Re: Re: skeptical about anti-depressants

[Guest guest]

Helena,

Spot-on! I hope Kale would see your advice and take heed. Bias, based on one's belief'/conviction and experience can make a person close to other possibilities even the ones that they actually seek.

Kale should know that if he (she?) doesn't trust anything man-made then he should not take public transport or ride a car, eat bread (man-made from nature's ingredients), don't believe that the voice he hears from his mobile phone comes from a real person, that there are cancer survivors or the very reason he is alive or could walk today is because of the man-made penicilin.

KV on the other hand, is in this forum (sorry, KV) only because of his goal to promulgate his own conviction that anti-depression med is totally hocus-focus based on his OWN experience, and to take the opportunity to immidiately quash anybody's "curiosity" about it's positive (though not 100% for EVERYbody) effect.

I'm not advocating pros and cons here, but to INSIST that there's only one way thing could work is being irresponsible or still being mis-informed. This is the same with Kale's insistance that his problem is his grandma, without asking himself, "maybe it's me that's impeding the communication flow...why don't I check on myself first?" could be the actual problem. That's my take, and I may be 100% wrong so I won't ask you to take my side...

To: ACT for the Public <ACT_for_the_Public > Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 3:55 AMSubject: Re: Re: skeptical about anti-depressants

That may have been your experience, Kaivey, but it wasn't mine, and I also believe that biology MAY be a factor in depression. I think we should keep our personal stories out of any advice we are tempted to give on this public forum.

Kale, I'm sorry to say, but this is probably not something you can seek help with from the ACT forum. Every one is different and one person's need for / side effects from / experience with meds may not be yours. Find some professionals that you really trust - and that aren't just "pill pushers" - to help you make this decision and monitor you closely should you decide to try meds.

All the best,

Helena

To: "ACT for the Public" <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 1:40:24 PMSubject: Re: skeptical about anti-depressants

They only work for a few weeks, or a few months at most, and then the brain adjusts to them, after that you risk never ever be able to recover from depression again. Believe me, I know from experience. The enormous stress caused by depression makes many biological changes, but the idea that faulty biology causes depression is purely a marketing myth dreamt up by drug companies.Kv>> Ever since I started seeing my therapist earlier this year, I've been adamant about not taking any anti-depressants. But lately, I've been feeling that my problems are biological (not acceptance?) and that I should start. I scheduled an appointment with a psychiatrist, but I'm still worried and a little skeptical about

taking them. I really don't trust man-made items all too much, I'd rather put my faith into nature. Man has proven to be failures and the stem off all problems in the world today. Nothing man has made has ever survived to be more than memory, except maybe ceramic pottery, but clay is naturally from the earth so that's subjective to perception. Straight up, I don't trust man, especially when it comes to altering body chemistry. But then I look at myself and I'm already pretty self-destructive in the sense that I repress almost all emotions at all times, I have self-loathing and rage-filled episodes over really stupid stuff. The last was me getting mad at my grandma because she wouldn't answer me when I asked her how is she happy. She answered with an attack saying, "I don't need blah, blah, blah to be happy, I enjoy solitary things..." It pissed me off because after living with her for 23 years, she still hasn't opened up and I still feel a communication

barrier between us. That led to me throwing and breaking everything that touched my hands and punching holes in my door. I can't handle myself and a part of me thinks anti-depressants will help, but taking them will put me against my value of natural > man-made. I'm delusional, I know. But I'm stuck and need advice, personal experiences, etc. And how long do people usually stay on this shit. One of my main concerns is that when my medical runs out, where am I going to get my fix? My therapists said they are non-addictive kinds... wtf, bananas can be addictive. Skateboarding has proven to be addictive.>

[Guest guest]

Hi RandyI feel we pull to the extremes, and ignore the centre of the distribution who are less forceful in their views because their experience was more moderate. Yes, anti-depressants can have "massive" life-long health implications. We can focus on that if we choose. I offer the view that from the centre: they can also have relatively mild effects. Can we focus on that if we choose? Nowhere near as dramatic as the forum might suggest, and so not as appealing to the mind's love of drama and tales of catastrophe. But it is

there.On the issue of meds, the forum focuses on the polar ends, discussing the issue like tennis spectators flitting their gaze from one side to the other. I recommend to Kale and others that a focus is also given to the middle ground. It is a valid perspective too!But vive la difference, Randy!

To: ACT_for_the_Public Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2011, 23:21 Subject: Re: skeptical about anti-depressants >> Try not to let "do I take anti-depressants" become a new struggle > for you ... It really isn't anywhere near as important a question as > it is made out to be. et al,I strongly disagree. It's a massive question with potentially life-long health implications. If anyone wonders why I say this please back-channel me and I'll provide further info. We can't resolve questions about meds on this list, true. But

we oughtto refrain from erring the other way and assuming it is a non-issue.- Randy------------------------------------For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.orgIf you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may unsubscribe by sending an email to ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/<*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional<*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join (Yahoo! ID required)<*> To change settings via email: ACT_for_the_Public-digest ACT_for_the_Public-fullfeatured <*>

[Guest guest]

I agree with you heartily, . Our minds love horror stories, but a horror story is not always the inevitable end, even if we eat sugar or hold cell phones close to our ears. Moderation is key when is comes to anything we consume. Life is all about taking risks and weighing the benefits against those risks - which can be a formidable task when one is in the midst of heavy-duty depression or anxiety. But it must be done. Only then can we make a decision and modify that choice in the future, based on the outcome. Input from ONLY those with bad experiences is not the whole story but should be considered, of course.

I would add that finding trustworthy professionals to assist and monitor any course of medications is also of utmost importance. That can be difficult (finding such a person), but it can be done. You are in the drivers seat and can fire any doctor who wants to push something on you as THE best or only remedy or cure. There is no such thing. And nothing can replace the work and practice of learning to live in the present moment and making room for what is.

Helena

From: " Robson" <oscar.robsonyahoo (DOT) co.uk>To: "ACT for the Public" <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 5:07:18 AMSubject: Re: Re: skeptical about anti-depressants

Hi Randy

I feel we pull to the extremes, and ignore the centre of the distribution who are less forceful in their views because their experience was more moderate.

Yes, anti-depressants can have "massive" life-long health implications. We can focus on that if we choose. I offer the view that from the centre: they can also have relatively mild effects. Can we focus on that if we choose? Nowhere near as dramatic as the forum might suggest, and so not as appealing to the mind's love of drama and tales of catastrophe.

But it is there.

On the issue of meds, the forum focuses on the polar ends, discussing the issue like tennis spectators flitting their gaze from one side to the other. I recommend to Kale and others that a focus is also given to the middle ground. It is a valid perspective too!

But vive la difference, Randy!

To: ACT_for_the_Public Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2011, 23:21Subject: Re: skeptical about anti-depressants>> Try not to let "do I take anti-depressants" become a new struggle > for you ... It really isn't anywhere near as important a question as > it is made out to be. et al,I strongly disagree. It's a massive question with potentially life-long health implications. If anyone wonders why I say this please back-channel me and I'll provide further info. We can't resolve questions about meds on this list, true. But we oughtto refrain from erring the other way and assuming it is a non-issue.- Randy------------------------------------For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.orgIf you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may unsubscribe by sending an email to ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe

[Guest guest]

Anecdotal experience is part of what forms individual opinions. Whether it comes from me or or Kaivey or you, it is all anecdotal and it is all valid, but it doesn't prove a darn thing; anecdotes do not constitute evidence. I think was simply (and wisely) pointing out that there is a middle ground which is also worth considering. I don't sense that he was trying to persuade anyone with personal anecdotes, as some do on this topic.

Helena

To: "ACT for the Public" <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 5:42:01 AMSubject: Re: skeptical about anti-depressants

>> On the issue of meds, the forum focuses on the polar ends, discussing > the issue like tennis spectators flitting their gaze from one side to the other. > I recommend to Kale and others that a focus is also given to the middle > ground. It is a valid perspective too!,What you're citing is your anecdotal experience. Often that isgood evidence - but perhaps not in this case. If you are curious as to why I say this, you can read a VERY long blog post of mine - it is in 3 parts, and you will have to read all the way to part 3 tofind what I am referring to:http://wp.me/p1HoMM-dGIt really is a topic that rewards reading up on. And I apologize ifI seem contentious or out of place. - Randy

[Guest guest]

I meant valid in the sense of acknowledging the person's experience - not valid in the sense of proof or evidence, although anecdotes can be valuable (and can also mislead). And yes, read Randy's blog. I did and it's well worth the effort!

To: "ACT for the Public" <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 6:03:07 AMSubject: Re: skeptical about anti-depressants

>> . . . it is all anecdotal and it is all valid . . . That is exactly the view I am questioning in my blog piece - thepart 3 I mentioned to . Again, I don't want to prolong thedebate, but I do want to encourage folks to read up on the issue if they are curious or concerned. - R.

[Guest guest]

Hiya

I suggest only that people might have very good or very bad reactions to medications, or something more moderate, mild or even indifferent. My point is that there is a spectrum of possible consequences: not two ("great" or "catastrophic").

My advice is that - in any situation, in any decision - if you believe instead that "great" or "catastrophic" are the only

possible outcomes, then the decision suddenly becomes an "all-or-bust" roll of the dice. Understandably, your mind will more easily freak in that situation and get stuck on the decision. I felt Kale had walked into an "all-or-bust" frame of mind, whereas they are just end-points of a continuum of possible consequences.I hope this clarifies - I feel we are trying to look too hard for disagreement, and I certainly don't seek to tell anyone how they will react to any medication!

x

To: ACT_for_the_Public Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011, 10:42 Subject: Re: skeptical about anti-depressants >> On the issue of meds, the forum focuses on the polar ends, discussing > the issue like tennis spectators flitting their gaze from one

side to the other. > I recommend to Kale and others that a focus is also given to the middle > ground. It is a valid perspective too!,What you're citing is your anecdotal experience. Often that isgood evidence - but perhaps not in this case. If you are curious as to why I say this, you can read a VERY long blog post of mine - it is in 3 parts, and you will have to read all the way to part 3 tofind what I am referring to:http://wp.me/p1HoMM-dGIt really is a topic that rewards reading up on. And I apologize ifI seem contentious or out of place. - Randy------------------------------------For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.orgIf you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may unsubscribe by sending an email to ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/<*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional<*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join (Yahoo! ID required)<*> To change settings via email: ACT_for_the_Public-digest

ACT_for_the_Public-fullfeatured <*>

[Guest guest]

Randy, I'm offering this as an interesting side point and not to be contentious, not at all! I re-read the last page of your blog in which you say "Also useful about these accounts is how Whitaker later in the book is able to return to each person and show how their experience jibes with the long-term outcome data. Your own experience may be positive or negative, but you cannot really point to that experience as proof of any sort." Those two sentences seem to contradict each others, IMO.

Whitaker is using anecdotes from the accounts of four people (the "accounts" you mention above) to support his position - "their experience jibes with the long-term outcome data." Why mention that their experience jibes with the outcome data if his view is that anecdotal experience is not reliable evidence? I don't see how you can have it both ways. Perhaps I misread or misunderstood your (or his) point. OK, I can see how saying "jibes with" is not saying "proves" but to use anecdotes to shore up his position seems a bit hypocritical from an "anecdotes are not proof" point of view.

Here's my point: Every one of us uses whatever information we have at our disposal to shore up, or detract from, a particular, personal point of view, which is cherished and carefully honed over years of living and observing. It's a human thing. The key is to be aware of that and try to remain open to possibilities that don't necessarily support one's viewpoint or opinion. Keep an open mind, but don't let your brains fall out. Even science is full of opinions and very little proof of anything. It's just that scientists, because of their training in logic, are more likely than most to discount factors that have no bearing on the truth, but even they don't do it always (they are human, also).

Helena

To: "ACT for the Public" <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 7:33:34 AMSubject: Re: Re: skeptical about anti-depressants

Hiya

I suggest only that people might have very good or very bad reactions to medications, or something more moderate, mild or even indifferent. My point is that there is a spectrum of possible consequences: not two ("great" or "catastrophic").

My advice is that - in any situation, in any decision - if you believe instead that "great" or "catastrophic" are the only possible outcomes, then the decision suddenly becomes an "all-or-bust" roll of the dice. Understandably, your mind will more easily freak in that situation and get stuck on the decision.

I felt Kale had walked into an "all-or-bust" frame of mind, whereas they are just end-points of a continuum of possible consequences.

I hope this clarifies - I feel we are trying to look too hard for disagreement, and I certainly don't seek to tell anyone how they will react to any medication!

x

To: ACT_for_the_Public Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011, 10:42Subject: Re: skeptical about anti-depressants>> On the issue of meds, the forum focuses on the polar ends, discussing > the issue like tennis spectators flitting their gaze from one side to the other. > I recommend to Kale and others that a focus is also given to the middle > ground. It is a valid perspective too!,What you're citing is your anecdotal experience. Often that isgood evidence - but perhaps not in this case. If you are curious as to why I say this, you can read a VERY long blog post of mine - it is in 3 parts, and you will have to read all the way to part 3 tofind what I am referring to:http://wp.me/p1HoMM-dGIt really is a topic that rewards reading up on. And I apologize ifI seem contentious or out of place. - Randy------------------------------------For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.orgIf you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may unsubscribe by sending an email to ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/<*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional<*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join (Yahoo! ID required)<*> To change settings via email: ACT_for_the_Public-digest ACT_for_the_Public-fullfeatured <*>

[Guest guest]

Hi SimoneMy family doctor gave me a prescription for 30 Valium tablets when I had my anxiety flair-up several years ago. I was very afraid of becoming addicted and only took four over a period of a month. The simple fact that I had them gave me great comfort. I've carried that pill bottle all over the world, just in case. I looked inside it a couple of weeks ago on our latest trip and found all but one lone pill had turned to Valium dust. I almost flushed it but decided to keep it, kind of like my favorite shirt that is really too frayed to wear but comforting to have in the closet. I heard recently that a local psychiatrist is recommending ACT instead of medications for depression. And your statement "And sometimes I think the more reading and researching we do, the more lost inside our head we become" is so true. I find I have "moments of truth when I come face-to-face with a scary story or ugly feeling. In that moment I can use ACT and keep moving or think about using ACT get stuck.It's Thanksgiving Day here in the US. I'm thankful for all of my ACT friends around the world and wish you all well.BillTo: ACT_for_the_Public From: adrianandboo@...Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:55:44 +0000Subject: Re: Re: skeptical about anti-depressants

Hi Helena,

I am with and you on this topic. Everyone's experience is so individual - no one person can possibly give a definitive solution to this dilemma. And sometimes I think the more reading and researching we do, the more lost inside our head we become. (Trust me, I know from experience!)

I took those Beta Blockers with great reluctance - and I am sure that they helped. I've stopped taking them now as I feel that I don't need them on a daily basis. ( Just depends on what I do on any given day!) But on the other hand.....at the moment I am mulling on what to do - so am finding all the med talk interesting- although ultimately there is no answer other than that of experience, and 'what works', for the individual. Everyone must assess the risk and benefits as related to their own personal medical and pyscological history and then simple make a choice and run with it. Nothing is set in stone.

Simone

To: ACT for the Public <ACT_for_the_Public > Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011, 11:20Subject: Re: Re: skeptical about anti-depressants

"It is one thing to relate our personal experience, another to assume that this generalizes into a meaningful risk assessment."True. I don't think anyone here has said that taking meds wasn't risky, or because it didn't result in a bad outcome for me, your outcome will be good, too. But the opposite has been said and strongly implied: I had a seriously bad outcome and you will, too. I'm not saying that viewpoint came from you, Randy, and I strongly recommend that people read your blog on this topic.

I had a choice about which antidepressants I took, the dose, the length of time, etc. I had a choice because I owned making that choice. I refused certain meds, insisted on close monitoring, quickly stopped those that were problematic, and did my research every step of the way. In that sense, I took charge of the consequences to the best of my ability. And at all times, I knew meds were not the final answer and were just a temporary adjunct to help me get some traction in my life by relieving some of the pain. I don't think you have to roll over and just let the doctor make all the decisions and let the consequences occur as they may.

By the way, I am now free of meds (as of last month). I am able to live my life fully without them, thanks to ACT. It took a couple years to "get it", but was so worth the effort. So I say to Kale, Neil, and all my friends here: Don't give up.

Helena

To: "ACT for the Public" <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 5:59:13 AMSubject: Re: skeptical about anti-depressants

>> In this case we're not talking about a spectrum of opinions > so much as a spectrum of consequences, and some of those > consequences are severe . . . it's not as if someone deciding > to take antidepressants has a choice as to which end of the > spectrum *their* consequences will fall. These are two brilliant points. You cannot advise someonethat a risky option is not really that risky based simply onyour own outcome. As a comparison, there was discussion on the list awhile back about beta blockers. I was curious enough to look up the risks of that particular drug class, and did not find anything

alarming - there are particular risks for folks with existing conditions, but apparently nothing more. My point is that if someone had merely said, "I had a great experience with beta blockers, therefore youneed not worry about whether they are safe," that wouldn't havebeen good advice. It is one thing to relate our personal experience,another to assume that this generalizes into a meaningful risk assessment. - R.

[Guest guest]

We have all posted on this thread because we each thought we had something important to say, or to add; convention be damned. I never heard anyone here say, or even imply, "Oh, meds, no big deal" however. Never.

To: "ACT for the Public" <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 10:08:02 AMSubject: Re: skeptical about anti-depressants

I should add that all of the below is only in regards to individualshaving apparently positive outcomes. Regarding outcomes ingeneral, the data is again quite clear that people with the samediagnosis do better without going on psychiatric meds than ifthey do go on them.And that's the last bit I'll post in this thread. I apologize forignoring the convention of the list not to get embroiled inthe pros and cons of meds. My main concern has been thatwe avoid accidentally making it seem like "Oh, meds, no bigdeal" when maybe it is a big deal. - R. > > > > I re-read the last page of your blog in which you say "Also > > useful about these accounts is how Whitaker later in the book > > is able to return to each person and show how their experience > > jibes with the long-term outcome data. Your own experience > > may be positive or negative, but you cannot really point to > > that experience as proof of any sort." Those two sentences > > seem to contradict each other. > > It's not the clearest writing, I agree. Rewording would make it> clearer that the apparently positive experiences are in particular> are problematic. Basically what I'm saying is, the research cited> by Whitaker shows that it's possible to have different individual> experiences with psychiatric meds, without these experiences> violating the fundamental paradigm he's describing: that it is> impossible to know whether the drug actually helped you. > > The problem involves at least four aspects:> > 1) Many mental illnesses - even supposedly intractable ones such> as schizophrenia - can remit on their own, i.e. you get better> without taking a drug or therapy or what have you. This is > especially true in supportive community settings versus horror> shows like many psychiatric wards. Remission of this sort was > well-known prior to the psychopharmaceutical era and data shows> it is still the case in countries where meds are not prescribed so> heavily. Thus, if you take a med and get better, you can't assume> it was the med - you might very well have gotten better anyway. > > 2) The supposed mechanisms by which psychiatric meds "work"> have been shown to be false. We are at the point now > where pro-med researchers admit this, even as advertising> campaigns for meds continue to promote the discredited > mechanisms. Also, it's been clearly shown that meds disrupt > rather than enhance brain function, but you'd never know it from> the advertising. And the advertising (which is repeated by> GPs who know nothing about meds but often prescribe them)> is what people remember and believe explains a drug "helping"> them. Yet where does a false explanation leave you as an individual > having to decide whether to take or stay on a drug? I'd say not > in a very good place. > > 3) The placebo effect is massive for antidepressants and is> capable of piercing the so-called "double blind" tests. The> drug companies are privately alarmed by this - but again it's> not something you'll hear via their advertising. For an individual,> the problem is you have no way of knowing whether your> initial positive response was placebo-driven or not. And once> you're on the med for a while typically an initial positive> response tapers off, leaving you wondering what to do. > > 4) More and more evidence shows that psychiatric meds,> since they interfere with normal brain function, can make> people dependent on them. A classic example is with> antidepressants. So when people say "I know my meds are> working, because if I go off them for any period of time,> I get depressed again," it seems quite possible this is> an effect of the medication rather than the reappearance> of a true disease state. And again, as an individual, how> could you possibly know? > > There's more, but these four factors alone are enough to> create a big problem. Human beings are bad at figuring out> causation to start with - and when you fuzz up the picture> like this, we're very apt to get it wrong. > > It's not comforting, I know. But at a certain point the> responsible thing for society to do is to begin to acknowledge> these issues rather than allow enormously large and profitable> companies to push data under the rug, continue to bribe> doctors and misshape university research, etc. It's large> scale damage that goes beyond you and me. > > ACT isn't by itself opposed or in favor of medication. But> many researchers and therapists within the ACT community> are alarmed at the way big pharma has pushed these kinds> of drugs on us - including on kids, who are most at risk> of being damaged by them. > > - Randy>

[Guest guest]

Randy,First, let me clarify that I did not mean to make light of the examples I used, but rather the opposite: I intended to emphasize the inescapable reality of risk. Forgive me if I sounded in any way like I was minimizing these concerns.Secondly, I agree with you in this: "So what I take away from this is that fusion or worry about a concern does not necessarily mean it's not a legitimate concern; and that ACT can help us defuse to the extent we can now make choices rather than feel frozen around an issue." in fact, I compliment you in that it was well said!Thirdly, I would like to add the ever-controversial perspective that death is OK. Not welcomed, perhaps, and not without grief and adjustment, but OK because it is part of reality. And even thou my statement may sound ridiculously out of context, I make it because it is always where >>I<< end up when I contemplate these issues. That problem-solving, symbol-based mind of mine is always trying to desperately warn me of risks because, it seems to me, it is desperately concerned that I stay alive. Forever. Right there, the evidence incontrovertibly convinces me it is working on a false and very biased premise, and thus all these screams of doom should be taken with again if salt....Lastly, please forgive any offense this post may bring. I meant none, but these are sensitive topics. has a weighty choice to make, and he needs to be cheered for facing it. That instant when one's attention is squarely turned to reality in pursuit of a life worth living is perhaps the most defining moment in any of our lives.D

>

> Kale, you are too late, man. I can give you a link

> to an article about the addictive qualities of refined sugar,

> hook you up with proponents for the horrors of fluoride,

> or with information about the brain-destroying properties of

> cell phones. Reality is a very chaotic and unsafe place

> we have only the choice of which risks we take, not living

> free of them.

Darrell,

The flip side of your list of risks here is indeed the

part where we get to choose, yes?

What I mean is, two of the three risks here are real

public health risks, not just obsessions.

I.e. new research apparently shows that cell phones

really *are* health risks if held next to the head when

used. Hence all those people who now use those little

headphone/mic sets are doing something sensible. I don't

use such a headphone/mic set myself, but I can understand

why some people do.

And refined sugar is a real health risk. I am eating

very little sugar these days as part of my own diet

effort. Other people I know are doing the same.

So what I take away from this is that fusion or worry

about a concern does not necessarily mean it's not a

legitimate concern; and that ACT can help us defuse

to the extent we can now make choices rather than

feel frozen around an issue. My own view is that a

concern about technology risks (i.e. "manmade" vs.

natural) may be very much connected to a person's

values, once fusion around that concern is seen for

what it is.

- Randy

[Guest guest]

Good points, . Sometimes the more dramatic potential side effects of the anti-psychotics get generalized to everything, too.D

Hi RandyI feel we pull to the extremes, and ignore the centre of the distribution who are less forceful in their views because their experience was more moderate. Yes, anti-depressants can have "massive" life-long health implications. We can focus on that if we choose. I offer the view that from the centre: they can also have relatively mild effects. Can we focus on that if we choose? Nowhere near as dramatic as the forum might suggest, and so not as appealing to the mind's love of drama and tales of catastrophe. But it is

there.On the issue of meds, the forum focuses on the polar ends, discussing the issue like tennis spectators flitting their gaze from one side to the other. I recommend to Kale and others that a focus is also given to the middle ground. It is a valid perspective too!But vive la difference, Randy!

To: ACT_for_the_Public Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2011, 23:21 Subject: Re: skeptical about anti-depressants >> Try not to let "do I take anti-depressants" become a new struggle > for you ... It really isn't anywhere near as important a question as > it is made out to be. et al,I strongly disagree. It's a massive question with potentially life-long health implications. If anyone wonders why I say this please back-channel me and I'll provide further info. We can't resolve questions about meds on this list, true. But

we oughtto refrain from erring the other way and assuming it is a non-issue.- Randy------------------------------------For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.orgIf you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may unsubscribe by sending an email to ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/<*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional<*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join (Yahoo! ID required)<*> To change settings via email: ACT_for_the_Public-digest ACT_for_the_Public-fullfeatured <*>

[Guest guest]

Exactly, Helena. Well said.

D

> Moderation is key when is comes to anything we consume.

[Guest guest]

Great points, Randy. It is interesting that conditions such as schizophrenia are diagnosed primarily by behaviors and self-reports. I am not psychotic if I do not behave in a delusional or disorganized manner, or report any hallucinations.I remember searching the living room three times core the TV remote, finding it on the third pass sitting exactly where it should be, in plain sight. The human mind exhibits many behaviors which are not aligned with reality, suggesting a continuum of delusion and illusion. My point with this is that I see such conditions as constantly moving sliders on a continuum of human potential we all share. Some folks slide up and down pretty actively and it can be hard to keep up with that, especially when using meds that require titration to ease changes to therapeutic levels.I have seen people use meds successfully to pursue lives they valued. Looking at the facts, though, it is very obvious meds are not a fire-and-forget cure, is only because there is nothing static and concrete to shoot at!D <-- irreverent psych nurse

>

> I re-read the last page of your blog in which you say "Also

> useful about these accounts is how Whitaker later in the book

> is able to return to each person and show how their experience

> jibes with the long-term outcome data. Your own experience

> may be positive or negative, but you cannot really point to

> that experience as proof of any sort." Those two sentences

> seem to contradict each other.

It's not the clearest writing, I agree. Rewording would make it

clearer that the apparently positive experiences are in particular

are problematic. Basically what I'm saying is, the research cited

by Whitaker shows that it's possible to have different individual

experiences with psychiatric meds, without these experiences

violating the fundamental paradigm he's describing: that it is

impossible to know whether the drug actually helped you.

The problem involves at least four aspects:

1) Many mental illnesses - even supposedly intractable ones such

as schizophrenia - can remit on their own, i.e. you get better

without taking a drug or therapy or what have you. This is

especially true in supportive community settings versus horror

shows like many psychiatric wards. Remission of this sort was

well-known prior to the psychopharmaceutical era and data shows

it is still the case in countries where meds are not prescribed so

heavily. Thus, if you take a med and get better, you can't assume

it was the med - you might very well have gotten better anyway.

2) The supposed mechanisms by which psychiatric meds "work"

have been shown to be false. We are at the point now

where pro-med researchers admit this, even as advertising

campaigns for meds continue to promote the discredited

mechanisms. Also, it's been clearly shown that meds disrupt

rather than enhance brain function, but you'd never know it from

the advertising. And the advertising (which is repeated by

GPs who know nothing about meds but often prescribe them)

is what people remember and believe explains a drug "helping"

them. Yet where does a false explanation leave you as an individual

having to decide whether to take or stay on a drug? I'd say not

in a very good place.

3) The placebo effect is massive for antidepressants and is

capable of piercing the so-called "double blind" tests. The

drug companies are privately alarmed by this - but again it's

not something you'll hear via their advertising. For an individual,

the problem is you have no way of knowing whether your

initial positive response was placebo-driven or not. And once

you're on the med for a while typically an initial positive

response tapers off, leaving you wondering what to do.

4) More and more evidence shows that psychiatric meds,

since they interfere with normal brain function, can make

people dependent on them. A classic example is with

antidepressants. So when people say "I know my meds are

working, because if I go off them for any period of time,

I get depressed again," it seems quite possible this is

an effect of the medication rather than the reappearance

of a true disease state. And again, as an individual, how

could you possibly know?

There's more, but these four factors alone are enough to

create a big problem. Human beings are bad at figuring out

causation to start with - and when you fuzz up the picture

like this, we're very apt to get it wrong.

It's not comforting, I know. But at a certain point the

responsible thing for society to do is to begin to acknowledge

these issues rather than allow enormously large and profitable

companies to push data under the rug, continue to bribe

doctors and misshape university research, etc. It's large

scale damage that goes beyond you and me.

ACT isn't by itself opposed or in favor of medication. But

many researchers and therapists within the ACT community

are alarmed at the way big pharma has pushed these kinds

of drugs on us - including on kids, who are most at risk

of being damaged by them.

- Randy

[Guest guest]

WHAT IS "FALLING IN LOVE?"

To: "ACT for the Public" <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 1:54:59 PMSubject: Re: skeptical about anti-depressants

I believe that most people can in time heal sufficiently from antidepresant damage and live healthy lives again, but it takes time. Although PSSD seems to be particularly hard to overcome, I still hang to the hope that I will one day recover too as I heal from my lifetime trauma. The brain can regrow and repair itself but stress, and depression, stops this from occuring and I have posted much about this here. Plenty of exercise, falling in love, having close friends, enjoying hobbies, healthy food, and just getting back into life may, hopefully and eventually, mend my brain.Kv > > > > In this case we're not talking about a spectrum of opinions > > so much as a spectrum of consequences, and some of those > > consequences are severe . . . it's not as if someone deciding > > to take antidepressants has a choice as to which end of the > > spectrum *their* consequences will fall. > > These are two brilliant points. You cannot advise someone > that a risky option is not really that risky based simply on > your own outcome. > > As a comparison, there was discussion on the list awhile back > about beta blockers. I was curious enough to look up the risks > of that particular drug class, and did not find anything alarming - > there are particular risks for folks with existing conditions, but > apparently nothing more. My point is that if someone had merely > said, "I had a great experience with beta blockers, therefore you > need not worry about whether they are safe," that wouldn't have > been good advice. It is one thing to relate our personal experience, > another to assume that this generalizes into a meaningful risk > assessment. > > - R.>

[Guest guest]

I think this regime may help with other forms of recovery as well!D

I believe that most people can in time heal sufficiently from antidepresant damage and live healthy lives again, but it takes time.

Although PSSD seems to be particularly hard to overcome, I still hang to the hope that I will one day recover too as I heal from my lifetime trauma. The brain can regrow and repair itself but stress, and depression, stops this from occuring and I have posted much about this here. Plenty of exercise, falling in love, having close friends, enjoying hobbies, healthy food, and just getting back into life may, hopefully and eventually, mend my brain.

Kv

> >

> > In this case we're not talking about a spectrum of opinions

> > so much as a spectrum of consequences, and some of those

> > consequences are severe . . . it's not as if someone deciding

> > to take antidepressants has a choice as to which end of the

> > spectrum *their* consequences will fall.

>

> These are two brilliant points. You cannot advise someone

> that a risky option is not really that risky based simply on

> your own outcome.

>

> As a comparison, there was discussion on the list awhile back

> about beta blockers. I was curious enough to look up the risks

> of that particular drug class, and did not find anything alarming -

> there are particular risks for folks with existing conditions, but

> apparently nothing more. My point is that if someone had merely

> said, "I had a great experience with beta blockers, therefore you

> need not worry about whether they are safe," that wouldn't have

> been good advice. It is one thing to relate our personal experience,

> another to assume that this generalizes into a meaningful risk

> assessment.

>

> - R.

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Helena. I don't post as a separate conceptual category labeled "professional", and I suspect many others don't, either. I just post as another person interested in sharing opinions, which is likely why the list works so well.One of the attractions ACT hold for me is that it does not place diagnoses between people. Just people working to make their way in life. To me, this is a more realistic approach! Perhaps this is what you sense and why it is so difficult to tease out who is who here...?DThe mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven. - Milton

Just want to say, Darrell, that of all the "professionals" who post here, you seem very down-to-earth and straight-forward. I put professionals in quotes because I often don't know who is or isn't a professional, and it often doesn't matter to me. I am glad you are here. This post, in particular, has been eye-opening. Thank you for being who you are and for sharing your selfness with us.

Helena

To: "ACT for the Public" <ACT_for_the_Public >Cc: "ACT for the Public" <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 12:34:33 PMSubject: Re: Re: skeptical about anti-depressants

I have seen a lot, Lou. And I have to wonder about isolating, although it can be an effective strategy. As anyone who has ever watched a werewolf movie can testify, though, there is always a chance that your isolation will fail at the wrong moment!

I feel sadness that folks would feel the need to isolate for fear of consequences related to revealing the presence of psychosis or similar experiences. It is sort of counterproductive to seeking a valued life! Of course, I tend to be less startled by such behaviors than most.

This is, to me, one of the potential benefits mindfulness may offer psychiatry: that folks may become aware of their own ability to integrate their own reality with the social requirements of people around them and thus clarify the benefits of medications. It would be a lot easier to work as a healing or coaching partner with someone if there was room for that person's unique worldview in the relationship!

D

That is a given truth Darrell,You said..."It is interesting that conditions such as schizophrenia are diagnosed primarily by behaviors and self-reports. I am not psychotic if I do not behave in a delusional or disorganized manner, or report any hallucinations".I would add that when I feel an episode approaching, the above is only effective if I isolate myself. No witnesses then. Noone to contradict my self reports.(You must have seen and experienced a lot of implications in relation to medications being a psych nurse).Lou> > > > > > I re-read the last page of your blog in which you say "Also > > > useful about these accounts is how Whitaker later in the book > > > is able to return to each person and show how their experience > > > jibes with the long-term outcome data. Your own experience > > > may be positive or negative, but you cannot really point to > > > that experience as proof of any sort." Those two sentences > > > seem to contradict each other. > > > > It's not the clearest writing, I agree. Rewording would make it> > clearer that the apparently positive experiences are in particular> > are problematic. Basically what I'm saying is, the research cited> > by Whitaker shows that it's possible to have different individual> > experiences with psychiatric meds, without these experiences> > violating the fundamental paradigm he's describing: that it is> > impossible to know whether the drug actually helped you. > > > > The problem involves at least four aspects:> > > > 1) Many mental illnesses - even supposedly intractable ones such> > as schizophrenia - can remit on their own, i.e. you get better> > without taking a drug or therapy or what have you. This is > > especially true in supportive community settings versus horror> > shows like many psychiatric wards. Remission of this sort was > > well-known prior to the psychopharmaceutical era and data shows> > it is still the case in countries where meds are not prescribed so> > heavily. Thus, if you take a med and get better, you can't assume> > it was the med - you might very well have gotten better anyway. > > > > 2) The supposed mechanisms by which psychiatric meds "work"> > have been shown to be false. We are at the point now > > where pro-med researchers admit this, even as advertising> > campaigns for meds continue to promote the discredited > > mechanisms. Also, it's been clearly shown that meds disrupt > > rather than enhance brain function, but you'd never know it from> > the advertising. And the advertising (which is repeated by> > GPs who know nothing about meds but often prescribe them)> > is what people remember and believe explains a drug "helping"> > them. Yet where does a false explanation leave you as an individual > > having to decide whether to take or stay on a drug? I'd say not > > in a very good place. > > > > 3) The placebo effect is massive for antidepressants and is> > capable of piercing the so-called "double blind" tests. The> > drug companies are privately alarmed by this - but again it's> > not something you'll hear via their advertising. For an individual,> > the problem is you have no way of knowing whether your> > initial positive response was placebo-driven or not. And once> > you're on the med for a while typically an initial positive> > response tapers off, leaving you wondering what to do. > > > > 4) More and more evidence shows that psychiatric meds,> > since they interfere with normal brain function, can make> > people dependent on them. A classic example is with> > antidepressants. So when people say "I know my meds are> > working, because if I go off them for any period of time,> > I get depressed again," it seems quite possible this is> > an effect of the medication rather than the reappearance> > of a true disease state. And again, as an individual, how> > could you possibly know? > > > > There's more, but these four factors alone are enough to> > create a big problem. Human beings are bad at figuring out> > causation to start with - and when you fuzz up the picture> > like this, we're very apt to get it wrong. > > > > It's not comforting, I know. But at a certain point the> > responsible thing for society to do is to begin to acknowledge> > these issues rather than allow enormously large and profitable> > companies to push data under the rug, continue to bribe> > doctors and misshape university research, etc. It's large> > scale damage that goes beyond you and me. > > > > ACT isn't by itself opposed or in favor of medication. But> > many researchers and therapists within the ACT community> > are alarmed at the way big pharma has pushed these kinds> > of drugs on us - including on kids, who are most at risk> > of being damaged by them. > > > > - Randy> > > >>

[Guest guest]

Nicely put, Lou!D

Hi Darrell,

It was the ACT people who gave me permission, (kind of), to practice isolation as needed. calls it 'Sitting on his hands', I call them my 'Nothing' days. The pervasive theme is to be still, to not cause damage. This gives me the space to cry if I need to, sleep or meditate and not be conflicted with thoughts that I 'should' be doing something. It takes away the guilt and as the feeling always passes, there are no consequences without witnesses.

It can work towards a vital life, if practiced as needed rather than perpetually.

Lou :-)

> > > > >

> > > > > I re-read the last page of your blog in which you say "Also

> > > > > useful about these accounts is how Whitaker later in the book

> > > > > is able to return to each person and show how their experience

> > > > > jibes with the long-term outcome data. Your own experience

> > > > > may be positive or negative, but you cannot really point to

> > > > > that experience as proof of any sort." Those two sentences

> > > > > seem to contradict each other.

> > > >

> > > > It's not the clearest writing, I agree. Rewording would make it

> > > > clearer that the apparently positive experiences are in particular

> > > > are problematic. Basically what I'm saying is, the research cited

> > > > by Whitaker shows that it's possible to have different individual

> > > > experiences with psychiatric meds, without these experiences

> > > > violating the fundamental paradigm he's describing: that it is

> > > > impossible to know whether the drug actually helped you.

> > > >

> > > > The problem involves at least four aspects:

> > > >

> > > > 1) Many mental illnesses - even supposedly intractable ones such

> > > > as schizophrenia - can remit on their own, i.e. you get better

> > > > without taking a drug or therapy or what have you. This is

> > > > especially true in supportive community settings versus horror

> > > > shows like many psychiatric wards. Remission of this sort was

> > > > well-known prior to the psychopharmaceutical era and data shows

> > > > it is still the case in countries where meds are not prescribed so

> > > > heavily. Thus, if you take a med and get better, you can't assume

> > > > it was the med - you might very well have gotten better anyway.

> > > >

> > > > 2) The supposed mechanisms by which psychiatric meds "work"

> > > > have been shown to be false. We are at the point now

> > > > where pro-med researchers admit this, even as advertising

> > > > campaigns for meds continue to promote the discredited

> > > > mechanisms. Also, it's been clearly shown that meds disrupt

> > > > rather than enhance brain function, but you'd never know it from

> > > > the advertising. And the advertising (which is repeated by

> > > > GPs who know nothing about meds but often prescribe them)

> > > > is what people remember and believe explains a drug "helping"

> > > > them. Yet where does a false explanation leave you as an individual

> > > > having to decide whether to take or stay on a drug? I'd say not

> > > > in a very good place.

> > > >

> > > > 3) The placebo effect is massive for antidepressants and is

> > > > capable of piercing the so-called "double blind" tests. The

> > > > drug companies are privately alarmed by this - but again it's

> > > > not something you'll hear via their advertising. For an individual,

> > > > the problem is you have no way of knowing whether your

> > > > initial positive response was placebo-driven or not. And once

> > > > you're on the med for a while typically an initial positive

> > > > response tapers off, leaving you wondering what to do.

> > > >

> > > > 4) More and more evidence shows that psychiatric meds,

> > > > since they interfere with normal brain function, can make

> > > > people dependent on them. A classic example is with

> > > > antidepressants. So when people say "I know my meds are

> > > > working, because if I go off them for any period of time,

> > > > I get depressed again," it seems quite possible this is

> > > > an effect of the medication rather than the reappearance

> > > > of a true disease state. And again, as an individual, how

> > > > could you possibly know?

> > > >

> > > > There's more, but these four factors alone are enough to

> > > > create a big problem. Human beings are bad at figuring out

> > > > causation to start with - and when you fuzz up the picture

> > > > like this, we're very apt to get it wrong.

> > > >

> > > > It's not comforting, I know. But at a certain point the

> > > > responsible thing for society to do is to begin to acknowledge

> > > > these issues rather than allow enormously large and profitable

> > > > companies to push data under the rug, continue to bribe

> > > > doctors and misshape university research, etc. It's large

> > > > scale damage that goes beyond you and me.

> > > >

> > > > ACT isn't by itself opposed or in favor of medication. But

> > > > many researchers and therapists within the ACT community

> > > > are alarmed at the way big pharma has pushed these kinds

> > > > of drugs on us - including on kids, who are most at risk

> > > > of being damaged by them.

> > > >

> > > > - Randy

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

>