Many 1000s are sickened by psych drugs, but millions are saved? Is that a valid argument?

[compsports]

I thought the above blog entry by Gianna Kali on her Beyond Meds website was quite interesting.

 

https://bipolarblast.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/sickenedorsaved/

 

I had an online conversation with a psychiatrist the other day. We were talking about benzo withdrawal.

 

His bottom-line argument against my cautions about the dangers of benzo use and withdrawal was that those who get sick are in an insignificant minority and therefore everything I said was fear-mongering. Period. The fact that many 1000s of people get sick in withdrawal compared to the millions who are “saved” means that those of us who are ill are simply to be written off as people with bad luck. Too bad, you’re sick, the miracle that is benzodiazepine helps most people.

 

I find this argument intriguing. He is a doctor and thinks like many doctors. He thinks like many people in fact. Democracy is actually based on such thinking. The majority rules, right?

 

[Continue at the above link.]

 

 

Well, as I keep saying to many psychiatrists online, if the meds work, where is the long term evidence that they do? Simply stating that because you say they work as doctors is strictly anecdotal evidence and is not evidenced based.

 

After all, if a bunch of alternative health professionals claimed that fish oil capsules worked for depression long term, that would be pegged as anecdotal evidence. So why do these guys get away with that BS?

 

Interesting that she was accused of fear mongering. Did she speak with Ron Pies:)? All jokes aside, it is ironic we're pegged as the fear mongerers but yet it is ok for these folks to spout unproven statistics on the suicide that will occur if people don't take their ADs.

 

Gianna goes on to link to studies by Whitaker that show that a majority of people experience long term damage on SSRIs. Of course, psychiatry is in denial.

 

Finally, another reason why the minority may not be so extreme as far as side effects is that they are constantly under reported with all meds. The FDA estimates that only 1 to 10% of all adverse effects are ever reported.

 

With psych meds, that statistic may be even lower because once you have the mental illness label, all complaints are attributed to that and you are not taken seriously. In fact, many psychiatrists, (not all) will automatically raise the dose instead of removing the offending drug because adverse affects are seen as a worsening of your condition.

 

CS

[Altostrata]

CS, another response to that psychiatrist would be that the FDA considers an adverse event frequency of .01% (1 in 1,000 people) as significant.

 

With about 30 million in the US alone on antidepressants, .01% would be would be only 30,000 people.

 

If a pattern of injury is occurring, psychiatry should study it and develop ways to avoid it, not just dismiss it. That's what we used to trust medicine to do.

 

And, you are right, people may be put at risk for injury for no good reason at all.

[compsports]

CS, another response to that psychiatrist would be that the FDA considers an adverse event frequency of .01% (1 in 1,000 people) as significant.

 

With about 30 million in the US alone on antidepressants, .01% would be would be only 30,000 people.

 

If a pattern of injury is occurring, psychiatry should study it and develop ways to avoid it, not just dismiss it. That's what we used to trust medicine to do.

 

And, you are right, people may be put at risk for injury for no good reason at all.

 

Hi Alto,

 

I don't think it would really matter to that psychiatrist.

 

He has already made up his mind that because millions are helped that the small rate of adverse effects is an acceptable tradeoff.

 

You're right, we used to trust medicine to study patterns of injury. But Stuart Shipko, in his interview with Breggin rightfully mentioned that the profession no longer considers harm from meds as side effects.

 

It is sickening.

 

CS

[Altostrata]

Yes, it is sickening, and another sign that psychiatry does not think scientifically.

 

"Not significant" is a personal opinion, not a fact.

[alexjuice]

I wondered something along these lines just recently. I've had some harder times of late and saw my psychiatrist last week. My hypersensitivity has been particularly intense...

 

Anyway, I was explaining to her my problem with this issue and she completely dismissed it. I had taken a small amount of expresso (1/4 of a serving) mixed in 20 oz hot water because I could not afford to fall asleep before the meeting especially since I'd recently called on this doc to refill a controlled substance early. I've had several sleepless nights of late.

 

At her office I was very stimulated, so much that it was difficult to talk and breathe normally. I told her of the challenges of hypersensitivty and how much I have struggled lately. She thought it must be tough to 'believe' that caffeine can affect me so greatly, that the mind can play incredible tricks when a person believes a thing.

 

I long ago realized there is no point in debating any (ANYANYANY) of my doctors, I just get the meds I need and come talk to people online or try different doctors for consult, academics and such... My psychiatrist, a well meaning person, 100% doesn't believe I am suffering from prolonged w/d. She doesn't believe this exists. I've so far NEVER met a doctor in person who believes it exists.

 

Finally, I must conclude that I am very rare or the denial is very deep.

 

My hunch, independent of the 'help' or 'salvation' of others, is that people who have been on my levels of drugs to my degree either a.) never come off them at all or b.) rarely have prolonged w/d of my severity if they do. Docs don't believe me b/c they have never, ever seen it before, right? Tell me I'm right.

 

As this regards the discussion... if I am 1 in 100,000 or something then, to others, I'm a necessary sacrifice. Vaccines work this way, to my understanding. For every million of whatever vaccination (for bio-weapons, say) a tiny %, like .0001% will contract the infection and die from it. Nobody opposes vaccines (for this reason, anyway) since 99,999 are saved and only 1 dies while without the vaccine the whole 100,000 remains at risk.

 

It doesn't matter to docs right now that the drugs might not work, they think they do and will continue to think that. It takes a lot of convincing for a man to disbelieve something when the belief in it makes him rich...

 

So there must not be sufficient numbers of me around thus psychiatrists only rarely confront these issues, so infrequently that their rationalization apparatus can wipe them from memory even??

 

Alex.i

[Altostrata]

Alex, it's denial. Denial can be quite powerful.

 

Look at it this way. How many psychiatrists would admit to their colleagues they've injured a patient?

 

Does that explain why they've never heard of prolonged withdrawal syndrome?