4 ms·

They worked for me and they prescribe them because they work - or can. They aren't THE answer, they are AN answer - for some people. Please don't dismiss them.

They worked for me and they prescribe them because they work - or can. They aren't THE answer, they are AN answer - for some people. Please don't dismiss them. > But the drugs earn billions for big pharma, who covered up the studies and spent millions on spin and obfuscation Having worked in the area, this is something I have no trouble believing. And believe me, the side effects of anti-depressents are something I am aware of acutely. They could be very tough indeed. Edit: from your link (and thanks!): "Whitaker acknowledges that psychiatric medications do sometimes work but believes that they must be used in a "selective, cautious manner. [...] And honestly, they should be used on a short-term basis."[12]" This is something that makes acute good sense to me. Edit: let me draw a comparison with painkillers for the body (antidepressants might perhaps be likened to painkillers for the mind). Body painkillers are good, they're useful, but if you need them long-term, someone needs to start looking for some root cause. Some unfortunate souls will develop chronic persistent pain that will need them to take physical painkillers for a long period or even their whole lives, but these should be the rarity. Same with antidepressants.

wombatmobile 6y ago
> They worked for me and they prescribe them because they work - or can. They aren't THE answer, they are AN answer - for some people. I'm glad you got a constructive result! Thank you for clarifying, throwaway_pdp09. As with many medications, efficacy is specific to (in this case unknown) personal aspects of biology. If they knew how to test for who would be helped and who wouldn't be, the drug therapies could be targeted to exclude the patients who would be harmed. > Some unfortunate souls will develop chronic persistent pain that will need them to take physical painkillers for a long period or even their whole lives, but these should be the rarity. Same with antidepressants. The striking differences between those and the drug studies reported in Whitaker's book are (a) the percentage of subjects who obtain negative results; and (b) the rapidity and irreversibility with which these drugs induce dependency. Whitaker details and examines the ruse peddled by drug companies - that depression and bi-polar are the result of "chemical imbalances" which are "restored" by the drugs. If only it were that simple! But there is no evidence to support that global advertising myth. In fact, the drugs induce upregulation of neurotransmitter receptors within weeks, which is responsible for chronic dependency, confusion, and tragically in some people, psychosis upon withdrawl. For a better, more detailed and nuanced response, read the book (which quotes the studies).
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Yeah, I'm glad they worked too... > If they knew how to test for who would be helped and who wouldn't be... I am pretty sure there is work in this area. More precisely targeted treatments can only be a win. I don't dispute whitaker's findings (well especially since I haven't read his book! Nor will have time too sadly) but what trifle I've picked up indicates he's making sense. > In fact, the drugs induce upregulation of neurotransmitter receptors within weeks, which is responsible for chronic dependency, confusion, and tragically in some people, psychosis upon withdrawl. It's difficult to address this. All I can say is that I did not find most of these problems, and of psychosis I think I got that while taking the drug, not upon withdrawal. And note this: that psychosis was not a bad thing at all. One side effect I'd happily live with again, even at the cost of memory loss and whatnot. Just a data point.

wombatmobile 6y ago

> They worked for me and they prescribe them because they work - or can. They aren't THE answer, they are AN answer - for some people. I'm glad you got a constructive result! Thank you for clarifying, throwaway_pdp09. As with many medications, efficacy is specific to (in this case unknown) personal aspects of biology. If they knew how to test for who would be helped and who wouldn't be, the drug therapies could be targeted to exclude the patients who would be harmed. > Some unfortunate souls will develop chronic persistent pain that will need them to take physical painkillers for a long period or even their whole lives, but these should be the rarity. Same with antidepressants. The striking differences between those and the drug studies reported in Whitaker's book are (a) the percentage of subjects who obtain negative results; and (b) the rapidity and irreversibility with which these drugs induce dependency. Whitaker details and examines the ruse peddled by drug companies - that depression and bi-polar are the result of "chemical imbalances" which are "restored" by the drugs. If only it were that simple! But there is no evidence to support that global advertising myth. In fact, the drugs induce upregulation of neurotransmitter receptors within weeks, which is responsible for chronic dependency, confusion, and tragically in some people, psychosis upon withdrawl. For a better, more detailed and nuanced response, read the book (which quotes the studies).

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Yeah, I'm glad they worked too... > If they knew how to test for who would be helped and who wouldn't be... I am pretty sure there is work in this area. More precisely targeted treatments can only be a win. I don't dispute whitaker's findings (well especially since I haven't read his book! Nor will have time too sadly) but what trifle I've picked up indicates he's making sense. > In fact, the drugs induce upregulation of neurotransmitter receptors within weeks, which is responsible for chronic dependency, confusion, and tragically in some people, psychosis upon withdrawl. It's difficult to address this. All I can say is that I did not find most of these problems, and of psychosis I think I got that while taking the drug, not upon withdrawal. And note this: that psychosis was not a bad thing at all. One side effect I'd happily live with again, even at the cost of memory loss and whatnot. Just a data point.