3 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. I'm glad you got a const

> 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.

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.