolate just one factor as causative. Also, millions of people who are appropriately prescribed antidepressants are not sociopaths.
I think everyone needs to take one of each of the pharmaceuticals that are advertised on television every day for the rest of their lives in order to stay alive and be happy.
Um, this seems to be a classic "correlation-vs.-causality" mistake. Emotionally unstable people are:
1. More likely than most people to be prescribed anti-depressants
2. More likely than most people to go on shooting rampages
When you look at people who have gone on shooting rampages, of course there's going to be a strong correlation to anti-depressants: the shooters are likely emotionally unstable, and emotionally unstable people are likely to be prescribed some sort of medication. Considering how common it is to prescribe anti-depressants these days, the correlation will be a strong one. That doesn't mean that the medication 'caused' the shootings.
curtilingus @ 43:
Stick to pot.
I was on anti-depressants. Turns out I needed to change things in my life. Like taking control of it, and getting rid of bad influences around me. They did help short term. But only you are going to fix yourself long term.
Ghost Hacked @ 48:
Exactly. Antidepressants are not designed to solve all of life's problems for people who are depressed. Often, they have serious work to do with a psychotherapist or other trained professionals to help unlearn negative and destructive thoughts and behaviors that usually have contributed to their depression.
Medications are useful for people who have moderate to severe depression, because they are unable to do the work to help themselves until their mood has improved to a certain extent. That is why for severe depression, evidence shows that the best treatment is a combination of antidepressants and psychotherapy, and that for mild depression, psychotherapy is often enough.
The problem is that physicians are very busy and trained psychotherapists are in short supply, and so it becomes easy to prescribe a pill for all mood symptoms. This is inappropriate, and not what the evidence demands.
dguller@44, you said:
"Interesting. Do you know what doses they were on? For how long? What their compliance with medications was? Was there co-morbid substance abuse that interfered with the medications’ effectiveness? Did they have psychological problems before they started medications?
I guess what I’m trying to say is that there are so many confounding variables in what you’re describing that it is dogmatic to isolate just one factor as causative. Also, millions of people who are appropriately prescribed antidepressants are not sociopaths."
The most profound of curative agents: HUMAN WARMTH.
Medical Marijuana
The Drug War isn't about stopping drugs or drug use, it's about making sure all the drugs come from the right people. Always has been.
Even though it is less toxic to your body than water, the FDA classifies Cannabis as a Schedule 1 narcotic, the most dangerous class of drugs. They even include Hemp in this classification at the same time they note that hemp cannot be even be used as a drug.
There are many types and varieties of cannabis, each with their own medical benefit.
Cannabis Sativa varieties are used effectively by many patients with depression and bi-polar disorder. The "lazy stoner" phenomenon is a result of Prohibition, that limits the supply of Sativa varieties, and floods the market with Indica strains, that are good for Insomnia and muscle pain.
Currently, other countries like Israel, Spain, and the UK, have taken the lead on Cannabis research and developing new medicines from it. Israel uses it to treat their soldiers with PTSD, while the UK's GW Pharmecuticals has made a natural, non synthetic, oral spray to treat MS, and is currently testing their new diet drug made from cannabis. (anti-munchies)
But, don't take my word for it, do your own research and listen to what the Doc at GW has to say about
potCannabis:http://www.obesitydiscussion.com/forums/diet-pills/cannabis-drug-may-hel...
Since the human body has it's own Endo-Cannabinoid system, Cannabis, should be regulated as a nutritional supplement, with citizens allowed to grow their own.
Serzone and Wellbutrin every day for 5 years now. I don't like them and I don't trust them.
I lose my disability insurance if I don't follow doctors orders. I don't have a life.
crazytown @ 50:
Absolutely. Empathy and compassion are essential to any therapeutic relationship with or without medications. Studies have shown that people who do not feel a close attachment and underlying trust and respect with their physician (or therapist or other healer) will often do worse than those who do feel that. It some how enhances the placebo effect as well as improves compliance with whatever the treatment is.
my story:
i'd lost my marriage, then my dad - to emphysema - and knew i had to make a FINAL attempt to quit smoking... wellbutrin got me through it... for 6-8 months (i forget) in 01-02...
oh, and there was that september thing... how i did NOT pick up the cigs again, i don't know...
quitting smoking was the hardest thing i've ever done... but SO worth it...
wellbutrin is the same as zoloft, the smoking cessation plan drug...
no side or adverse effects, but glad i got off when i did... it was just enough... for me...
This drugged nation. Some of the illegal stuff is probably less harmful.
And to elaborate on our mis-guided "health care" - This just in:
Clowns scare kids
Anti-depressants are the clowns of medicine.
dguller @ 44:
While correlation isn't causation, the physicians have been disregarding the mounting statistics of negative reactions to the new generation of psychotropics since the '80s. The denial of the suicide statistics for Prozac that went on for almost FIFTEEN FUCKING YEARS. While some of these drugs seem to help for a while, NONE of them has long lasting positive effects. NONE. Period fucking period. Smoke two joints in the morning. Smoke two joints at night. Smoke two joints in the afternoon, it make you feel alright. Smoke two joints in times of peace and two in times of war. Smoke two joints before you smoke two joints and then smoke two more. You won't get cancer, you won't have a heart attack and you won't go shoot up the insurance office that you used to work for until your Prozac induced insanity caused them to fire you.
Recent study shows that consistent exercise is much more effective at treating depression than any modern anti depressants.
Paxil was prescribed to treat social anxiety disorder (otherwise known as being shy)
There is a black box warning on the medications you are defending stating that its use may CAUSE suicidal thoughts (which can be thoughts of murdering people as well).
It's worth listening to the europeans, and people who have taken the anti depressants. These things are dangerous and the last people who will tell you will be your doctor, pharmacist, and government.
dguller @ 53:
Now wait. Was your last sentence a clever sarcasm? I hope so!
Knockemstiff @ 52:
I hear you knockem. The people on this blog need to understand how these drug affect people. It is like an emotional limiter. Never too high, never too low or sad. It takes away your orgasm, it can keep you from properly grieving the loss a loved one.
These are a chemically induced emotional lobotomy. No one has any idea what there long term use will bring and we are bringing so many people into this experiment it scares me. What if the worst side effects are yet to be discovered?
Don't be afraid to feel life.
Life is suffering.
hey... why no post? test...
It's all about profit folks. The more drugs they sell the more money they make. It's not about quality patient care. If they actually cared about depression and anxiety they would be coaching people on lifestyle and thinking techniques to help fight depression. Of course, there are some people out there who truly need to be on these medications, but many people are started on them for a temporary fix and just like knockem says, then they get stuck on them without proper follow-up.
curtilingus @ 58:
Serazone and Seraquil are also known to cause strokes.
Ali @ 61:
Exactly. dguller needs to understand that anti depressants are physically and mentally addicting and are very difficult to get off. (Therefor the notion of a shorterm treatment is a bit of a joke and yes I know several people who have been told by their doctor, maximum dose for the rest of your life) The patient also becomes convinced that the only way they can be happy is to continue taking the pills, a huge psychological dependency.
lost in the netherland, i suppose...
my story: all at about the same time, my marriage ended, lost my dad - from emphysema - and knew i had to make a FINAL attempt to quit smoking... so i was on the welbutrin for 8-10 months (i forget) in '01-02...
oh, and there was that september thing... (i don't know how i didn't pick up the cigs again then)...
quitting smoking was the hardest thing i've ever done... welbutrin is the same as zoloft, the smoking cessation program drug...
i had no adverse or other side effects, but was glad to get off it when i did... it worked, for me...
curtilingus @ 56:
AND the europeans have quit using chlorination and fluoridation of public water supplies, Monsanto engineered (fucked) food and holding back on flower (florigens/hormones) crops and pesticides that are overwhelming bees to extinction.
We are now the dumbest, most destructive fucking country on the planet. The corporate owned US lawmakers and garroting of scientific evidence can't stop congratulating itself for it's gross ignorance.
I jumped off of my SSRI (selective seratonin reuptake inhibitor) about 3-4 months ago and
a) felt my proper sex drive return
b) have had thoughts of self-inflicted harm *vanish*
c) can't perceive any real difference in how I perceive the outside world
Obviously I'm a sample of just 1 person, but it shows that the most commonly prescribed drugs (being SSRI) don't work for everybody. On the other hand, there's this other horse pill I'm still taking called Bupropion and that one definitely helps lift me out of my doldrums.
It's your body and brain at stake. Whatever you do, don't let a general practitioner prescribe these kinds of drugs to you. See a counselor, figure out if a drug regimen is something you truly need, and take it from there. Had I done this in the first place, I would have gone from depression to normalcy in far less time.
Try Valium instead. Use it short term and you will be the same person after you stop.
Anyone else notice that the old school pharmaceuticals are better and safer? Cost less and do not have to "build up to a certain level" in your system. And it its obvious. They are not a pill you want to take for the rest of your life.
Please don't tell me they are addicting. The pharmaceuticals that have replaced them are recommended to be taken for ever. How much more addicting can you get than that?
No, Zoloft is an SSRI. Wellbutrin is the brand name for Bupropion, which is a completely different class of drug. See my post number 65 above.
katy @ 64:
The anti smoking dose is WAAAAYYYYY smaller than the anti-spasmodic dose. It takes much longer for the negative effects to make themselves manifest. If you quit it as soon as the smoking addiction is broken, you probably didn't have any negative effects. And not EVERYONE who takes these drugs has those negative effects. It's not that these drugs don't help SOMETIMES, it's that when they start you on them they tell you they work ALL the time, as long as you keep correcting the dose, or finding a slightly different formulation under a different brand name or whatthefuckever snake oil salesmen say to sell their heroin laced tonics. Frankly, I'd rather have the heroin (and I can't STAND opiates, I'd rather be in pain than nauseous. I HATE nausea.)
There are two kinds of addiction; psychological and physiological. Psychologically speaking, it's easy to convince a depressed person to take a magic pill to make it all better. At least, that was my story.
The physiological come-down from my SSRI was horrible. Imagine 8 weeks of constant dizziness and so much weird pressure in your head that you can literally hear your eyes move around in your head. Ugh.
When i was young i really enjoyed LSD. When i grew up, it turned out that i had the same issues with clinical depression that more than half of my family has had. (Now, i don't know, maybe the dosing made it worse.) Anyway, on two separate occasions i was convinced to go on a course of SSRI medication (Zoloft because it worked for my mother). The first time, i was in a bad way. It felt like i was tripping, but i couldn't be sure. I straightened out and went off the meds.
A few years later, i was in therapy...not in the worst way, but losing control of the situation and self-aware enough to see that. We decided to give Zoloft a try one more time. I monitored myself very closely. I told the therapist that from my long experience with LSD, i would describe Zoloft as the first hour or so of a trip...where things are moving from normal to abnormal. She told me i was crazy; i told her that i already knew that...it was why i was talking to her and taking the friggin' Zoloft.
Since my family's answer to any question has always been, "Look it up." That's what i did. As it turns out, the receptors affected by both LSD and SSRI's are the same. My conclusion is that the family of SSRI's are roughly equivalent to taking a very small dosage of LSD, every day. Is that good? I don't know. I don't mess with any of that stuff anymore, i figured out that adjusting my life to my brain was far more effective than adjusting my brain to my life.
curtilingus @ 66: