hippopotamus Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I just came across this website, which is littered with photo's of shiny, happy people, apparently implying they're having the *best of bestest* times of their lives on their wonderful antidepressants: http://sundancedx.com/ This just scares the hell out of me. As if the world needs some kind of technically impressive procedure which can tell which people can and can not 'safely' (as in: not provoking suicidality) take antidepressants. I can see the pro-drug argumentation coming from miles away: "Yes, in the past, there have been some cases in which AD's caused some adverse effects, but with our wonderful new technology, we can now assure you that it is very safe to take our antidepressants. Surely anyone who thinks otherwise lives in the past and suffers from lack of insight and illness-related paranoia.' Any thoughts on this? Have been on Seroquel XR from 2008. Dosages have fluctuated quite a bit. Rough guess: I've been on 250-300-350-400-450-500 mg from 2009-summer 2012. Started tapering july 2012 with cuts of 50 mg. By then I had been on 450 mg for a while. October 2012: 200 mg. Due to flu-like WD reinstated to 250 mg nov 12th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Altostrata Posted February 17, 2013 Administrator Share Posted February 17, 2013 The purpose of this site seems to be to recruit people for a study on the genetic markers for risk of suicidal ideation with citalopram (Celexa) or escilatopram (Lexapro). Note they're looking to predict who would have a specific adverse reaction to specific drugs. Any results will not show if the individuals actually had a psychiatric disorder. I guess there might be some genetic basis for this reaction, who knows? It will take a couple of years at least for a study like this to be published, and even then they might not find the association they're looking for. There are many organizations looking for biological markers for psychiatric treatment. So far, none has produced any significant results. For example, see http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/02/five-decades-of-gene-finding-failures-in-psychiatry/ This is not medical advice. Discuss any decisions about your medical care with a knowledgeable medical practitioner. "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has surpassed our humanity." -- Albert Einstein All postings © copyrighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexjuice Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 At this point we need a cooling off period. All children can't take any drugs. Then in 10 or 15 years we'll have some untainted individuals to maybe generate a meaningful result. This won't happen, obviously, but at this point, we're all too polluted. I know that typically a researcher considers a study participant 'untreated' so long as they haven't taken any meds six weeks prior to the start of the study. I know the recruiters DO NOT CARE if a potential participant has taken 100 psych drugs in their life so long as they are six weeks clean. The population enlisting in any psychiatric studies, a significant % are all 'dirty' already. The studies are hopeless. When I was with NAMI, lots of people with hardcore psych med histories, would stop their meds to qualify for a study because they needed $. Six weeks was the typical waiting period. How can a study result be useful if a % of the participants are spun off b/c they cold turkey'd a med regimen 6 weeks prior?? "Well my ship's been split to splinters and it's sinking fast I'm drowning in the poison, got no future, got no past But my heart is not weary, it's light and it's free I've got nothing but affection for all those who sailed with me. Everybody's moving, if they ain't already there Everybody's got to move somewhere Stick with me baby, stick with me anyhow Things should start to get interesting right about now." - Zimmerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnfoldingSky Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I just came across this website, which is littered with photo's of shiny, happy people, apparently implying they're having the *best of bestest* times of their lives on their wonderful antidepressants: http://sundancedx.com/ This just scares the hell out of me. As if the world needs some kind of technically impressive procedure which can tell which people can and can not 'safely' (as in: not provoking suicidality) take antidepressants. I can see the pro-drug argumentation coming from miles away: "Yes, in the past, there have been some cases in which AD's caused some adverse effects, but with our wonderful new technology, we can now assure you that it is very safe to take our antidepressants. Surely anyone who thinks otherwise lives in the past and suffers from lack of insight and illness-related paranoia.' Any thoughts on this? Here's an old article about the general problems with these tests--they aren't foolproof by any stretch of the imagination: http://walrusmagazine.com/article.php?ref=2008.12-selective-testing-alexander-gelfand-big-pharma&page= I am not a medical professional and nothing I say is a medical opinion or meant to be medical advice, please seek a competent and trusted medical professional to consult for all medical decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippopotamus Posted February 19, 2013 Author Share Posted February 19, 2013 Thanks for the info guys. It looks really useful. I'll dive deeper into it at a later moment. Have been on Seroquel XR from 2008. Dosages have fluctuated quite a bit. Rough guess: I've been on 250-300-350-400-450-500 mg from 2009-summer 2012. Started tapering july 2012 with cuts of 50 mg. By then I had been on 450 mg for a while. October 2012: 200 mg. Due to flu-like WD reinstated to 250 mg nov 12th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbarannamated Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 In the late 1990s when the newer antipsychotics were gaining steam, many of the studies used only "medication naive" subjects. If people had ever been on any psychotropic (or certain class of drugs, perhaps), they were not eligible. Has that gone out the window? I'm sure it's near-impossible to find subjects meeting those qualifications, especially for antipsychotic trials (ie. Not exposed to any psychotropics). Pristiq tapered over 8 months ending Spring 2011 after 18 years of polydrugging that began w/Zoloft for fatigue/general malaise (not mood). CURRENT: 1mg Klonopin qhs (SSRI bruxism), 75mg trazodone qhs, various hormonesLitigation for 11 years for Work-related injury, settled 2004. Involuntary medical retirement in 2001 (age 39). 2012 - brain MRI showing diffuse, chronic cerebrovascular damage/demyelination possibly vasculitis/cerebritis. Dx w/autoimmune polyendocrine failure.<p>2013 - Dx w/CNS Sjogren's Lupus (FANA antibodies first appeared in 1997 but missed by doc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts