Re: anti-deps - Just May be an Unpopular View -

[Guest guest]

Hey Pete:

This is my first go around at inserting my comments throughout an email so

please be patient with me if it doesn't work out the way I intended.

(Outlook express is better than Outlook full version in that respect)

I've sort of gone all over the place with the response but I'm too tired to

make it more coherent just now.

Hi

" hector arroyo " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start502

> Paxil:

>

> I haven't met anyone who was better off on it than on something else.

Allow me to introduce myself.....I did much better on Paxil than Prozac.

Only problem was loss of sex drive, a common problem with both drugs.

Glad to meet you. It's interesting that you referred to the sex drive issue

as a common problem. I don't disagree with you here, however the

indications for Prozac don't agree with either of us in favor of blanket

statement of, I believe no more than 2 to 3 percent of people who take it

may suffer from it.

> The

> positive effects of moving from Paxil to Prozac, in the three

separate cases

> I've seen, were almost immediate and sustained.

The effect of small sample size . In fact Paxil is known to be one of

the mos well-tolerated of anti-deps in general, with most pplhaving few

side-efects.

Admittedly it's a small sample group that's why I was so careful in the way

I qualified it.

>

Careful here . This is most definitely not associated with ALL

antidepressants. Concern has been raised about possible increase in

suicidality with Prozac, but I know of no other anti-dep where this is the

case. Typically clinical trials show in general much reduction in the

suicidality of ppl on them. It also needs to be remembered that ppl are

often more at risk of suicide when their depression is lifting, as they have

the energy to do it, which they may lack when very severely depressed.

hence an increase in suicide risk does not in fact, equate to an increase in

depression.

Point Noted.

" The incidence of suicide is apparently very variable for different classes

of antidepressants. Tricyclic antidepressants have a sedating side effect

which seems to reduce the incidence of suicide dramatically; however, the

sedation is generally viewed as undesirable because it may affect the

ability to drive a car or do anything which requires concentration. There is

also no warning about increased danger of suicide in the information for

Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors (MAOI's) but warnings about suicide appear in

the information for SSRIs. "

Even in the case of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, or SSRIs the

apparent risk is during the first few weeks of taking them.

Common Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors(MAOI's

Nardil

Parnate

SSRI's include

Prozac

Zoloft

Paxil

Luvox

Does that bring us closer to agreement?

>

> This is one of the reasons I'm concerned about Matt. I hope he's

talking

> with a professional about this.

Me too.

>

> After awhile I just said to hell with it. Chucked the meds out the

window

> (literally) and went on with my life without them. I improved

drastically

> after getting off them.

Depression is usually self-limiting, i.e. gets better eventually anyway, so

the meds may not have been holding you back.

Total concurrence here. Never said otherwise.

Also, there is something called the nocebo effect, which is basically a

tendency to apparently suffer unpleasant effects as a result of

psychological factors rather than a drug's actual properties. If you fear

anti-deps or feel ashamed of taking them, then you are very likely to bring

on the very unpleasant effects you are expecting to get from them, and feel

a sense of relief when you stop. Ppl often feel frightened by something they

dont understand, and feel like they lack control when they take psychoactive

medicines.

I'm going to assume you're making a generalized comment here and not

specific to me.

Throwing the meds out the window can give you the sense you have taken

control back.

All right now you made it personal. In my case (notice the

qualification) There was no fear. You'll remember I asked for them thinking

I would be better off on them. I wasn't and in fact they had the reverse

effect in my case.

I believe for many ppl it is better to jettison the negative values

associated with these often life-saving drugs.

I believe that taking anti-deps without one on one therapy is about as

useless as a one legged man in a butt kicking contest. Too often this is

exactly what happens with people who've been or currently are problem

drinkers.

I'm in the preliminary stages of changing my belief system concerning

anti-deps to this:

" That most people on them probably don't need to be "

The general idea can be found on this site with an extract below the link.

Social Anxiety Disorder and Paxil fall, I believe, in this category.

http://www.thenewrepublic.com/magazines/tnr/current/coverstory080299.html

In his book, Healy notes a pattern emerging in the field of psychiatric

medicine: a relatively rare mental disorder is known to exist, a

psychotropic drug is found to have an effect on the disorder, and,

subsequently, the rates of diagnosis multiply

exponentially. He charts this progression in the history of depression,

panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and social phobia. " This is

not to say that psychiatrists or drug companies are just making up mental

disorders, " says Dr. Carl Elliott, an associate professor at the University

of Minnesota's Center for Bioethics. " They're out there. But the boundaries

are very fuzzy. And when there's money to be made with a psychoactive drug,

there's suddenly all this interest in making these borders expand. "

I believe Paroxetine (Paxil) with SAD is a prime example of this phenomenon.

It's ironic that as I type this yet another Paxil SAD commercial graces my

TV screen. The really sad part is that there is growing evidence which

suggests MAOI's are more effective in the treatment of SAD than SSRI's, of

which Paxil is a member. It's a shame SAD and Paxil have become almost

synonymous.

anti-deps - Just May be an Unpopular View -

Hey Pete:

This is my first go around at inserting my comments throughout an email so

please be patient with me if it doesn't work out the way I intended.

(Outlook express is better than Outlook full version in that respect)

I've sort of gone all over the place with the response but I'm too tired to

make it more coherent just now.

Hi

" hector arroyo " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start_502

> Paxil:

>

> I haven't met anyone who was better off on it than on something else.

Allow me to introduce myself.....I did much better on Paxil than Prozac.

Only problem was loss of sex drive, a common problem with both drugs.

Glad to meet you.

> The

> positive effects of moving from Paxil to Prozac, in the three

separate cases

> I've seen, were almost immediate and sustained.

The effect of small sample size . In fact Paxil is known to be one of

the mos well-tolerated of anti-deps in general, with most pplhaving few

side-efects.

Admittedly it's a small sample group that's why I was so careful in the way

I qualified it.

>

Careful here . This is most definitely not associated with ALL

antidepressants. Concern has been raised about possible increase in

suicidality with Prozac, but I know of no other anti-dep where this is the

case. Typically clinical trials show in general much reduction in the

suicidality of ppl on them. It also needs to be remembered that ppl are

often more at risk of suicide when their depression is lifting, as they have

the energy to do it, which they may lack when very severely depressed.

hence an increase in suicide risk does not in fact, equate to an increase in

depression.

Point Noted.

The incidence of suicide is apparently very variable for different classes

of antidepressants. Tricyclic antidepressants have a sedating side effect

which seems to reduce the incidence of suicide dramatically; however, the

sedation is generally viewed as undesirable because it may affect the

ability to drive a car or do anything which requires concentration. There is

also no warning about increased danger of suicide in the " information " about

Aurorix (Moclobemid, a MAO inhibitor) but warnings about suicide appear in

the information for SSRIs.

Even in the case of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, or SSRIs the

apparent risk is during the first few weeks of taking them.

Common Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors (MAOI's)

Nardil

Parnate

SSRI's include

Prozac

Zoloft

Paxil

Luvox

Does that bring us closer to agreement?

>

> This is one of the reasons I'm concerned about Matt. I hope he's

talking

> with a professional about this.

Me too.

>

> After awhile I just said to hell with it. Chucked the meds out the

window

> (literally) and went on with my life without them. I improved

drastically

> after getting off them.

Depression is usually self-limiting, i.e. gets better eventually anyway, so

the meds may not have been holding you back.

Total concurrence here. Never said otherwise.

Also, there is something called the nocebo effect, which is basically a

tendency to apparently suffer unpleasant effects as a result of

psychological factors rather than a drug's actual properties. If you fear

anti-deps or feel ashamed of taking them, then you are very likely to bring

on the very unpleasant effects you are expecting to get from them, and feel

a sense of relief when you stop. Ppl often feel frightened by something they

dont understand, and feel like they lack control when they take psychoactive

medicines.

I'm going to assume you're making a generalized comment here and not

specific to me.

Throwing the meds out the window can give you the sense you have taken

control back.

All right now you made it personal. In my case (notice the

qualification) There was no fear. You'll remember I asked for them thinking

I would be better off on them. I wasn't and in fact they had the reverse

effect in my case.

I believe for many ppl it is better to jettison the negative values

associated with these often life-saving drugs.

I believe that taking anti-deps without one on one therapy is about as

useless as a one legged man in a butt kicking contest. Too often this is

exactly what happens with people who've been or currently are problem

drinkers.

I'm in the preliminary stages of changing my belief system concerning

anti-deps to this:

" That most people on them probably don't need to be "

The general idea can be found on this site with an extract below the link.

Social Anxiety Disorder and Paxil fall, I believe, in this category.

http://www.thenewrepublic.com/magazines/tnr/current/coverstory080299.html

In his book, Healy notes a pattern emerging in the field of psychiatric

medicine: a relatively rare mental disorder is known to exist, a

psychotropic drug is found to have an effect on the disorder, and,

subsequently, the rates of diagnosis multiply

exponentially. He charts this progression in the history of depression,

panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and social phobia. " This is

not to say that psychiatrists or drug companies are just making up mental

disorders, " says Dr. Carl Elliott, an associate professor at the University

of Minnesota's Center for Bioethics. " They're out there. But the boundaries

are very fuzzy. And when there's money to be made with a psychoactive drug,

there's suddenly all this interest in making these borders expand. "

I believe Paroxetine (Paxil) with SAD is a prime example of this phenomenon.

It's ironic that as I type this yet another Paxil SAD commercial graces my

TV screen. The really sad part is that there is growing evidence to suggest

that MAOI's are more effective in the treatment of SAD than SSRI's, of which

Paxil is a member. It's a shame SAD and Paxil have become almost

synonymous.

[Guest guest]

Hi

YOure first attempt at interspersing comments with a quoite was pretty

lousy, as I think you can proabaly tell.

While there is some agreement between us, I feel moved to say that you

give no reason for why anti-deps without one-on-one therapy is a bad

idea; you just directly say so. Secondly, MAOI's tend to be rarely

prescribed now because of their side-effect profile. Thirdly, while

over-prescription mught be common in the US, I doubt it is in the UK.

The idea of a drug being advertised on TV in the way you describe is

unthinkable here. If disorders are basically untreatable they are less

likely to be dxed, and hencean upsurge in a dx after a treatment is

found is not particularly surprisig. Assuming that in the US it is like

here in that doctors make no money themsleves from prescribing (in

fact, thety are under financial pressure to limit prescribing) then the

" money to be made " argument doesnt hold at point of rxing, only in the

motivation of drug companies to use advertiing to encourage rxing of

drugs. It musrt be remembered that makers of everything from loaves to

stairlifts for the disabled usie advertising and also make money; that

the pharmaceutical industry is profit motivated I see as no reason to

be *exceptionally* suspicious of their products.

" hector arroyo " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=12605

> Hey Pete:

>

> This is my first go around at inserting my comments throughout an

email so

> please be patient with me if it doesn't work out the way I intended.

> (Outlook express is better than Outlook full version in that respect)

>

> I've sort of gone all over the place with the response but I'm too

tired to

> make it more coherent just now.

> Hi

> " hector arroyo " wrote:

> original article:/group/12-step-free/?start502

> > Paxil:

> >

> > I haven't met anyone who was better off on it than on something

else.

>

> Allow me to introduce myself.....I did much better on Paxil than

Prozac.

> Only problem was loss of sex drive, a common problem with both drugs.

>

> Glad to meet you. It's interesting that you referred to the sex drive

issue

> as a common problem. I don't disagree with you here, however the

> indications for Prozac don't agree with either of us in favor of

blanket

> statement of, I believe no more than 2 to 3 percent of people who

take it

> may suffer from it.

>

> > The

> > positive effects of moving from Paxil to Prozac, in the three

> separate cases

> > I've seen, were almost immediate and sustained.

>

> The effect of small sample size . In fact Paxil is known to be

one of

> the mos well-tolerated of anti-deps in general, with most pplhaving

few

> side-efects.

>

> Admittedly it's a small sample group that's why I was so careful in

the way

> I qualified it.

> >

> Careful here . This is most definitely not associated with ALL

> antidepressants. Concern has been raised about possible increase in

> suicidality with Prozac, but I know of no other anti-dep where this

is the

> case. Typically clinical trials show in general much reduction in the

> suicidality of ppl on them. It also needs to be remembered that ppl

are

> often more at risk of suicide when their depression is lifting, as

they have

> the energy to do it, which they may lack when very severely depressed.

> hence an increase in suicide risk does not in fact, equate to an

increase in

> depression.

>

> Point Noted.

> " The incidence of suicide is apparently very variable for different

classes

> of antidepressants. Tricyclic antidepressants have a sedating side

effect

> which seems to reduce the incidence of suicide dramatically; however,

the

> sedation is generally viewed as undesirable because it may affect the

> ability to drive a car or do anything which requires concentration.

There is

> also no warning about increased danger of suicide in the information

for

> Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors (MAOI's) but warnings about suicide

appear in

> the information for SSRIs. "

>

> Even in the case of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, or SSRIs

the

> apparent risk is during the first few weeks of taking them.

>

> Common Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors(MAOI's

> Nardil

> Parnate

>

> SSRI's include

>

> Prozac

> Zoloft

> Paxil

> Luvox

>

> Does that bring us closer to agreement?

> >

> > This is one of the reasons I'm concerned about Matt. I hope he's

> talking

> > with a professional about this.

>

> Me too.

> >

> > After awhile I just said to hell with it. Chucked the meds out the

> window

> > (literally) and went on with my life without them. I improved

> drastically

> > after getting off them.

>

> Depression is usually self-limiting, i.e. gets better eventually

anyway, so

> the meds may not have been holding you back.

>

> Total concurrence here. Never said otherwise.

>

> Also, there is something called the nocebo effect, which is basically

a

> tendency to apparently suffer unpleasant effects as a result of

> psychological factors rather than a drug's actual properties. If you

fear

> anti-deps or feel ashamed of taking them, then you are very likely to

bring

> on the very unpleasant effects you are expecting to get from them,

and feel

> a sense of relief when you stop. Ppl often feel frightened by

something they

> dont understand, and feel like they lack control when they take

psychoactive

> medicines.

>

> I'm going to assume you're making a generalized comment here and not

> specific to me.

>

> Throwing the meds out the window can give you the sense you have taken

> control back.

> All right now you made it personal. In my case (notice the

> qualification) There was no fear. You'll remember I asked for them

thinking

> I would be better off on them. I wasn't and in fact they had the

reverse

> effect in my case.

>

> I believe for many ppl it is better to jettison the negative values

> associated with these often life-saving drugs.

>

> I believe that taking anti-deps without one on one therapy is about as

> useless as a one legged man in a butt kicking contest. Too often

this is

> exactly what happens with people who've been or currently are problem

> drinkers.

>

> I'm in the preliminary stages of changing my belief system concerning

> anti-deps to this:

>

> " That most people on them probably don't need to be "

>

> The general idea can be found on this site with an extract below the

link.

> Social Anxiety Disorder and Paxil fall, I believe, in this category.

>

> http://www.thenewrepublic.com/magazines/tnr/current/coverstory080299.

html

>

> In his book, Healy notes a pattern emerging in the field of

psychiatric

> medicine: a relatively rare mental disorder is known to exist, a

> psychotropic drug is found to have an effect on the disorder, and,

> subsequently, the rates of diagnosis multiply

> exponentially. He charts this progression in the history of

depression,

> panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and social phobia.

" This is

> not to say that psychiatrists or drug companies are just making up

mental

> disorders, " says Dr. Carl Elliott, an associate professor at the

University

> of Minnesota's Center for Bioethics. " They're out there. But the

boundaries

> are very fuzzy. And when there's money to be made with a psychoactive

drug,

> there's suddenly all this interest in making these borders expand. "

>

> I believe Paroxetine (Paxil) with SAD is a prime example of this

phenomenon.

> It's ironic that as I type this yet another Paxil SAD commercial

graces my

> TV screen. The really sad part is that there is growing evidence

which

> suggests MAOI's are more effective in the treatment of SAD than

SSRI's, of

> which Paxil is a member. It's a shame SAD and Paxil have become

almost

> synonymous.

>

>

>

> anti-deps - Just May be an Unpopular View -

>

> Hey Pete:

>

> This is my first go around at inserting my comments throughout an

email so

> please be patient with me if it doesn't work out the way I intended.

> (Outlook express is better than Outlook full version in that respect)

>

> I've sort of gone all over the place with the response but I'm too

tired to

> make it more coherent just now.

> Hi

> " hector arroyo " wrote:

> original article:/group/12-step-free/?start_502

> > Paxil:

>

> >

> > I haven't met anyone who was better off on it than on something

else.

>

> Allow me to introduce myself.....I did much better on Paxil than

Prozac.

> Only problem was loss of sex drive, a common problem with both drugs.

>

> Glad to meet you.

>

> > The

> > positive effects of moving from Paxil to Prozac, in the three

> separate cases

> > I've seen, were almost immediate and sustained.

>

> The effect of small sample size . In fact Paxil is known to be

one of

> the mos well-tolerated of anti-deps in general, with most pplhaving

few

> side-efects.

>

> Admittedly it's a small sample group that's why I was so careful in

the way

> I qualified it.

> >

> Careful here . This is most definitely not associated with ALL

> antidepressants. Concern has been raised about possible increase in

> suicidality with Prozac, but I know of no other anti-dep where this

is the

> case. Typically clinical trials show in general much reduction in the

> suicidality of ppl on them. It also needs to be remembered that ppl

are

> often more at risk of suicide when their depression is lifting, as

they have

> the energy to do it, which they may lack when very severely depressed.

> hence an increase in suicide risk does not in fact, equate to an

increase in

> depression.

>

> Point Noted.

> The incidence of suicide is apparently very variable for different

classes

> of antidepressants. Tricyclic antidepressants have a sedating side

effect

> which seems to reduce the incidence of suicide dramatically; however,

the

> sedation is generally viewed as undesirable because it may affect the

> ability to drive a car or do anything which requires concentration.

There is

> also no warning about increased danger of suicide in the

" information " about

> Aurorix (Moclobemid, a MAO inhibitor) but warnings about suicide

appear in

> the information for SSRIs.

>

> Even in the case of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, or SSRIs

the

> apparent risk is during the first few weeks of taking them.

>

> Common Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors (MAOI's)

> Nardil

> Parnate

>

> SSRI's include

>

> Prozac

> Zoloft

> Paxil

> Luvox

>

> Does that bring us closer to agreement?

> >

> > This is one of the reasons I'm concerned about Matt. I hope he's

> talking

> > with a professional about this.

>

> Me too.

> >

> > After awhile I just said to hell with it. Chucked the meds out the

> window

> > (literally) and went on with my life without them. I improved

> drastically

> > after getting off them.

>

> Depression is usually self-limiting, i.e. gets better eventually

anyway, so

> the meds may not have been holding you back.

>

> Total concurrence here. Never said otherwise.

>

> Also, there is something called the nocebo effect, which is basically

a

> tendency to apparently suffer unpleasant effects as a result of

> psychological factors rather than a drug's actual properties. If you

fear

> anti-deps or feel ashamed of taking them, then you are very likely to

bring

> on the very unpleasant effects you are expecting to get from them,

and feel

> a sense of relief when you stop. Ppl often feel frightened by

something they

> dont understand, and feel like they lack control when they take

psychoactive

> medicines.

>

> I'm going to assume you're making a generalized comment here and not

> specific to me.

>

> Throwing the meds out the window can give you the sense you have taken

> control back.

> All right now you made it personal. In my case (notice the

> qualification) There was no fear. You'll remember I asked for them

thinking

> I would be better off on them. I wasn't and in fact they had the

reverse

> effect in my case.

>

> I believe for many ppl it is better to jettison the negative values

> associated with these often life-saving drugs.

>

> I believe that taking anti-deps without one on one therapy is about as

> useless as a one legged man in a butt kicking contest. Too often

this is

> exactly what happens with people who've been or currently are problem

> drinkers.

>

> I'm in the preliminary stages of changing my belief system concerning

> anti-deps to this:

>

> " That most people on them probably don't need to be "

>

> The general idea can be found on this site with an extract below the

link.

> Social Anxiety Disorder and Paxil fall, I believe, in this category.

>

> http://www.thenewrepublic.com/magazines/tnr/current/coverstory080299.

html

>

> In his book, Healy notes a pattern emerging in the field of

psychiatric

> medicine: a relatively rare mental disorder is known to exist, a

> psychotropic drug is found to have an effect on the disorder, and,

> subsequently, the rates of diagnosis multiply

> exponentially. He charts this progression in the history of

depression,

> panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and social phobia.

" This is

> not to say that psychiatrists or drug companies are just making up

mental

> disorders, " says Dr. Carl Elliott, an associate professor at the

University

> of Minnesota's Center for Bioethics. " They're out there. But the

boundaries

> are very fuzzy. And when there's money to be made with a psychoactive

drug,

> there's suddenly all this interest in making these borders expand. "

>

> I believe Paroxetine (Paxil) with SAD is a prime example of this

phenomenon.

> It's ironic that as I type this yet another Paxil SAD commercial

graces my

> TV screen. The really sad part is that there is growing evidence to

suggest

> that MAOI's are more effective in the treatment of SAD than SSRI's,

of which

> Paxil is a member. It's a shame SAD and Paxil have become almost

> synonymous.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Pete:

You're right. It was fairly pathetic wasn't it.

The problem is that the assumption is made that the abuse is the root cause

of the depression and not the other way around. While arguments can be made

for both sides of the fence. I place myself on the side that posits " there

must be something going on in the abusers life which made him abuse in the

first place " What's causing the individual distress?

Anti deps simply fool the brain chemistry into believing every thing is

Hunky Dorey. When you stop the anti-deps you've stopped that HD feeling and

the likelihood of return to your original state of mind (depression) is

high until and unless you've actively worked on overcoming the issues which

caused you to abuse in the first place. While being on anti-deps may help

you to progress, for some, it may be too difficult to work through some of

the issues which caused the depression in the first place. Without one on

one therapy the task becomes more difficult for the individual and in many

cases impossible. Sometimes people need feedback to let them know they're

headed in the right direction.

Granted the analogy I used was a bit strong.

I think if you take a look at the cost savings found in prescribing these

drugs without one on one therapy you'll find a significant cost savings over

prescription combined with therapy. In America, with Health Maintenance

Organizations, often doctors get kick backs at year end for falling under

budget. Hence a particularly strong incentive to treat in the above manner.

In this regard I believe your assumption below is faulty and the conclusion

you reach from it is flawed as a result. For the US anyway.

I believe, for the most part, the drugs work as they were intended to work.

For my part I'm not suspicious of the product at all. I just believe the

expectations of the drugs are too high for what they were indented to do.

If as you said, and I concur, depression is self limiting (usually) why are

so many people prescribed the drugs and left on them for years. For that

matter should they be prescribed at all for most people suffering temporary

depression.

I'm not qualified to say one way or another; however, Something tells me

something isn't quite right here.

Re: anti-deps - Just May be an Unpopular View -

Hi

YOure first attempt at interspersing comments with a quoite was pretty

lousy, as I think you can proabaly tell.

While there is some agreement between us, I feel moved to say that you

give no reason for why anti-deps without one-on-one therapy is a bad

idea; you just directly say so. Secondly, MAOI's tend to be rarely

prescribed now because of their side-effect profile. Thirdly, while

over-prescription mught be common in the US, I doubt it is in the UK.

The idea of a drug being advertised on TV in the way you describe is

unthinkable here. If disorders are basically untreatable they are less

likely to be dxed, and hencean upsurge in a dx after a treatment is

found is not particularly surprisig. Assuming that in the US it is like

here in that doctors make no money themsleves from prescribing (in

fact, thety are under financial pressure to limit prescribing) then the

" money to be made " argument doesnt hold at point of rxing, only in the

motivation of drug companies to use advertiing to encourage rxing of

drugs. It musrt be remembered that makers of everything from loaves to

stairlifts for the disabled usie advertising and also make money; that

the pharmaceutical industry is profit motivated I see as no reason to

be *exceptionally* suspicious of their products.

[Guest guest]

Just a little comment on the depression.....it's been my understanding that

if depression isn't treated in some way, even when it's mild, it moves to

the next deeper stage. So, the best thing would appear to be that one

should treat depression at any stage. I let mine go on too long. I was

first diagnosed in the early 70's. The quality of anti-depressants wasn't

very good at the time. I refused them....not because of the quality but

because I was into the " back to earth " movement. I waited til the early

90's. Big mistake. I've been trying since 93 to find the one(s) that

work(s).

In speaking about Wellbutrin. I've taken it for depression, not for

smoking cessation. I don't like it. The full dose puts a cement block in

my head and I want to isolate even more, I don't give a damn about

conversing with people...even close friends, but I do have energy that I

don't have otherwise. It all seems to depend on the person's chemistry how

the drugs affect them.

I would like to get off all anti-depressants, but am scared to because I

don't want to be where I was 7 years ago, or even last year.

Carol

----------

>

> To: 12-step-freeeGroups

> Subject: Re: anti-deps - Just May be an Unpopular View -

> Date: Friday, February 18, 2000 3:23 AM

>

> Pete:

>

> You're right. It was fairly pathetic wasn't it.

>

> The problem is that the assumption is made that the abuse is the root

cause

> of the depression and not the other way around. While arguments can be

made

> for both sides of the fence. I place myself on the side that posits

" there

> must be something going on in the abusers life which made him abuse in

the

> first place " What's causing the individual distress?

>

> Anti deps simply fool the brain chemistry into believing every thing is

> Hunky Dorey. When you stop the anti-deps you've stopped that HD feeling

and

> the likelihood of return to your original state of mind (depression) is

> high until and unless you've actively worked on overcoming the issues

which

> caused you to abuse in the first place. While being on anti-deps may

help

> you to progress, for some, it may be too difficult to work through some

of

> the issues which caused the depression in the first place. Without one

on

> one therapy the task becomes more difficult for the individual and in

many

> cases impossible. Sometimes people need feedback to let them know

they're

> headed in the right direction.

>

> Granted the analogy I used was a bit strong.

>

> I think if you take a look at the cost savings found in prescribing these

> drugs without one on one therapy you'll find a significant cost savings

over

> prescription combined with therapy. In America, with Health Maintenance

> Organizations, often doctors get kick backs at year end for falling under

> budget. Hence a particularly strong incentive to treat in the above

manner.

> In this regard I believe your assumption below is faulty and the

conclusion

> you reach from it is flawed as a result. For the US anyway.

>

> I believe, for the most part, the drugs work as they were intended to

work.

> For my part I'm not suspicious of the product at all. I just believe the

> expectations of the drugs are too high for what they were indented to do.

> If as you said, and I concur, depression is self limiting (usually) why

are

> so many people prescribed the drugs and left on them for years. For that

> matter should they be prescribed at all for most people suffering

temporary

> depression.

>

> I'm not qualified to say one way or another; however, Something tells me

> something isn't quite right here.

>

>

>

>

> Re: anti-deps - Just May be an Unpopular View -

>

> Hi

>

> YOure first attempt at interspersing comments with a quoite was pretty

> lousy, as I think you can proabaly tell.

>

> While there is some agreement between us, I feel moved to say that you

> give no reason for why anti-deps without one-on-one therapy is a bad

> idea; you just directly say so. Secondly, MAOI's tend to be rarely

> prescribed now because of their side-effect profile. Thirdly, while

> over-prescription mught be common in the US, I doubt it is in the UK.

> The idea of a drug being advertised on TV in the way you describe is

> unthinkable here. If disorders are basically untreatable they are less

> likely to be dxed, and hencean upsurge in a dx after a treatment is

> found is not particularly surprisig. Assuming that in the US it is like

> here in that doctors make no money themsleves from prescribing (in

> fact, thety are under financial pressure to limit prescribing) then the

> " money to be made " argument doesnt hold at point of rxing, only in the

> motivation of drug companies to use advertiing to encourage rxing of

> drugs. It musrt be remembered that makers of everything from loaves to

> stairlifts for the disabled usie advertising and also make money; that

> the pharmaceutical industry is profit motivated I see as no reason to

> be *exceptionally* suspicious of their products.

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Earn extra money at calypso.com by creating your own web store. For a

> limited time, join calypso.com and receive a FREE calypso whistle.

> Also learn how you can win up to $25! Click to

> http://click./1/1591/1/_/4324/_/950861987/

>

> -- Create a poll/survey for your group!

> -- /vote?listname=12-step-free & m=1

>

[Guest guest]

Hi , folks

" hector arroyo " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=12657

> Pete:

>

> You're right. It was fairly pathetic wasn't it.

Not as bad as my typos!

>

> The problem is that the assumption is made that the abuse is the

root cause

> of the depression and not the other way around. While arguments can

be made

> for both sides of the fence. I place myself on the side that posits

" there

> must be something going on in the abusers life which made him abuse

in the

> first place " What's causing the individual distress?

I presume you are talking abt substance abuse here. I would not say

that the assumption you give here is usually made, but the one you

yourself subscribe to. The evidence is that for alcohol, and

presumably holds for other depressant drugs, that *both* factors tend

to operate, that depressed ppl tend to turn to alcohol which also

deepens the depression. this is of course paradoxical, as one would

expect depresed ppl to avoid depressant drugs, but this is what

happens. I suspect this also happens with anxious ppl and stimulating

drugs too; certainly ppl claim that the stimulant nicotine relaxes

them, and apparently compulsive gamblers find it relieves anxiety. I

would agree that almost certainly there is *initially* something wrong

that starts the abuse going, but I disagree with the conclusions you

draw from it.

>

> Anti deps simply fool the brain chemistry into believing every thing

is

> Hunky Dorey.

No, this is not true. They actually correct a known neurochemical

imbalance associated with depression. As well as altering mood, thet

also alter behavior, tending to suppress behavior that tends to cause

depression (such as rumination) and encourage behaviour that tends to

alleviate it (such as increased physical activity and socialisation).

> When you stop the anti-deps you've stopped that HD feeling and

> the likelihood of return to your original state of mind (depression)

is

> high until and unless you've actively worked on overcoming the issues

which

> caused you to abuse in the first place.

This may be true. However, antidepressants are normally prescribed for

at least six months - the amount of time usually required to prevent

relapse back into depressive behavior. If the main difficulties were a

result of environmental stress rather than internal factors, the

original stressors may have passed or be succesfully dealt with by the

person, who has also learnt more effective methods of dealing with

such stresses in general.

> While being on anti-deps may help

> you to progress, for some, it may be too difficult to work through

some of

> the issues which caused the depression in the first place.

This is a common view of psychotherapists, but I think it is mistaken.

If you have TB as a result of lousy (or no) housing, then obviously to

stay well you need to get decent housing. However, you need antibiotics

to cure the TB FIRST, and as a result, you'll be a lot better able to

solve your housing problem. Fix the housing alone and you'll still have

TB anyway. I believe anti-depressants have a facilitating, not a

hindering, effect on therapy. The view that they dont stems I believe

from a mistaken view that sees he mind as almost separate from the

brain; as if changes in one do not involve changes in the other in both

directions.

> Without one on

> one therapy the task becomes more difficult for the individual and in

many

> cases impossible. Sometimes people need feedback to let them know

they're

> headed in the right direction.

Again, this may be true. However, I'm interested that you specifically

state one-on-one therapy rather than therapy in general. CBT approaches

make sense as 1-on-1 (tho do not have to be in this format) but

increasingly I am of the view that psychodynamic approaches are best

served in a group process. In particular I think that family therapy,

where many ppl closely associated with the " identified patient " may

come on for a consultation, is an improtant direction to take. humans

are social beings; to examine one person out of context is a peculairly

western, especially american, approach. The " perceived patient " -

especially a child in a family - may actually be simply the one

carrying the shit for a highly troubled family. I know I did.

EVen with regard to CBT, a group approach may imo be more beneficial.

Groups like SMART, where ppl learn and share CBT approahes and practise

them together, Ithink my well outperform professional consultations as

ppl feel wmpowered by doing things for themselves and aso, of course,

benefit from social support.

> I think if you take a look at the cost savings found in prescribing

these

> drugs without one on one therapy you'll find a significant cost

savings over

> prescription combined with therapy. In America, with Health

Maintenance

> Organizations, often doctors get kick backs at year end for falling

under

> budget. Hence a particularly strong incentive to treat in the above

manner.

Psychotherapy is expensive. an additonal benefit of group therapy is of

course, reduced per capita costs, and Family Therapy, unlike the often

longeterm psychodynamic approaches, is usually of a " Brief

Intervention " type format of only a few sessions, such as those also

found succesful in individual therapy for alcohol abuse.

>

> I believe, for the most part, the drugs work as they were intended to

work.

> For my part I'm not suspicious of the product at all. I just believe

the

> expectations of the drugs are too high for what they were intended to

do.

In the US perhaps, but again I do not think this is the UK position.

> If as you said, and I concur, depression is self limiting (usually)

why are

> so many people prescribed the drugs and left on them for years?

Self-limiting in up to *2 years* or more. That's a very long time to

wait for things to get better. Also, may illnesses get better

eventually but we still give them a helping hand. Whay suffer

unnecessarily? Also, relapses arte common; when properly treated,

relpases may be rarer. Also, there are those, particularly those with

bipolar " manic depresion " where the condition is likely permanent, and

permanent medication is needed.

> For that

> matter should they be prescribed at all for most people suffering

temporary

> depression?

Often it cannot be told whether a depresion will be temporary - and

again, there is no need to suffer unnecessarily. In reality probably

most depression goes untreated; this is certainly the case here, and I

expect it is also the case even in the US.

Pete

[Guest guest]

Pete:

I took a look at the first two sentences in your response and I think it's

time we just agree to disagree on this issue.

Hi , folks

" hector arroyo " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start657

> Pete:

I presume you are talking abt substance abuse here. I would not say that the

assumption you give here is usually made, but the one you yourself subscribe

to.

[Guest guest]

ah what a shame -

as you didnt get to see where I agree with you later on! (I kid you

not).

P.

" hector arroyo " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=12721

> Pete:

>

> I took a look at the first two sentences in your response and I think

it's

> time we just agree to disagree on this issue.

>

>

>

> Hi , folks

> " hector arroyo " wrote:

> original article:/group/12-step-free/?start657

> > Pete:

> I presume you are talking abt substance abuse here. I would not say

that the

> assumption you give here is usually made, but the one you yourself

subscribe

> to.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Where have you found believable sources of information on anti-depressants?

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: <12-step-freeegroups>

>Subject: Re: anti-deps - Just May be an Unpopular View -

>Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:11:18 -0500

>

>Just a little comment on the depression.....it's been my understanding that

>if depression isn't treated in some way, even when it's mild, it moves to

>the next deeper stage.

Where does this understanding come from? I'm sure many on this list know a

lot more than I about anti-deps, I'm not trying to be difficult.

On a related note, did anyone else see the article on Margot Kidder in

Natural Health mag this month? She detailed a long (about 25 years I think)

history of psychiatric care, alcohol abuse, etc. and talks about the various

treatments, drugs & diagnoses she's been given, then the alternative

treatments she uses now, including treating B vitamin deficiencies and using

acupuncture (my fav!).

In my quest for non-program recovery information, I've become interested in

the trend I see towards practical, holistic approaches to recovery; I see a

more humble approach - one that leaves behavioral responsibility and

spiritual matters with each individual and simply offers ways to promote

physiological balance. I may be oversimplifying, but I think trying to tap

into the pharmacy inside each of our bodies is far preferable as a first

step than giving up and overriding the system with our clumsy drugs at the

outset of trouble.

Admittedly, I have Orwellian paranoia about pharmaceuticals. My mother just

went back to school nursing after 25 years away, and has been shocked by the

meds. She has to go to work an hour early just to dole out pills.

I just think we may be making ourselves incredibly high-maintenance, and I

have a hard time discounting the connection between this pill trend and the

quick-fix mentality; the way my local news seems to reflect a society of

people who cannot handle any adversity at any point in life without either

suing, making a law, or taking a pill. I shouldn't lump all of this together

with anti-deps, but at this point I do. Of course, I still haven't

" recovered " , so what the heck do I know, anyway? I could be shooting myself

in the foot with all of this blustering. I certainly don't mean to knock

anyone, I just want to explain what troubles me about the idea.

______________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

> I just think we may be making ourselves incredibly high-maintenance, and I

> have a hard time discounting the connection between this pill trend and

the

> quick-fix mentality; the way my local news seems to reflect a society of

> people who cannot handle any adversity at any point in life without either

> suing, making a law, or taking a pill. I shouldn't lump all of this

together

> with anti-deps, but at this point I do. Of course, I still haven't

> " recovered " , so what the heck do I know, anyway? I could be shooting

myself

> in the foot with all of this blustering. I certainly don't mean to knock

> anyone, I just want to explain what troubles me about the idea.

This thread kinda blows my mind. It reminds me of when I was a kid. Maybe

I am wrong here. But when I was a kid in the 70's early 80's my mom was

going to AA dragging me along for the ride. At that time, the AA ideology

was that alchoholics could not take ANY pill, beverage, mouthwash etc that

could potentially alter their sensibilities. That included antidepressants.

At the time my mom was a " closet bipolar " meaning that she told no one she

suffered from bipolar disorder. I was instructed to never tell anyone she

was taking prescription medication to help her with that. On the other hand,

I heard time and time again it was very wrong to take medication. I remember

my mother telling me that once a bunch of women cornered another female

stepper and physically took her heart medication from her and tossed it down

the toilet, the whole time telling her she was a junkie. I knew then that my

mother taking medications was simply wrong.

Soon after we joined AA, I became a bratty kid, and I was disobeidient,

violent, and out of control. Soon she had me going to a psychiatrist and had

me pumped up on medication. I resisted taking it with all of my might. I

would fight my mother every time it was time to take it, and once when I was

a bit older I got up the nerve to take the prescription out of the shrinks

hands and rip it up and throw it at him. I ended up spending time in a

couple residential treatment centers when I was a teen. There I was told to

take more medication. At first I resisted taking anything, later I cheeked

meds. After doing that for awhile I was caught and was doped up the rest

the time I was there.

But here I am an adult, miserable as can be. I have uncontrollable

depression that is so bad it keeps me from working. I have been taking

antidepressants on and off for 3 years. Every morning and every night I have

to take that damn stuff I cry and throw quiet little temper tantrums. Or I

just convientently forget. I talked to a therapist once that told me that I

dont take my medication regularly because I dont feel like I deserve to get

better. I do know that it helps me at least stay alive sometimes, and it

keeps me out of bed when I do take it regularly. I have thought alot about

why I dont take it. I have wondered if I really do feel like I dont deserve

to feel better, or if I am still just rejecting what was forced upon me. But

it wasnt until I read this thread that at least for me it started to make

sense. For me taking an antidepressant, and even tylenol, is simpy an evil

thing to do. It goes back to those days when I remember it having to be a

dirty little secret, when I was convinced that taking medication meant the

end of the world. Even as I realize that Im trying to resist taking another

pill that I know at least keeps me alive.

So I have been sitting here wondering if the backlash against

antidepressants on this list comes from the same source for you folks. Have

you ever thought about it?

Louree

[Guest guest]

Hi Louree, not sure if I understand your post completely, but thought I'd

reply. Not being a fan of AA ideology or tactics in the least, I of course

am dismayed by the experiences you described. What people do in the name of

" helping others " is so scary.

My parents were quite conservative Roman Catholics and my upbringing was

paternalistic in the extreme -- no independent thought was required. My

parents conception of a God, my father & the doctor were the only thing

keeping my fragile needy existence from being snuffed out at any moment. I

was taught that human beings were wretched sinful creatures, and we needed

all the help we could get just to get by day to day. (sound familiar?) At

the age of 2 1/2, my mother laughingly reports, I asked her if my

pediatrician was the god she kept talking about. So, my rebellion has

rather naturally taken form in questioning our so-called helplessness and

dependence on the judgment of others, in this world or the next. I

certainly don't have the answers -- I just don't believe I'm alone in that.

I believe that ideas about medicine are not separable from their cultural

context. Whether it's a ob/gyn textbook using factory imagery to describe

the process of childbirth, or a shaman describing the root of a patient's

illness in spiritual terms, I see metaphors and world views involved in

every aspect of medical theory. I just don't want to involve myself with

treatments that stem from a medical point of view with which I disagree.

______________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi Louree, not sure if I understand your post completely, but thought I'd

reply. Not being a fan of AA ideology or tactics in the least, I of course

am dismayed by the experiences you described. What people do in the name of

" helping others " is so scary.

LOL, well.... at least you understood part of it. Dont mind me I had a

migraine when I wrote it.

Louree

[Guest guest]

>

>The anti-med culture of AA is I think one of its most pernicious

>characteristics.Even painkillers and antibiotics (of all things) come under

>suspicion. God knows how many suicide deaths this attitude causes.

>

>P.

Hi Pete,

I didn't know about the anti-anti-deps culture of AA, but it makes sense

since the program is supposed to cure all ills if done right

that other treatments would be threatening. I did know a woman in AA who

told me that she was also recovered from bulimia, and was able to stop

drinking successfully but wasn't able to get a handle on the food (2 years

after getting sober) until she started taking anti-deps. So, for her they

definitely worked.

______________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

The British magazine NEW SCIENTIST ran a very interesting article this

summer mmaking the case that the positive effects of anti-depressants

is largely a placebo effect.

>Mostly in the mind

By Day

The benefits of antidepressant drugs could be almost entirely due to

the psychological boost derived from taking a pill rather than their

effects on brain chemistry, say two researchers in the US.

Irving Kirsch of the University of Connecticut and Guy Sapirstein of

Westwood Lodge Hospital, Needham, analysed 19 studies on selected

antidepressants and sedatives--including tricyclics and the newer

Prozac-type drugs--involving 2318 patients. In each study, the patients

had been given either an active drug or a chemically inactive placebo,

and their psychological conditions had been evaluated at the beginning

and end.

Pharmaceuticals companies claim that antidepressants are 40 per cent

more effective than placebos. But Kirsch and Sapirstein found that the

drugs were only 25 per cent more effective. In addition, they suggest

that even that 25 per cent could be due to an additional placebo effect

derived from the side effects caused by the antidepressants, which

alerted patients to the fact that they were receiving an active drug

rather than a placebo. They say that the studies could have wrongly

ascribed this additional effect to a chemical change induced by the

drugs.

Their analysis also suggests that antidepressants offer no advantage

over drugs such as anxiolytics and tranquillisers, which adds fuel to

the suspicion that the newer antidepressants are not as specific in

their actions as their manufacturers claim.

Simon Wessely, professor of psychiatry at King's College London,

agrees. " There's tremendous uncertainty about how they work, " he says.

" The public thinks the doctors know, but they don't. Any decent

psychopharmacologist will tell you this. "

Wessely says Kirsch and Sapirstein are right to point out that side

effects can alert a patient in a trial to the fact they are getting an

active drug rather than a placebo. " If patients know they're getting

treatment, their expectation will be raised and with it their optimism

that they will get better. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. " On the

basis of this study and one that Wessely participated in (British

Journal of Psychiatry, vol 172, p 227), he believes that the advantage

antidepressants offer over placebos is just 15 to 20 per cent.

But a psychiatrist commentating on the new analysis in the latest issue

of Prevention & Treatment is fiercely critical of the paper.

Klein of Columbia University, New York, who played a major role in

developing antidepressant treatments, says the work is flawed because

the group of trials chosen was " minuscule and unrepresentative " and

amounted to " a failure of peer review " .

Kirsch's and Sapirstein's work does not show that antidepressants have

no pharmacological effect. However, Kirsch says the findings indicate

" a pressing need for new methodologies in clinical trials " to discover

the true extent of the placebo effect. One option might be to give some

patients " active placebos " that cause side effects but have no medical

effect.

The researchers' results also appear in the current issue of Prevention

& Treatment, the American Psychological Association's electronic

journal.

From New Scientist, 11 July 1998

[Guest guest]

Hi Stuart

Dont think I have seen you post here before - welcome.

As this article reports, this study has been panned. Antideps do have

their skeptics - including Stanton Peele - but I think this skepticism

is excessive. The report gives some of the reasons (there are others).

for one thing, " only 25% " etc turns out to be much bigger than you

might think, and mean a great deal to those who benefit from it.

Studies do examine the " active placebo " effect, and in fact it is quite

common to use an actual antidepressant as an " active placebo " -

imipramine, one of the oldest antideps and used as a gold-standard - a

new antidep would be expected to be effective over imipramine, let

alone an inactive substance. I rather suspect the shrink was quoted out

of context - the actual psychopharmacology of antidepressants is now

known in considerable detail - to suggest that " we dont know how they

work " gives a completely false impression. Whole areas of regular

chemistry remain a mystery, but we are atill expert chemists. The area

of mystery is essentially philosophical - no-one knows how

consciousness arises in the human brain, but we dont have difficulty

working with the fact that we are.

As well as a placebo effect, antideps, like all meds suffer from nocebo

effects - it is quite interesting to see the adverse reaction rates

reported for sugar pills in clinical trials, and also, the fact they

are active means that meds will tend suffer a worse nocebo effect. Many

ppl read up or swap side-effect horror stories in advance, priming

themselves for a bad reaction.

The early antideps were discovered accidentally, by *observing* the

improvement of mood in patients who were actually prescribed them as a

treatment for TB - hence this improvement cannot be solely placebo, as

this effect was a complete surprise. Also, placebo effects tend to wear

off whereas depressives often have sustained remission on antideps. In

addition, I can personally testify to the quite remarkable uplift in

mood they can provide (and yes I know personal testimony is lousy

evidence). I have just come off one pill in order to go on another, and

apparently I have for the first time in 6 months seemed depressed to my

gf, who was completely freaked out by it. She became angry with me and

went off in a huff, saying " I like men with pills and will see men

again when they are again with pills. " (She is Yugoslav and her English

breaks down under stress).

Men-without-pills-Pete

stuart32-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=12833

>

>

> The British magazine NEW SCIENTIST ran a very interesting article

this

> summer mmaking the case that the positive effects of anti-depressants

> is largely a placebo effect.

>

> >Mostly in the mind

> By Day

> The benefits of antidepressant drugs could be almost entirely due to

> the psychological boost derived from taking a pill rather than their

> effects on brain chemistry, say two researchers in the US.

> Irving Kirsch of the University of Connecticut and Guy Sapirstein of

> Westwood Lodge Hospital, Needham, analysed 19 studies on selected

> antidepressants and sedatives--including tricyclics and the newer

> Prozac-type drugs--involving 2318 patients. In each study, the

patients

> had been given either an active drug or a chemically inactive placebo,

> and their psychological conditions had been evaluated at the beginning

> and end.

> Pharmaceuticals companies claim that antidepressants are 40 per cent

> more effective than placebos. But Kirsch and Sapirstein found that the

> drugs were only 25 per cent more effective. In addition, they suggest

> that even that 25 per cent could be due to an additional placebo

effect

> derived from the side effects caused by the antidepressants, which

> alerted patients to the fact that they were receiving an active drug

> rather than a placebo. They say that the studies could have wrongly

> ascribed this additional effect to a chemical change induced by the

> drugs.

> Their analysis also suggests that antidepressants offer no advantage

> over drugs such as anxiolytics and tranquillisers, which adds fuel to

> the suspicion that the newer antidepressants are not as specific in

> their actions as their manufacturers claim.

> Simon Wessely, professor of psychiatry at King's College London,

> agrees. " There's tremendous uncertainty about how they work, " he says.

> " The public thinks the doctors know, but they don't. Any decent

> psychopharmacologist will tell you this. "

> Wessely says Kirsch and Sapirstein are right to point out that side

> effects can alert a patient in a trial to the fact they are getting an

> active drug rather than a placebo. " If patients know they're getting

> treatment, their expectation will be raised and with it their optimism

> that they will get better. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. " On the

> basis of this study and one that Wessely participated in (British

> Journal of Psychiatry, vol 172, p 227), he believes that the advantage

> antidepressants offer over placebos is just 15 to 20 per cent.

> But a psychiatrist commentating on the new analysis in the latest

issue

> of Prevention & Treatment is fiercely critical of the paper.

> Klein of Columbia University, New York, who played a major role in

> developing antidepressant treatments, says the work is flawed because

> the group of trials chosen was " minuscule and unrepresentative " and

> amounted to " a failure of peer review " .

> Kirsch's and Sapirstein's work does not show that antidepressants have

> no pharmacological effect. However, Kirsch says the findings indicate

> " a pressing need for new methodologies in clinical trials " to discover

> the true extent of the placebo effect. One option might be to give

some

> patients " active placebos " that cause side effects but have no medical

> effect.

> The researchers' results also appear in the current issue of

Prevention

> & Treatment, the American Psychological Association's electronic

> journal.

> From New Scientist, 11 July 1998

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Louree

The anti-med culture of AA is I think one of its most pernicious

characteristics. My second sponsor, a 21-year AA member with 20 yrs

Time, helped overcome my brainwashing in this regard, but even she

cautioned me not to talk abt the fact that I took them in meetings.

The culture in NA seems to be even worse in this respect. Even

painkillers and antibiotics (of all things) come under suspicion. God

knows how many suicide deaths this attitude causes.

P.

" snazy " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=12817

> This thread kinda blows my mind. It reminds me of when I was a

kid. Maybe

> I am wrong here. But when I was a kid in the 70's early 80's my mom

was

> going to AA dragging me along for the ride. At that time, the AA

ideology

> was that alchoholics could not take ANY pill, beverage, mouthwash etc

that

> could potentially alter their sensibilities. That included

antidepressants.

> At the time my mom was a " closet bipolar " meaning that she told no

one she

> suffered from bipolar disorder. I was instructed to never tell anyone

she

> was taking prescription medication to help her with that. On the

other hand,

> I heard time and time again it was very wrong to take medication. I

remember

> my mother telling me that once a bunch of women cornered another

female

> stepper and physically took her heart medication from her and tossed

it down

> the toilet, the whole time telling her she was a junkie. I knew then

that my

> mother taking medications was simply wrong.

> Soon after we joined AA, I became a bratty kid, and I was

disobeidient,

> violent, and out of control. Soon she had me going to a psychiatrist

and had

> me pumped up on medication. I resisted taking it with all of my

might. I

> would fight my mother every time it was time to take it, and once

when I was

> a bit older I got up the nerve to take the prescription out of the

shrinks

> hands and rip it up and throw it at him. I ended up spending time in a

> couple residential treatment centers when I was a teen. There I was

told to

> take more medication. At first I resisted taking anything, later I

cheeked

> meds. After doing that for awhile I was caught and was doped up the

rest

> the time I was there.

> But here I am an adult, miserable as can be. I have uncontrollable

> depression that is so bad it keeps me from working. I have been taking

> antidepressants on and off for 3 years. Every morning and every night

I have

> to take that damn stuff I cry and throw quiet little temper tantrums.

Or I

> just convientently forget. I talked to a therapist once that told me

that I

> dont take my medication regularly because I dont feel like I deserve

to get

> better. I do know that it helps me at least stay alive sometimes,

and it

> keeps me out of bed when I do take it regularly. I have thought alot

about

> why I dont take it. I have wondered if I really do feel like I dont

deserve

> to feel better, or if I am still just rejecting what was forced upon

me. But

> it wasnt until I read this thread that at least for me it started to

make

> sense. For me taking an antidepressant, and even tylenol, is simpy an

evil

> thing to do. It goes back to those days when I remember it having to

be a

> dirty little secret, when I was convinced that taking medication

meant the

> end of the world. Even as I realize that Im trying to resist taking

another

> pill that I know at least keeps me alive.

> So I have been sitting here wondering if the backlash against

> antidepressants on this list comes from the same source for you

folks. Have

> you ever thought about it?

>

> Louree

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi

I dont tend to put too much emphasis on AA's anti-med culture because I

am aware that there is a strong anti-med discourse in society

generally, especially in the UK, and all AA does is exacerbate it.

having said that, as you jokingly comment, it stands to reason that a

group that encourages belief in miraculous relief of a supposedly

incurable, terminal disorder will inevitably tend to encourage belief

in such relief of *any* disorder, especially a psychological one, and

hence medical treatment is unnecessary and suggests a lack of faith.

It is odd, however, that there is a fair degree of support for Antabuse

and much talk abt taking Vitamin B, representing the medical approaches

of the 1930s.

There is another reason for such opposition; acceptance of medical

treatment represents an intrusion of medical expertise, which, if taken

to its logical cocnclusion, threatens to undermine the whole basis of

AA, whch is not in the least interested in the medicine of alcohol

abuse and its advancement, but is instead interested in making

religious converts.

Bulimia is a deadly disorder which seems to be on the increase and

often co-exists with alcohol/drug abuse, especially in women.

Succesful treatment often involves Prozac taken at 3 to 4 times the

dose for depression. Since AA is a religion and not a support group,

the only dissemination of the need to address these and other problems

of alcohol abusers within AA is entirely informally by those who have a

mind to do so. I wonder if anyone ever stops a meeting because someone

discusses bulimia, as apparently sometimes happened when ppl discussed

drugs.

Pete

" elizabeth b. " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=12840

>

> >

> >The anti-med culture of AA is I think one of its most pernicious

> >characteristics.Even painkillers and antibiotics (of all things)

come under

> >suspicion. God knows how many suicide deaths this attitude causes.

> >

> >P.

> Hi Pete,

> I didn't know about the anti-anti-deps culture of AA, but it makes

sense

> since the program is supposed to cure all ills if done right

> that other treatments would be threatening. I did know a woman in AA

who

> told me that she was also recovered from bulimia, and was able to

stop

> drinking successfully but wasn't able to get a handle on the food (2

years

> after getting sober) until she started taking anti-deps. So, for her

they

> definitely worked.

>

> ______________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/26/2000 10:52:06 PM Mountain Standard Time,

awatt04@... writes:

<< Even

painkillers and antibiotics (of all things) come under suspicion. God

knows how many suicide deaths this attitude causes. >>

That's the truth! I had a 14 " rod " installed " in my back 20 or so years ago

to try and stop scoliosis while I could still walk. The problem is they put

one huge rod instead of little ones here and there at the various curves so

there is absolutely no flexibility whatsoever. Add years of equestrian

activities including the unintended dismounts that became more regular as my

balance was compomised by the rod , a major problem developed. Now, if I

take a mis-step I can have agonizing spasm's for days. For years I lived

with this and tried massage therapy, physical therapy, swimming daily, miles

of walking every day while I held my breath. Then I had a tumor develop on

the peroneal nerve on my right leg. So the walking became extremely painful.

Mr. AA prides himself on his physique and would walk with me on the weekends

even though as a martyr - as he is a runner. He disgustedly told me he

didn't want to anymore even though this was becoming just about the only time

we had alone together away from " the rooms " . My pain was slowing him down.

I loved our walk! We would stop at the ducks for a feeding, stop at the

beach for an appreciative moment of thanks for living in Hawaii, had a water

stop, etc. It was a routine I loved. But my pain was not good. And

painkillers? Forget it. So for years and years I lived with this pain and

he complained of it. When I moved to New Mexico, I was immediately medivaced

to Wilford Hall in San by the military for emergency surgery on my

leg. The tumor had grown and was pressing on the nerve in a rather agonizing

way. The military would fly him out and put him up in Officer's Quarter's

while I was in the hospital but he was in Hawaii and couldn't be bothered.

When I came back I spent 1 1/2 years four hours a day at the Zia Spinal Cord

Injury Center to learn how to deal with the excruciating pain in my back and

leg. He filed for divorce.

If I had learned to complain of pain rather than " turning it over " and

" Letting Go and Letting God " I would have had my surgery years earlier and

saved myself a lot of pain. Now I get trigger point injections twice a month

and am on a pain medication program which I approach hesitantly. I use a

minimum (1/4) of what is prescribed and have told the doctors I will not use

some of the stronger pain meds as I am terrified of the AA voice in my head

telling me I will be in " the rooms " of NA if I do. So pain is my constant

companion but I manage. What I don't have anymore is a husband I so dearly

loved. You see, during all this, I drank the demon alcohol on 3 or 4

occasions. What is so funny in a sad way is for instance, one time a friend

had been over for a swim and left a beer in the refrigerator. In my

desperation I ran across it one night and drank it. Just one beer. And then

I put the empty can on Mr. AA's desk and went to bed. Can you imagine the

firestorm I woke up to?????? He dramatically removed his wedding ring and put

it in the middle of the coffee table. I was in my sick way trying to scream

for help and attention from my husband! But he threw me out of the house. I

went to the North Shore and hid out for a few days crying the whole time and

then went and stayed with a woman in AA (who little did I know) had an affair

with Mr. AA. After months of this I was allowed home. During it, when I

went to the endless meetings with Ms. AA I was looked at like the Scarlet

Woman.

So I don't know why I still cry for this man. The mail yesterday was

discussing the comparison of an alcoholic relapsing to go back to the rooms

to get more of the same to an abused spouse doing the same. I guess that

familiarity is what I should be so grateful to lose. But I am mourning the

loss of the man I so dearly loved. I am one sick puppy. But you all are so

wonderful and reading and reading every day what others go through and how

they think this sick AA stuff through has slowly given me a glimmer that even

though the last years have been so horrible and painful and sad, my life with

Mr AA was not the best I could ever hope for from life. Being true to myself

and listening to my heart and body and trying to care for both can only

happen when I can be honest about pain, mental or physical. And being in the

rooms there is something so wrong with me to be in pain. If I was working

the steps I would have risen above it, right. Apparently not.

[Guest guest]

At 20:25 26/02/00 -0800, you wrote:

>Simon Wessely, professor of psychiatry at King's College London,

>agrees. " There's tremendous uncertainty about how they work, " he says.

> " The public thinks the doctors know, but they don't. Any decent

>psychopharmacologist will tell you this. "

>Wessely says Kirsch and Sapirstein are right to point out that side

>effects can alert a patient in a trial to the fact they are getting an

>active drug rather than a placebo. " If patients know they're getting

>treatment, their expectation will be raised and with it their optimism

>that they will get better. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. " On the

>basis of this study and one that Wessely participated in (British

>Journal of Psychiatry, vol 172, p 227), he believes that the advantage

>antidepressants offer over placebos is just 15 to 20 per cent.

This may put this in some perspective, or not, but since his name has

cropped up here I will comment on him anyway. Simon Wessley is notorious in

the UK and now in the US too for his role in research into the illness

known as ME or CFS. In spite of the huge amount of international research

that shows that ME is a physical illness with abnormalities in many body

systems including brain, central nervous system, muscles, immune system,

circulation, cell mitochondria and more, he has maintained consistently

that it (ME) is a psychological problem. He has done very poor quality

research, which he refers to over and over in his own writings, which he

states proves this. He pushes graded exercise as a valid treatment for ME,

which most ME sufferers know to be total nonsense. What makes this

confusing is that for some ME sufferers, graded excercise if done very

carefully and with a lot of feedback from the patient, may help a little.

But it is definitely not a cure. In his own research he fudges the

definition of ME and includes many patients with fatigue that is not ME.

This is particularly confusing because some forms of chronic fatigue can be

effectively treated by drugs and/or CBT, but essentially ME cannot. I have

heard (from participants) that when he was doing the graded exercise

research, a number of the ME patients involved had very serious relapses

and had to drop out- this was from doing the exercise and being told to

ignore pain and exhaustion, which would normally be the vitally important

signal for an ME patient to stop. This relapsing is entirely to be

expected. His write-ups did not include any reference to this, and appear

to show no-one being harmed and most benefitting. He goes a lot further

than this. He has written in support of children with ME being taken away

from their parents by social services. He has made life for many people

suffering from a serious physical illness very much harder. The serious

problems many severely affected ME sufferers in the UK now have with

getting the state benefits they need to live on is directly connected to

the " research " of this man, and his cohorts. Interestingly, he was also

very happy to research Gulf War Syndrome in a similar way for the US

government and then claim it was " no particular illness " - a view that many

medical researchers disagree with. He habitually disregards extensive and

high quality medical research and pushes his own psychiatric view instead,

and one might wonder why. For more details into this persons attitude

towards ME patients, here is a most revealing web page that gives the details.

http://www.btinternet.com/~severeme.group/contents.htm

Joe B.

[Guest guest]

I agree 25 percent improvement can still be a big improvement and

even more strongly agree that the anti-med attitude of AA is dangerous.

If my experience is at all representative, there is a different

attitude in Al-anon towards meds. In the group I have attended, many

are on prozac or some other anti-depressant and unabashedly

enthusiastic about it. Some have said only half-jokingly that step 11

should be re-worded to say " through prayer and medication. " I think it

is possible for the 12-step concepts like powerlessness to be

compatible with reliance on medication to cure depression. And it is

also possible for both to encourage the pessimistic thought habits

which Seligman and others link to depression.

[Guest guest]

stuart32-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=12848

> I think it

> is possible for the 12-step concepts like powerlessness to be

> compatible with reliance on medication to cure depression.

It could be except it doesnt; the things you are " powerless " over are

the things you ask God to look after, not the Docs, as " probably no

human power " can relieve you of them. However, perhaps God created

antideps for the purpose of relieving antidepressant. This is a very

silly argument, since why did God create or allow depression in the

first place, but no sillier than the standard Aa line abt od relieving

alcoholism, since there is the same question as to why he let it happen

in the first place. M Svcott Peck wrote (quoting from memory) " ...God

created alcoholism on order to create Alcoholics Anonymous, which was

created to create the philosoppy that will save the world. "

>And it is

> also possible for both to encourage the pessimistic thought habits

> which Seligman and others link to depression.

I dont know by " both " you included Anti-deps themsleves I see no

reason why they should encourage pessimistic thoughts other than the

internalized societal prejudice against them. The evidence is they

relieve them.

P.