![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1366 to 1390 of 8406. Go back in thread:
Posted by JLM on November 25, 2002, at 5:18:12
In reply to Re: %'s/see bottom » dr. dave, posted by pharmrep on November 25, 2002, at 3:49:47
> > > > Dear Pharmrep,
> > > >
> > > > Good to see you back! The idea that Lexapro has fewer side-effects than Celexa seems to be floating around again. I presented the most recent and accurate data on this a while back and invited your comments. I may have missed them so forgive me if I am needlessly repeating myself, but it would be good to be clear about your views on this.
> > > >
> > > > > The relative side-effects of Lexapro and Celexa are as follows
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Side effect..........................Lexapro..............Celexa
> > > > >
> > > > > Headache............................15.8%..............19.9%
> > > > > Nausea................................15.0%..............17.2%
> > > > > Ejaculation disorder..............9.3%(of men)...8.8%
> > > > > Insomnia..............................9.2%................8.6%
> > > > > Diarrhoea.............................8.0%...............10.8%
> > > > > Somnolence.........................6.9%................4.7%
> > > > > Mouth dry............................6.2%...............8.1%
> > > > > Upper resp tract infection.....6.2%...............3.9%
> > > > > Dizziness..............................6.0%...............5.6%
> > > > > Flu-like symptoms................5.0%...............6.1%
> > > > > Rhinitis.................................4.9%...............5.6%
> > > > > Sinusitis................................4.3%...............5.1%
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Overall, the type and frequency of TEAEs (treatment-emergent adverse events) reported with escitalopram and citalopram were very similar, and are in line with AEs reported for citalopram previously. For the TEAEs listed (above) there were no statistically significant differences for incidences of these events between the escitalopram and citalopram treatment groups.'
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the official information from Lundbeck about relative side-effects. I wonder if you still stand by the comments that Lexapro has fewer side-effects than Celexa, and that Celexa causes somnolence while Lexapro does not?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >***** I'm not sure i agree with all those %'s...i need to get my package inserts for both and will post (ie...Celexa nausea was 21%, not 17, and I know somnolence for celexa was 18%, not 4...but I will post what the U.S. P.I's state)...as for Lundbeck...the European studies and #'s are done separately from the U.S....I dont think they should be much different, it depends on the parameters of the study.
> > >
> > =====================================================================
> >
> >
> > You can't really compare package inserts (is that what P.I.s are?) as they are measuring incidences of side-effects in different populations. The best way to get an accurate comparison is to compare incidences in the same population, as I have described above.
> >
> > Whether you personally agree with the percentages is arguably not the issue - the issue is what is the most accurate scientific data. I don't mean to offend by that, but it is really important that we rely on scientific data rather than personal opinions.
> >
> > As an employee of Forest, I assume you will have access to full safety data - could you let us see it?
>
> ************* Where did those %'s come from...(they look like P.I. #'s) If they are from a study...can you cite it?...otherwise it looks like it is your opinion...which is why I gave mine.
> What "full safety" data are you talking about? I doubt I am privy to any material you aren't able to get.
I think by 'full safety data' Dr. Dave means ALL the data on the incidence of SE's taken as a whole, and not just the data disseminated to the public in the PI's. This would include data from published and more importantly UNPUBLISHED studies. That way we can see if there is any 'publication bias' wink wink...
Posted by dr dave on November 25, 2002, at 5:49:32
In reply to Re: %'s/see bottom » dr. dave, posted by pharmrep on November 25, 2002, at 3:49:47
> > > > Dear Pharmrep,
> > > >
> > > > Good to see you back! The idea that Lexapro has fewer side-effects than Celexa seems to be floating around again. I presented the most recent and accurate data on this a while back and invited your comments. I may have missed them so forgive me if I am needlessly repeating myself, but it would be good to be clear about your views on this.
> > > >
> > > > > The relative side-effects of Lexapro and Celexa are as follows
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Side effect..........................Lexapro..............Celexa
> > > > >
> > > > > Headache............................15.8%..............19.9%
> > > > > Nausea................................15.0%..............17.2%
> > > > > Ejaculation disorder..............9.3%(of men)...8.8%
> > > > > Insomnia..............................9.2%................8.6%
> > > > > Diarrhoea.............................8.0%...............10.8%
> > > > > Somnolence.........................6.9%................4.7%
> > > > > Mouth dry............................6.2%...............8.1%
> > > > > Upper resp tract infection.....6.2%...............3.9%
> > > > > Dizziness..............................6.0%...............5.6%
> > > > > Flu-like symptoms................5.0%...............6.1%
> > > > > Rhinitis.................................4.9%...............5.6%
> > > > > Sinusitis................................4.3%...............5.1%
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Overall, the type and frequency of TEAEs (treatment-emergent adverse events) reported with escitalopram and citalopram were very similar, and are in line with AEs reported for citalopram previously. For the TEAEs listed (above) there were no statistically significant differences for incidences of these events between the escitalopram and citalopram treatment groups.'
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the official information from Lundbeck about relative side-effects. I wonder if you still stand by the comments that Lexapro has fewer side-effects than Celexa, and that Celexa causes somnolence while Lexapro does not?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >***** I'm not sure i agree with all those %'s...i need to get my package inserts for both and will post (ie...Celexa nausea was 21%, not 17, and I know somnolence for celexa was 18%, not 4...but I will post what the U.S. P.I's state)...as for Lundbeck...the European studies and #'s are done separately from the U.S....I dont think they should be much different, it depends on the parameters of the study.
> > >
> > =====================================================================
> >
> >
> > You can't really compare package inserts (is that what P.I.s are?) as they are measuring incidences of side-effects in different populations. The best way to get an accurate comparison is to compare incidences in the same population, as I have described above.
> >
> > Whether you personally agree with the percentages is arguably not the issue - the issue is what is the most accurate scientific data. I don't mean to offend by that, but it is really important that we rely on scientific data rather than personal opinions.
> >
> > As an employee of Forest, I assume you will have access to full safety data - could you let us see it?
>
> ************* Where did those %'s come from...(they look like P.I. #'s) If they are from a study...can you cite it?...otherwise it looks like it is your opinion...which is why I gave mine.
> What "full safety" data are you talking about? I doubt I am privy to any material you aren't able to get.================================================================
In the UK a drug company has to present data on the incidence of side-effects in clinical trials. This is sometimes referred to as 'safety data'. What I am asking for is the data that is available comparing side-effects from Lexapro and Celexa in direct comparisons. Some of these have been done outside the US and therefore seem, for some reason I don't fully understand, not to count. But some studies directly comparing the two have been done in the US, by Forest, and we should be able to see the results of these trials. If you cannot provide this information that Forest holds, could you explain why it is being withheld?
The data is from the Gorman meta-analysis, the source is Lundbeck. Check with them if you want to be sure.
Posted by new user2 on November 25, 2002, at 6:31:54
In reply to Anyone switched to Lexapro? « ggrrl, posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2002, at 7:52:48
I have been taking Lexapro for 1 week. I get these INTENSE feelings that I am on fire. Not a hot flash,, but actual burning pain all over my body, especially my neck and head. Does anyone else experience this? Please help!
Posted by ayuda on November 25, 2002, at 7:20:49
In reply to Anyone feeling hot?, posted by new user2 on November 25, 2002, at 6:31:54
> I have been taking Lexapro for 1 week. I get these INTENSE feelings that I am on fire. Not a hot flash,, but actual burning pain all over my body, especially my neck and head. Does anyone else experience this? Please help!
No, I haven't experienced anything like that. You should call your doctor and at least speak with them over the phone -- it may be an allergic reaction or something that none of the rest of us are going to encounter.
If you aren't comfortable calling your doctor, call your pharmacist and ask them if this is a side effect or allergic reaction to the drug -- I've called pharmacists in the middle of the night and found that they know A LOT more than my doctor about the drugs my doctor put me on. They can tell you quickly if that is something harmless that could be expected from the med or if you should call a doctor about it.
Posted by pharmrep on November 25, 2002, at 9:01:28
In reply to Re: %'s/see bottom » pharmrep, posted by JLM on November 25, 2002, at 5:18:12
>
> I think by 'full safety data' Dr. Dave means ALL the data on the incidence of SE's taken as a whole, and not just the data disseminated to the public in the PI's. This would include data from published and more importantly UNPUBLISHED studies. That way we can see if there is any 'publication bias' wink wink...
>
*** I have seen your posts before on unpublished studies...I know of no secret hidden studies...everything is on the table.
Posted by sjb on November 25, 2002, at 9:17:43
In reply to Fiery Rhetoric, posted by Mr.Scott on November 24, 2002, at 14:35:27
Amen, bro. I'm so sick of the psychiatric profession now. They have no idea what all these drugs are doing to us, it's just pull out the script for something "new" or up the dose. NO MAS!!!!
Posted by Squiggles on November 25, 2002, at 9:22:53
In reply to Re: Fiery Rhetoric, posted by sjb on November 25, 2002, at 9:17:43
I feel that some gratitude is owed to
Dr. Bob for tolerating all this anti-psychiatry
talk - i believe he IS a psychiatrist, right?
He is very kind or blind, or possibly
attending a conference, not to delete some
of these posts.Squiggles
Posted by sjb on November 25, 2002, at 9:27:10
In reply to Re: Fiery Rhetoric » Squiggles, posted by Geezer on November 24, 2002, at 17:26:55
Posted by Alan on November 25, 2002, at 10:21:20
In reply to Re: Fiery Rhetoric » sjb, posted by Squiggles on November 25, 2002, at 9:22:53
> I feel that some gratitude is owed to
> Dr. Bob for tolerating all this anti-psychiatry
> talk - i believe he IS a psychiatrist, right?
> He is very kind or blind, or possibly
> attending a conference, not to delete some
> of these posts.
>
> Squiggles
================================================
Yes he is kind. But anti-psychiatry? I would have to disagree. I do agree that just saying "psychiatry sucks" without relating any personal experience as to why it sucks isn't very useful.But part of our education about medicines that we put into or bodies, diagnosis, etc, include the political and economic aspects of psychiatry, *especially* when we have someone from the pharmecutical industry visiting this bboard.
Part of getting answers to one's questions is to debate and also to tell of the bad as well as the good experiences with the profession. Where else are we all going to get the information that we need to make informed choices?
As long as there are no ad hominens and personal put downs, I think there is nothing but good to come from debate and strong but respectful rhetoric concerning the claims being made by representatives of the industry.
I'm sure that the Dr. is well aware of this. After all, the idea of this cyber board is to relate information and experiences isn't it?
Posted by Squiggles on November 25, 2002, at 10:37:09
In reply to Re: Fiery Rhetoric » Squiggles, posted by Alan on November 25, 2002, at 10:21:20
There's a representative from the pharmaceutical
companies here? And he is taking notes?
Who is he, let me at him..... grrrrrrrrrrrr!Squiggles
Posted by Alan on November 25, 2002, at 10:37:10
In reply to Re: Fiery Rhetoric, posted by sjb on November 25, 2002, at 9:17:43
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/22/business/22DRUG.html?pagewanted=print&position=top
This seems especially pertinent vis-a-vis this discussion.
Alan
Posted by pharmrep on November 25, 2002, at 10:43:34
In reply to Re: Fiery Rhetoric » Squiggles, posted by Alan on November 25, 2002, at 10:21:20
================================================
> Yes he is kind. But anti-psychiatry? I would have to disagree. I do agree that just saying "psychiatry sucks" without relating any personal experience as to why it sucks isn't very useful.
>
> But part of our education about medicines that we put into or bodies, diagnosis, etc, include the political and economic aspects of psychiatry, *especially* when we have someone from the pharmecutical industry visiting this bboard.
>
> Part of getting answers to one's questions is to debate and also to tell of the bad as well as the good experiences with the profession. Where else are we all going to get the information that we need to make informed choices?
>
> As long as there are no ad hominens and personal put downs, I think there is nothing but good to come from debate and strong but respectful rhetoric concerning the claims being made by representatives of the industry.
>
> I'm sure that the Dr. is well aware of this. After all, the idea of this cyber board is to relate information and experiences isn't it?
>*** I feel we have a balanced representation here...there are doctors, existing patients, potential new ones, a drug rep, and others...as long as people know that many sides are represented here and sort them all with a grain of salt...it is good info. nice post alan
Posted by Geezer on November 25, 2002, at 10:51:27
In reply to Re: Fiery Rhetoric » Geezer, posted by Squiggles on November 24, 2002, at 21:28:03
> How often in your opinion? And how can
> i bring that up without offending or
> jeopardizing an otherwise good relationship
> with my doctor?
>
> tx for paying attention to me;
>
> SquigglesHi Squiggles,
I am reaching far back in my very unreliable memory for this one. I took Lithium for 5 years in the early 80s (I was not DXed Bipolar at that time, it was just the popular treatment of the day), it seems to me blood tests for Lithium levels were every 6 to 8 weeks. The critical times were during the summer months when dehydration was a possibility. I would post this question to the board.....surely there are many people taking Lithium that could suggest a proper testing interval. I recall that I did run .8 to 1.2 levels. I am at a loss for suggestions to make this "kindly" to your GP (I know it is important to maintain a positive relationship). I keep a very respectful relationship with my Internal Medicine doc., .......it's only in psychiatry that I am totally alone after 30 years of trying.
I wish you the very best,
Geezer
Posted by ayuda on November 25, 2002, at 11:50:33
In reply to Re: Fiery Rhetoric » Squiggles, posted by Alan on November 25, 2002, at 10:21:20
> > I feel that some gratitude is owed to
> > Dr. Bob for tolerating all this anti-psychiatry
> > talk - i believe he IS a psychiatrist, right?
> > He is very kind or blind, or possibly
> > attending a conference, not to delete some
> > of these posts.
> >
> > Squiggles
> ================================================
> Yes he is kind. But anti-psychiatry? I would have to disagree. I do agree that just saying "psychiatry sucks" without relating any personal experience as to why it sucks isn't very useful.
>
> But part of our education about medicines that we put into or bodies, diagnosis, etc, include the political and economic aspects of psychiatry, *especially* when we have someone from the pharmecutical industry visiting this bboard.
>
> Part of getting answers to one's questions is to debate and also to tell of the bad as well as the good experiences with the profession. Where else are we all going to get the information that we need to make informed choices?
>
> As long as there are no ad hominens and personal put downs, I think there is nothing but good to come from debate and strong but respectful rhetoric concerning the claims being made by representatives of the industry.
>
> I'm sure that the Dr. is well aware of this. After all, the idea of this cyber board is to relate information and experiences isn't it?
>NO science is an "exact" science -- and especially not psychiatry. I once read where a scientist said that if the human brain was simple enough for us to understand it, we would be too "simpleminded" to understand it!
Psychiatrists are not God! They are human, just like the rest of us - they received an education in a particular field that is a very difficult field to get a handle on. The advances in psychiatric diagnoses and medicine over the past 20 years are amazing! But they aren't finished yet, either.
Yes, many of us are guinea pigs, but look at Santiago's post to see what it was like in the 1980s, and you should thank your lucky stars that at least they have SSRIs that are *trying* to alleviate our problems. 30 years ago and before that, we would all be alcoholics or drug addicts, trying to self-medicate our depression.
We can't expect psychiatrists to be something they are not -- they are not all-knowledgeable about the human psyche, they are students of it. All doctors (and I don't just mean MDs or shrinks)remain students their entire lives -- that's the reality of learning in general.
Some people go into the medical fields because they are good at science and they want to make a lot of money. But MOST go into medicine because they feel they have something to contribute. Many do not -- they are less competent than they think they are. And yes, some of us suffer because of that. But you can't pin anything on an entire group of people just because of any sample -- that's discrimination.
I'm sure that Dr. Bob knows that we are all frustrated -- I bet he is too! I bet that he would love nothing more than to find the "miracle cure" for depression/anxiety/bipolar, etc. People who are waiting around for that miracle, though, have no clue as to how science works.
And I am guessing that NONE of us was forced to go for treatment for our problems. We sought out help. Yes, ill people should seek out help, but should also be aware that help might not always be perfect. And it involves trial and error. People who have cancer often have to try several different types of chemo-therapy until they find the one that will put them in remission. Until they find it, they get sicker and the cancer keeps spreading and they have s/e's that make ours look like a walk in the park -- but that's the state of cancer medication today.
I am an advocate of being fair -- which means being reasonable, giving credit where credit is due and giving *constructive* criticism. One of the roles we play on this site is to pass around ideas that help Dr. Bob and others in his profession to become better doctors and learn more about how these meds affect real people with real lives. Give them some credit for giving us this forum and caring what our input is.
As for pharm reps, they are also not all sleazebags. My roommate's dad is a Pfizer rep, and he is a pretty cool guy. This is a capitalist free-market economy in the US -- that's the reality of it. And their job is necessary. Not necessary in a communist country. Not necessary in a fascist country. But necessary here. Gotta take the good -- democracy -- with the bad -- capitalism at its worst.
Posted by Alan on November 25, 2002, at 12:06:58
In reply to Re: wow...amen to alan on this , posted by pharmrep on November 25, 2002, at 10:43:34
> ================================================
> > Yes he is kind. But anti-psychiatry? I would have to disagree. I do agree that just saying "psychiatry sucks" without relating any personal experience as to why it sucks isn't very useful.
> >
> > But part of our education about medicines that we put into or bodies, diagnosis, etc, include the political and economic aspects of psychiatry, *especially* when we have someone from the pharmecutical industry visiting this bboard.
> >
> > Part of getting answers to one's questions is to debate and also to tell of the bad as well as the good experiences with the profession. Where else are we all going to get the information that we need to make informed choices?
> >
> > As long as there are no ad hominens and personal put downs, I think there is nothing but good to come from debate and strong but respectful rhetoric concerning the claims being made by representatives of the industry.
> >
> > I'm sure that the Dr. is well aware of this. After all, the idea of this cyber board is to relate information and experiences isn't it?
> >
>
> *** I feel we have a balanced representation here...there are doctors, existing patients, potential new ones, a drug rep, and others...as long as people know that many sides are represented here and sort them all with a grain of salt...it is good info. nice post alan
=============================================
In the fashion of which you speak, I will similarly receive your agreement and affirmation with a grain of salt....; )
Alan
Posted by Rich B on November 25, 2002, at 14:06:58
In reply to Re: wow...amen to alan on this » pharmrep, posted by Alan on November 25, 2002, at 12:06:58
I have been on Lexapro for 5 days (including today) for Anxiety. So far, it has done nothing for the anxiety. If anything, it has made it worse. I grind my teeth allot and when I am working on something, I do it very intensely and the anxiety is even worse than it was before. When I am not doing much, am often tired. The tiredness is on and off and I get very tired early in the evening. I have not had insomnia, but when I get up at night to go to the bathroom, I have a hard time getting back to sleep. I have dry mouth and this very light constant headache in the back of my head. This is caused by a tightness in my neck and the back of my head that I believe Lexepro is causing. Can anyone shed some light on my situation? I know I need to give it more time, and I plan on it, but so far, it doesn’t look to good. I am trying to work on my anxiety problem (GAD) through therapy and I was hoping this medication would help bring me down a little and relax. Its hard to work on when the physical systems act as this counterproductive force holding me back.
Thanks ahead of time.
Posted by Squiggles on November 25, 2002, at 14:18:07
In reply to 5 Days on Lexepro = Efficacy side effects, posted by Rich B on November 25, 2002, at 14:06:58
I'm sorry, i forget your diagnosis;
I think that after 5 days anxiety is common
with some drugs (bet this is an SSRI), and
it won't improve. If you could look at a
class that is pacifying, e.g. my friend is
taking Serzone and it is very good for her
in that respect...Here is a neat "hippy" analysis of drugs,
categorizing them in a phenomenalistic way
that might help:Squiggles
Posted by neptune on November 25, 2002, at 14:23:41
In reply to anybody have withdrawal s/e with paxil or effexor?, posted by pharmrep on November 20, 2002, at 19:40:28
It is about to kill me. I just went from 150mg a day of Effexor to Lexapro. The first 14 days were a horror movie, about a C level movie. I went one effexor per day and one lexapro for 3 days, and then all to Lexzpro. I was very sick, did not throw up but could not stay out of the bathroom, immodium may help, I just did not try it because I was taking enough stuff. I have no energy, and my mood is very bleek. I have been in bed for the past 6 days with a brutal "cold". I didn't know my head could hurt so much. This is my first day out. So, I still don't know if I will be able to take the lexapro, or have to fall back to the effexor. I have severe stomach problems anyway, But Effexor seemed to work fine on the stomach, not much on Depression, and before that was tofranil, did not have any stomach problems for about 10 years, and before that I had problems with my stomach for 27 years.
I am just gritting my teeth.
Neptune
Let me know how you do. O.K.
Posted by Alan on November 25, 2002, at 14:25:27
In reply to 5 Days on Lexepro = Efficacy side effects, posted by Rich B on November 25, 2002, at 14:06:58
> I have been on Lexapro for 5 days (including today) for Anxiety. So far, it has done nothing for the anxiety. If anything, it has made it worse. I grind my teeth allot and when I am working on something, I do it very intensely and the anxiety is even worse than it was before. When I am not doing much, am often tired. The tiredness is on and off and I get very tired early in the evening. I have not had insomnia, but when I get up at night to go to the bathroom, I have a hard time getting back to sleep. I have dry mouth and this very light constant headache in the back of my head. This is caused by a tightness in my neck and the back of my head that I believe Lexepro is causing. Can anyone shed some light on my situation? I know I need to give it more time, and I plan on it, but so far, it doesn’t look to good. I am trying to work on my anxiety problem (GAD) through therapy and I was hoping this medication would help bring me down a little and relax. Its hard to work on when the physical systems act as this counterproductive force holding me back.
> Thanks ahead of time.
>
=========================================
Many docs include a "start - up" benzo like ativan or xanax to counteract the start-up side effects of AD's....especially when you are doing this very important "head" work with a psychologist or other type of therapy.Has your doctor offered you bzd monotherapy on an equal footing with the AD - considering your DX?
If not, why? I always find the answers to this kind of question very interesting.
Alan
Posted by Alan on November 25, 2002, at 14:35:42
In reply to Re: 5 Days on Lexepro = Efficacy side effects » Rich B, posted by Squiggles on November 25, 2002, at 14:18:07
> I'm sorry, i forget your diagnosis;
> I think that after 5 days anxiety is common
> with some drugs (bet this is an SSRI), and
> it won't improve. If you could look at a
> class that is pacifying, e.g. my friend is
> taking Serzone and it is very good for her
> in that respect...
>
> Here is a neat "hippy" analysis of drugs,
> categorizing them in a phenomenalistic way
> that might help:
>
> http://www.biopsychiatry.com/
>
> Squiggles
==============================================
From the site:"The so-called minor tranquillisers, the benzodiazepines such as....
"....benzodiazepines in current use tend to induce dependence, dull consciousness and impair the intellect. So there's not much chance of radical life-enrichment here."
And ssri's don't simililarly induce dependence, ie. have a dependence/withdrawl phenomenon?
Bzds dull consciousness and impair intellect? What? As opposed to the disorder itself?
Well, so much for the reliability of that site - at least generally speaking re: bzds.
"Radical life enrichment" isn't what is being talked about I don't think.
Alan
Posted by Squiggles on November 25, 2002, at 14:45:16
In reply to Re: 5 Days on Lexepro = Efficacy side effects » Squiggles, posted by Alan on November 25, 2002, at 14:35:42
Alan,
Would I be too intrusive if i asked
what company you represent, and if that
is too bold, if you wear a suit and tie?Squiggles
Posted by ayuda on November 25, 2002, at 15:17:42
In reply to Re: 5 Days on Lexepro = Efficacy side effects » Squiggles, posted by Alan on November 25, 2002, at 14:35:42
Alan --
I agree with you that the information is outdated. I have been on Ativan for more than a year for my insomnia, and I am neither addicted to it (in fact, I avoid using it whenever even remotely possible), nor has it impaired my life or intellect. In fact, in getting a good night's sleep, I can think clearer during the day. And not to keep harping on it, but I'm a grad student in an analytical field, and I think someone (a professor, myself, another grad student) would have noticed if I wasn't mentally sharp -- and I have been razor sharp. Literally!
Posted by Squiggles on November 25, 2002, at 15:51:21
In reply to Re: 5 Days on Lexepro = Efficacy side effects » Alan, posted by ayuda on November 25, 2002, at 15:17:42
Taking a benzo once in a while is like
having a drink with the boys every Friday
night. But taking every day, is like night
is like drinking every night -- eventually
you will have to take it every night. And
taking some benzos ( maybe not Ativan ) now
and then chronically, will have an addictive
effect.You guys should take a look at Ray Nimmo's site;
not everyone testimonial there is a rabid
rant.Squiggles
Posted by Alan on November 25, 2002, at 17:01:12
In reply to Re: 5 Days on Lexepro = Efficacy side effects » ayuda, posted by Squiggles on November 25, 2002, at 15:51:21
> Taking a benzo once in a while is like
> having a drink with the boys every Friday
> night. But taking every day, is like night
> is like drinking every night -- eventually
> you will have to take it every night. And
> taking some benzos ( maybe not Ativan ) now
> and then chronically, will have an addictive
> effect.
>
> You guys should take a look at Ray Nimmo's site;
> not everyone testimonial there is a rabid
> rant.
>
> Squiggles
=============================================Once again we're back full circle to 2 issues.
1)The relying on extrapolation for the general population based on one's own personal experience qualifying one as being in possesion of the truth (benzo.org).
2)The differentiation between "addiction" and sustained medical dependence:
http://panicdisorder.about.com/library/weekly/aa031997.htm
I am not associated with any pharm. co. and I'm not a MHCP.
In fact if you have read between the lines of my many posts at PB (or taken them at face value for that matter), I have as skeptical an eye on the industry/profession as anyone I've seen post here...since I've learned through my own blood sweat and tears having been the victim of various commercially driven psychotropics by commercially driven doctors for my anxiety disorder.
Alan
Posted by ayuda on November 25, 2002, at 17:04:10
In reply to Re: 5 Days on Lexepro = Efficacy side effects » ayuda, posted by Squiggles on November 25, 2002, at 15:51:21
I'm not saying that you are ranting, I'm just saying that that information is not always true. I was taking the Ativan every night for months. However, when I am not experiencing sleeping problems, I have no problem not taking it. All summer I was mostly fine, I rarely took it, even though it was on my nightstand. Even though I am having sleep problems now, I don't feel like taking it, so I don't. And now that my doctor has given me Trazodone, I don't need the Ativan I still have, and I'm not tempted to take it. In the meantime, all I'm saying is that I am not a zombie, not dulled by the med, and don't feel that my quality of life is lessened because of it. You can't generalize about any med, people experience different things. If I never take another Ativan that's no big deal. If I never take another anything that's no big deal to me. The kind of information that Alan repeated from that website may make someone scared to take a med they need and can tolerate, when the things they say aren't true for everyone. I'm not attacking anyone personally, all I'm saying is that everyone has to be careful with *all* info you get on the web, it's not unbiased. And I think that's what Alan meant, too, that we have to be careful.
> Taking a benzo once in a while is like
> having a drink with the boys every Friday
> night. But taking every day, is like night
> is like drinking every night -- eventually
> you will have to take it every night. And
> taking some benzos ( maybe not Ativan ) now
> and then chronically, will have an addictive
> effect.
>
> You guys should take a look at Ray Nimmo's site;
> not everyone testimonial there is a rabid
> rant.
>
> Squiggles
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.