Jump to content
Laura1981

Addyi - FDA Approval for Pro-Sex Neurotransmitter Drug

Recommended Posts

Laura1981

I can't believe this, but the FDA has approved an antidepressant as "Viagra for Women". We may have a tide of women showing up on this site in not to far future. *shudder*

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flibanserin

 

"Flibanserin (code name BIMT-17), proposed trade name Girosa and Addyi, is a drug being studied as a non-hormonal treatment for pre-menopausal women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD)."

 

"Flibanserin is a 5-HT1A receptor agonist and 5-HT2A receptor antagonist that had initially been investigated as an antidepressant.[15][16] Preclinical evidence suggested that flibanserin targets these receptors preferentially in selective brain areas and helps to restore a balance between these inhibitory and excitatory effects.[12]"

 

"On June 4, 2015, the panel to the FDA recommended approval of the drug by 18–6."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cymbaltawithdrawal5600

 

Apparently it doesn't work very well and has some dangerous side effects.

 

That never stopped the FDA before..... those [swear word redacted].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AppleOfSodom

It is not an SSRI/SNRI.

I wonder if it could help with PSSD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
westcoast

It's meant for women who don't ever feel like having sex--the desire part. But not arousal. But women who took it went 2.7 sex acts to 3.7 per month.

 

Apparently the drug company induced some women to be activists. On Twitter they #eventhescore.

 

It cause fainting, so driving could be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mammaP

Oh my word it just gets worse and worse, and no-one who has the power stops them until people die, and even then don't stop them! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Altostrata

The term "antidepressant" really does not have much meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
westcoast

Emily Nagoski is sex-therapist blogger who has followed the "pink pill" since at least last year. She's "sex-positive," so not for Victorian-era sensibilities.

 

About some the women who testified at FDA about their lack of desire (I wonder if they were or had been on ADs? Kinda seems so)

http://www.thedirtynormal.com/blog/2014/10/27/with-gratitude-to-beverley-carol-and-victoria/

 

Something I never heard of--women who think there's something wrong if they don't feel desire out of the blue, but enjoy sex just fine.

http://www.thedirtynormal.com/blog/2015/06/07/flibanserin-the-fda-and-the-longing-for-spontaneous-sexual-desire/
 

 

"Many of the women participating in the trials describe their pre-drug sexual desire as responsive [only]– which is a normal, healthy way of experiencing desire  – except they hated their responsive desire. They believed that their lack of spontaneous desire meant they were broken. They felt profoundly inadequate, and their partners agree with that assessment."

Is that why this hideous daily pill is being considered? Heck, Part of the DSM dx includes never/hardly having sexual fantasies. (If you don't fantasize about food, do you have anorexia nervosa?)

 

Nagasaki expounds on that here (the link in the quotation above)

https://medium.com/galleys/the-science-of-saving-your-sex-life-ed9cfeb4edd7

Srsly...pills to change our fantasy lives? They better get a pill for what at lease one AD survivor often imagines...the FDA on a desert island with only psychotropic drugs to eat, and the APA in asylums being cared for by us.

 

Links to all of her pink pill posts:
http://www.thedirtynormal.com/blog/category/sciencey-goodness/pink-pill/

About her:
Emily has a Ph.D. in Health Behavior with a doctoral concentration in human sexuality from Indiana University (IU), and a Master’s degree (also from IU) in Counseling, with a clinical internship at the Kinsey Institute Sexual Health Clinic. She also has a B.A. in Psychology, with minors in cognitive science and philosophy, from the University of Delaware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oskcajga

This is really messed up but not too surprising.  Unfortunately, American's and other people just eat up quick fixes to complex and extremely difficult things over the alternative "no cure" situation.  So much so that they're willing to give themselves brain damage over a quick fix.  It's just ingrained into our fast paced, inpatient culture.  If the culture of our country doesn't change, things like this are just going to be consumed more and more because people are always looking for that quick fix.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
btdt

hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD).

THIS DRUGS FOR ME! 

 

LOL To cure what the other drugs caused... 9 years no sex... I think I should care and I do but not enough to cause myself to be poisoned by more drugs. 

 

Effexor hpersexual... post effexor not sexual at all... started in pooped out... it feels like I burned out my sex wanting hormones... they are spent all used up when I was on E... 

Then PSSD and no feeling numbed out .. that left ...mostly tho not completely... morphing into ... severe orgasm head aches.. that will cause hypoactive sexual desire fast ... now a new pill lucky me... :) 

 

To anyone who does not know I am being sarcastic.. i am being sarcastic!  

Drugs have ruined my life part of that is my sex life... just say NO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
btdt

It's meant for women who don't ever feel like having sex--the desire part. But not arousal. But women who took it went 2.7 sex acts to 3.7 per month.

 

Apparently the drug company induced some women to be activists. On Twitter they #eventhescore.

 

 

It cause fainting, so driving could be a problem.

 

 

Maybe they should start at the start with birth control pills... causing depression.  Pharma has a 60 year head start... unraveling it won't be easy.  If one small thing changes the outcome of a formula... then the pill would be the first thing I would suspect in this chemical soup ... so many woman are on them and the side effects are brushed aside if your not laid out with a stroke your doc will send you packing when you complain of side effects. 

Girls are starting them so young they don't know a side effect from becoming hormonal.. who would.  I would love to see the pharma "hidden trials" on the bc pill.. don't think there are any?  

I will put money down to say there are... but not much money I have pharma induced hypoactive bank account balance you may have heard of it... PIHBAB...not bad if you say it fast ... so keep the betting amounts low please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Songbird

I think we have a real problem with our culture.  There is such a narrow range of what is considered 'normal' and anything else becomes a 'disorder'.  Our culture is so obsessed with sex, like it is something we absolutely need - some people act as if it is as important as air and water, like they'd die without it.  Why should it be such a big deal if someone doesn't want much sex?  Why is that considered a medical problem?  I can see that it could cause relationship problems if partners have very mismatched libidos, but is that a good reason to take drugs?  If the problem was that major, I would be looking for a more compatible partner.  (But hey, maybe I've got 'Victorian-era sensibilities'!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ibid

Good editorial on this subject in today's NY Times. I'm also concerned about the recent approval of a naltrexone/bupropion combination drug for obesity (What happens after someone loses the weight they need to lose?) and an Adderal-like (amphetamine analog) drug approved for binge eating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InvisibleUnless

I think we have a real problem with our culture.  There is such a narrow range of what is considered 'normal' and anything else becomes a 'disorder'.  Our culture is so obsessed with sex, like it is something we absolutely need - some people act as if it is as important as air and water, like they'd die without it.  Why should it be such a big deal if someone doesn't want much sex?  Why is that considered a medical problem?  I can see that it could cause relationship problems if partners have very mismatched libidos, but is that a good reason to take drugs?  If the problem was that major, I would be looking for a more compatible partner.  (But hey, maybe I've got 'Victorian-era sensibilities'!)

broadly speaking, sexual expression/gratification is as much a need as any other bio-psychological factor.  whether or not someone would just keel over without it is not the best measure of defining 'need', since context is pretty important.  especially in the sense of human development (physical maturity as well as social adaptation)---for instance, babies can die from not being held, even if you meet their baseline 'physical needs' of sustenance, cleanliness, and rudimentary engagement of one sort or another (non-isolation).  you dont really hear about this happening to adults, but thats because we have a greater ability for 'substitutive coping', and sexuality being a central drive means we have to develop a decent amount of coping ability for dealing with personal sexual denial or dysfunction.  one of the most commonly used tools is 'sublimation'---excelling at another area of your life to direct your energy and need for fulfillment in a positive or constructive manner instead of suffering from complete lack of expression.

 

but, as you said, on the other hand, what might be considered a 'normal' level of sexual interest, engagement, or participation is entirely arbitrary.  i think what encouraging more sexuality is about, from the angle of social health, is helping the people that wish to be more sexual but feel held back by their own biology.  this can be psychologically problematic, and preventative of proper adjustment and peace in life.  however, it is also a notion that can be capitalistically exploited by creating that dissatisfaction within people whereas they were doing fine being how they are until that point.  genuine dysfunction versus social ostracization is an impossible line to definitively draw, but encouraging a holistic approach to physical and mental health means considering that maybe more sex would be better for someone, or less, or more comfortableness with the amount of sex they are having.

 

there have been social campaigns "erectile dysfunction commercials cause erectile dysfunction", and thats a big part of what drug companies are about.  some people have true psychological or physiological impediments towards fulfilling their desired level of sexual success, though.  i think therapy of one sort or another is the absolutely best method of attack in this area, like depression or other brain-oriented disorders that can inhibit physical functioning as well.  the minds power over the body is, essentially, absolute.  while not all sexual problems of a less immediately mental nature can be resolved through altering your thoughts and interactive techniques, a lot of them can be meaningfully treated through therapeutic approaches, and without the dangerous side effects and potential dependencies of drugs.

 

i dont know what sort of crazy person would think a drug with antidepressant-type qualities (messing with your 5-HT receptors in this case) would be more likely to significantly enhance libido instead of compromising it in a meaningful number of individuals, but meds are all about effective marketing, not effective treatment.  america is all about taking the shortcuts and getting everything you want as soon as possible, damn the risks, so marketing something like this could still go reasonably well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
btdt

Same thing happens after them all .. the new diet drug the sex drug.. side effects ...more drugs to treat the side effects.. some day wd and attempts to treat wd with more drugs... $$$$$$$$$

money talks... but it can't sing and dance and it can't walk... 

but you can pay somebody to do that for you if your rich enough :)

 

Invisible Unless. 

"i dont know what sort of crazy person would think a drug with antidepressant-type qualities (messing with your 5-HT receptors in this case) would be more likely to significantly enhance libido instead of compromising it in a meaningful number of individuals"

 

I think it is marketed as a desire enhancing drug not so much a libido drug.... to me libido means I want sex based on my own needs .... I don't have any at this point in time so it is very clear to me...

desire is different more a brain thing  

They are trying to change the brain thing and they are going to break the libido thing..

Same as calling female viagra .. marketing it is not increasing blood flow to the genitals.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InvisibleUnless

i think people really lose sight of how drugs work.  we are told that something causes effect A or B or whatever, and i guess a lot of people imagine that there is some...inherent purpose in the medication that causes A or B and nothing else is meaningfully affected.  they dont consider the system ramifications of changing whatever has to be changed in order for A or B to magically come about, and probably dont realize that "side effect" is no different than desired effect A or B---its just the marketing angle.

 

thats a scary notion---'desire' over 'libido'...thats exactly like how some psych meds already work---you are anorgasmic or unable to even become aroused, and probably dont have it in mind to go rooting about and yet your brain is on fire with rage or the desire to mount anything that moves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
btdt

"thats a scary notion---'desire' over 'libido'...thats exactly like how some psych meds already work---you are anorgasmic or unable to even become aroused, and probably dont have it in mind to go rooting about and yet your brain is on fire with rage or the desire to mount anything that moves."

 

Your preaching to the choir...me quit my job became a stripper .. crazy sex thoughts constantly in way of intrusive thoughts.. and no brain left to sort them out. 

 

Why would we be expected to know drug side effects all they tell us are the good things... oh and you may have dry mouth I was told and they are NOT addictive I was told that too.

 

Doctors and pharma scientists are not expected to know the ins and outs of other industries banking insurance investing.. they expect those who are the specialists in these areas to actually be the ones who know best how to advice them... when it fails people are hurt and people sue unless it is pharma.. not much serious suing them... not so far not really.  Not in the way they would be suing if they lost all there money based on advice from a investment company... they would want and get compensation I am sure of it.. as soon as they proved liability ... we see liability every day here no real justice tho that has not really happened that much. Unless a person is dead then there is no price for life that is enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Songbird

broadly speaking, sexual expression/gratification is as much a need as any other bio-psychological factor.  whether or not someone would just keel over without it is not the best measure of defining 'need', since context is pretty important.  especially in the sense of human development (physical maturity as well as social adaptation)---for instance, babies can die from not being held, even if you meet their baseline 'physical needs' of sustenance, cleanliness, and rudimentary engagement of one sort or another (non-isolation).

I agree, there are different kinds and levels of needs - though if babies actually die from not being held I would tend to class that as a baseline need. Like in Maslow's need hierarchy - "self-actualisation" is a need, although we don't tend to die without it.  I'm not saying that sex is unimportant, but I think it is more important to some people than others, and also how much sex people need can vary hugely between individuals. 

 

What I was getting at is that in our society there is this kind of expectation that everyone should be wanting and having lots of sex.  You just have to read magazines, it's like if you are not having sex at least several times a week there must be something wrong with you.  I guess they don't come right out and say it like that but the implication is there.  I think this kind of societal expectation could be making some people believe there is something wrong with them because they have a low sex drive.  It's creating a dissatisfaction. 

 

It's like the "you can never be too thin or too rich" idea.  People believe they would be happy if only they were thinner, and/or richer and/or having more sex, and so on.  It's all about selling stuff - you have to make people dissatisfied with what they have and then make them believe they'll be happy once they have whatever you're selling.  But of course by then there will be something else they "need" to have to be happy.

 

Another big problem with our society is what btdt is talking about - the pop a pill for everything culture that ignores the risks and side effects (not to mention all the unknown long term effects).  Even if more sex is very important to you, is the benefit worth the risk of taking these pills?  Look at all the problems diet drugs have caused.

 

I'm not sure I get the difference between 'desire' and 'libido', to me they seem like the same thing, but physical arousal is something different.  ADs can effect either or both.  I just don't buy this HSDD thing, I think it's another made up disorder to make people feel dissatisfied or concerned that there is something wrong with them, just to sell more pills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InvisibleUnless

wow, this became a bit oversized, so i edited it to create sections for easy reference.

 

part I (death):

 

well, i think my point regarding need is that "death" increases in complexity as an idea just as our concepts of things like "self" and "need" do as we age.  what "death" is to and for an adult is, in some ways, incomparable with the concerns of an infant, pre-speech and pre-socialization.  the physical termination of biorhythm is not, for most, the defining concept behind death of self, and is useful in infants primarily because we cannot fully know the depths of their existence but do have an absolute line at which we can say things are irreversible and wholly unacceptable.  like how suicide risks for teenagers are different in nature and presentation from suicide risks for people in their 50s, and people in their 80s are often different from both, though you can see common threads regarding the affirmation of humanity within the individual.

 

self-actualization can be termed more as a trend and goal than pure need, as you were saying, (and in maslows pyramid, sex is categorized as a far more fundamental and essential aspect of human existence---he put it right at the base of all human interaction along with sleeping and crapping).  you can also think from the top-down about it, as well.  for instance, obtaining sex is one of the primary economic motivators (ie marketing products or social contracts), primary uses of economic systems (bartering for sex), and purposes for the breaking of normal 'civilized human social contracts' (such as murder after an affair comes to light, either by the guilty parties or of them).

 

so, death to an adult could very well precede the actual stilling of a human heart or cessation of brain activity in very near any meaningful sense---and, in fact, the 'right to die' has been a significant social cause for many decades in the western world because it is seen by perhaps the majority of citizens that sometimes having living tissue is less advantageous---less humane---than being dead full stop.  is sex truly that potent?  well, its part of a more sophisticated system, and everyone deals with it a bit differently.  not having sex does indeed contribute to far earlier mortality for adults, and correlates with a lot of bad and/or deadly things, and the loss of a long term sexual partner (which includes far more than just sex in terms of reliance) can cause immediate or acute onset of fatality.

 

you did not really take specific issue with any of that, so it was mostly for the purposes of clarification.  i think the issue here is precisely what you stated---"how much sex people need can vary hugely between individuals", and, in lacking the ability for a true personal benchmark that society acknowledges, we are subjected to the pressures of extreme marketing tactics and the attrition of a culture centered around quasi-superficial material gain.

 

 

part II (the media):

 

i do think it is important, though, to distinguish between genuine social pressures and the media portrayal of social pressures.  the near-ubiquity of a particular body image or self-care regimen in the media and least personalized dialogues of a culture does not actually represent the true feelings of the individuals within that culture, separately or collectively.  it can have quite a similar effect, of course, because people get in their heads the idea that perhaps the two are inseparable, or indistinct.  however, studies and research show time after time that the sales pitches of everything with regards to sex (which means personal products, but also industrial functions, recreational media, and entire lifestyle philosophies) are appealing to our baser instincts without actually representing the richer and more meaningful views of wider society.  that is, in fact, their entire point---if society, as a body of members, was pressuring people into feeling the ways media tries to, media would not have to try to!

 

the purpose of marketing is perpetuating the delusion of a manufactured culture that supports---and demands---the physical and emotional complicity required by our drug-heavy living and sex-saturated idea of progress.  it becomes an increasingly foggy distinction to people partly because life imitates art, and the internalization of manufactured demands that prey on the fundamental human instincts we all possess can easily cause class reactions that become self-supporting systems, even separate from the initial formulation by, and control of, the precipitating media.  this means there are semi-closed systems because created in society by media that initiates trends, but cannot control them, and eventually must cope with that loss by pitching new trends that it hopes will re-orient the population back to optimal buying efficiency.  and we react to these trends by trying to re-orient back towards optimal personal satisfaction, in turn, so there is a constant, evolving struggle.

 

"desire", as she and i were discussing it, was more representative of overall human action towards a goal, or the overriding mental need for sexual interaction even apart from the immediate emotional satisfaction or the relief of a physical state of anticipation.  not quite the pressure you were referencing that could cause a woman to take the drug in the first place, but rather the unhinged and unnatural state of imbalance the drug will most likely create within some individuals---kind of like the telltale hunger antipsychotics generally cause: a gnawing, extranatural inclination to consume that is not truly capable of satiation or integrating an overall satisfaction into the life of the individual.  zombification of a sort, really.

 

 

part III (druuuuugs):

 

you are absolutely right that, not only are we relying on medications without proper regard for their consequences, but, even when the consequences are essentially tacitly understood, the enormous drive to use these products as avenues of self-betterment (basically just mass conformity towards an illusory and self-contradictory ideal) is considered more important than the damages they inevitably cause.  any degree of irreparable harm is justified by trying to make someone feel 'more beautiful', or 'more successful', or 'more worthy of social attention'.  its like the stock market...there is the appearance of trends, but its all essentially arbitrary---a system that feeds only into itself, involving entirely imaginary qualities that no one is truly subject to or capable of influencing beyond the framework of the market itself.

 

as we all can probably agree, the introduction of diagnostic criteria for mental abnormality is an economically motivated procedure, and furthermore can only reflect comparative values regarding reports of human activity rather than the experience and context of those human actions.  this particular drug trial seems to have reported its 'effectiveness' and 'usefulness' in terms of how many more fractions of a 'satisfying' sexual encounter a woman experienced in a given time period, as opposed to the gains in life-satisfaction experienced beyond the confines of one particular, high-pressure-measurement aspect.  since they already failed miserably at pitching this pill for other diagnoses, we can see that they are truly just desperate to start raking in the profits from their research and development costs...and the funny thing is, no matter how many uses a drug supposedly has...the inflated cost of the medication is completely detached from the fact that it only had to be developed once for all 10 or 50 or 100 different applications.  we experience a markup of hundreds-to-thousands of a percent from their raw investments, including marketing.

 

so, in the end, is the pill 'worth it'?  probably not for the majority of people...but the same can be said for most medicative treatments.  we are lacking the appropriate social outrage because every new medication is just another installation in the system we have already refused to veto.  acceptance is nowhere near the threat of mere tolerance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oskcajga

wow, this became a bit oversized, so i edited it to create sections for easy reference.

 

part I (death):

 

well, i think my point regarding need is that "death" increases in complexity as an idea just as our concepts of things like "self" and "need" do as we age.  what "death" is to and for an adult is, in some ways, incomparable with the concerns of an infant, pre-speech and pre-socialization.  the physical termination of biorhythm is not, for most, the defining concept behind death of self, and is useful in infants primarily because we cannot fully know the depths of their existence but do have an absolute line at which we can say things are irreversible and wholly unacceptable.  like how suicide risks for teenagers are different in nature and presentation from suicide risks for people in their 50s, and people in their 80s are often different from both, though you can see common threads regarding the affirmation of humanity within the individual.

 

self-actualization can be termed more as a trend and goal than pure need, as you were saying, (and in maslows pyramid, sex is categorized as a far more fundamental and essential aspect of human existence---he put it right at the base of all human interaction along with sleeping and crapping).  you can also think from the top-down about it, as well.  for instance, obtaining sex is one of the primary economic motivators (ie marketing products or social contracts), primary uses of economic systems (bartering for sex), and purposes for the breaking of normal 'civilized human social contracts' (such as murder after an affair comes to light, either by the guilty parties or of them).

 

so, death to an adult could very well precede the actual stilling of a human heart or cessation of brain activity in very near any meaningful sense---and, in fact, the 'right to die' has been a significant social cause for many decades in the western world because it is seen by perhaps the majority of citizens that sometimes having living tissue is less advantageous---less humane---than being dead full stop.  is sex truly that potent?  well, its part of a more sophisticated system, and everyone deals with it a bit differently.  not having sex does indeed contribute to far earlier mortality for adults, and correlates with a lot of bad and/or deadly things, and the loss of a long term sexual partner (which includes far more than just sex in terms of reliance) can cause immediate or acute onset of fatality.

 

you did not really take specific issue with any of that, so it was mostly for the purposes of clarification.  i think the issue here is precisely what you stated---"how much sex people need can vary hugely between individuals", and, in lacking the ability for a true personal benchmark that society acknowledges, we are subjected to the pressures of extreme marketing tactics and the attrition of a culture centered around quasi-superficial material gain.

 

 

part II (the media):

 

i do think it is important, though, to distinguish between genuine social pressures and the media portrayal of social pressures.  the near-ubiquity of a particular body image or self-care regimen in the media and least personalized dialogues of a culture does not actually represent the true feelings of the individuals within that culture, separately or collectively.  it can have quite a similar effect, of course, because people get in their heads the idea that perhaps the two are inseparable, or indistinct.  however, studies and research show time after time that the sales pitches of everything with regards to sex (which means personal products, but also industrial functions, recreational media, and entire lifestyle philosophies) are appealing to our baser instincts without actually representing the richer and more meaningful views of wider society.  that is, in fact, their entire point---if society, as a body of members, was pressuring people into feeling the ways media tries to, media would not have to try to!

 

the purpose of marketing is perpetuating the delusion of a manufactured culture that supports---and demands---the physical and emotional complicity required by our drug-heavy living and sex-saturated idea of progress.  it becomes an increasingly foggy distinction to people partly because life imitates art, and the internalization of manufactured demands that prey on the fundamental human instincts we all possess can easily cause class reactions that become self-supporting systems, even separate from the initial formulation by, and control of, the precipitating media.  this means there are semi-closed systems because created in society by media that initiates trends, but cannot control them, and eventually must cope with that loss by pitching new trends that it hopes will re-orient the population back to optimal buying efficiency.  and we react to these trends by trying to re-orient back towards optimal personal satisfaction, in turn, so there is a constant, evolving struggle.

 

"desire", as she and i were discussing it, was more representative of overall human action towards a goal, or the overriding mental need for sexual interaction even apart from the immediate emotional satisfaction or the relief of a physical state of anticipation.  not quite the pressure you were referencing that could cause a woman to take the drug in the first place, but rather the unhinged and unnatural state of imbalance the drug will most likely create within some individuals---kind of like the telltale hunger antipsychotics generally cause: a gnawing, extranatural inclination to consume that is not truly capable of satiation or integrating an overall satisfaction into the life of the individual.  zombification of a sort, really.

 

 

part III (druuuuugs):

 

you are absolutely right that, not only are we relying on medications without proper regard for their consequences, but, even when the consequences are essentially tacitly understood, the enormous drive to use these products as avenues of self-betterment (basically just mass conformity towards an illusory and self-contradictory ideal) is considered more important than the damages they inevitably cause.  any degree of irreparable harm is justified by trying to make someone feel 'more beautiful', or 'more successful', or 'more worthy of social attention'.  its like the stock market...there is the appearance of trends, but its all essentially arbitrary---a system that feeds only into itself, involving entirely imaginary qualities that no one is truly subject to or capable of influencing beyond the framework of the market itself.

 

as we all can probably agree, the introduction of diagnostic criteria for mental abnormality is an economically motivated procedure, and furthermore can only reflect comparative values regarding reports of human activity rather than the experience and context of those human actions.  this particular drug trial seems to have reported its 'effectiveness' and 'usefulness' in terms of how many more fractions of a 'satisfying' sexual encounter a woman experienced in a given time period, as opposed to the gains in life-satisfaction experienced beyond the confines of one particular, high-pressure-measurement aspect.  since they already failed miserably at pitching this pill for other diagnoses, we can see that they are truly just desperate to start raking in the profits from their research and development costs...and the funny thing is, no matter how many uses a drug supposedly has...the inflated cost of the medication is completely detached from the fact that it only had to be developed once for all 10 or 50 or 100 different applications.  we experience a markup of hundreds-to-thousands of a percent from their raw investments, including marketing.

 

so, in the end, is the pill 'worth it'?  probably not for the majority of people...but the same can be said for most medicative treatments.  we are lacking the appropriate social outrage because every new medication is just another installation in the system we have already refused to veto.  acceptance is nowhere near the threat of mere tolerance.

Yeah, so this is much more than my brain can handle right now.  It sounds like you're doing pretty well if you can theorize like this, a good sign of a recovering brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InvisibleUnless

things get wordy, you never have to worry about replying quickly, or replying at all.  i get carried away because i like specificity and comprehensiveness.

 

its not really much to theorize...its just a stream-of-consciousness tackling of whatever someone throws on here.  the thoughts are usually years and years old and then when an application comes up i mold the information to fit a meaningful address.

 

i cant always think or type like that day-to-day in withdrawal, but its also not something requiring much deeper investment on my part.  people think i cope well because i guess i had a headstart in life with some things...which is a problem for seeking help because when you talk about losing abilities on the fringe of human perception instead of in the dead average (or, god forbid, tail end), people just figure you are better off as some castrated 'normal' person.  or worse, they chalk your previous proficiencies up to delusion even if you have something to show for it and never took meds during it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Songbird

as we all can probably agree, the introduction of diagnostic criteria for mental abnormality is an economically motivated procedure

Totally agree. They are making up new diagnoses all the time to sell more pills.  I haven't seen the DSM, but apparently it just keeps getting bigger and bigger with each new version.  There's nobody normal and healthy left - everyone has to have some kind of disorder so they can be put on a med.

 

 

we are lacking the appropriate social outrage because every new medication is just another installation in the system we have already refused to veto

I guess you are referring to the 'pop a pill' culture I was talking about. It kind of horrifies me that it is considered normal these days for just about everyone to be on meds, often several.  When I think about it, it actually really creeps me out.

 

Yeah, so this is much more than my brain can handle right now. It sounds like you're doing pretty well if you can theorize like this, a good sign of a recovering brain.

Ha ha, I feel the same way.  I wish I could be more eloquent, but my brain feels dumber these days than its ever been. I thought I used to write quite well, but these days I really struggle for words a lot of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
btdt

"thats a scary notion---'desire' over 'libido'...thats exactly like how some psych meds already work---you are anorgasmic or unable to even become aroused, and probably dont have it in mind to go rooting about and yet your brain is on fire with rage or the desire to mount anything that moves."

 

Your preaching to the choir...me quit my job became a stripper .. crazy sex thoughts constantly in way of intrusive thoughts.. and no brain left to sort them out. 

 

Why would we be expected to know drug side effects all they tell us are the good things... oh and you may have dry mouth I was told and they are NOT addictive I was told that too.

 

Doctors and pharma scientists are not expected to know the ins and outs of other industries banking insurance investing.. they expect those who are the specialists in these areas to actually be the ones who know best how to advice them... when it fails people are hurt and people sue unless it is pharma.. not much serious suing them... not so far not really.  Not in the way they would be suing if they lost all there money based on advice from a investment company... they would want and get compensation I am sure of it.. as soon as they proved liability ... we see liability every day here no real justice tho that has not really happened that much. Unless a person is dead then there is no price for life that is enough. 

I know this is going backwards but one important facts was missing look up effexor on the FDA website and see the number of changes to the label of effexor... it is a very long long list.  Even if I were to know all I know now and have looked up the side effects listed on the FDA website when I started Effexor I would not have been any further ahead as there was not much there. 

The labels change all the time... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
btdt

things get wordy, you never have to worry about replying quickly, or replying at all.  i get carried away because i like specificity and comprehensiveness.

 

its not really much to theorize...its just a stream-of-consciousness tackling of whatever someone throws on here.  the thoughts are usually years and years old and then when an application comes up i mold the information to fit a meaningful address.

 

i cant always think or type like that day-to-day in withdrawal, but its also not something requiring much deeper investment on my part.  people think i cope well because i guess i had a headstart in life with some things...which is a problem for seeking help because when you talk about losing abilities on the fringe of human perception instead of in the dead average (or, god forbid, tail end), people just figure you are better off as some castrated 'normal' person.  or worse, they chalk your previous proficiencies up to delusion even if you have something to show for it and never took meds during it all.

"which is a problem for seeking help because when you talk about losing abilities on the fringe of human perception instead of in the dead average (or, god forbid, tail end), people just figure you are better off as some castrated 'normal' person.  or worse, they chalk your previous proficiencies up to delusion even if you have something to show for it and never took meds during it all."

 

Yes and yes... they will never believe you and as a psych patient doctors are invested in putting a wall between them and your insanity, to insulate them from any possible need to act on your behalf outside the system.  As the system maintains the system without it they are more lost then we are right now... well maybe just as lost but not nearly as sick.  It then looks like when it comes to saving themselves or us they simply choose themselves. I see the same mindset played out over and over again in all sorts of service industries the client cannot be outside the realm of known "thought leader"  generalizations as they are the last word on everything.  There is no personal critic of the system the thought leaders are taking all the independence away by their elite positioning as the last word on all subjects. This is how we got lost... this also why we stay lost. 

 

It does not matter what shows up physically or psychologically .. all will become part of your disorder if that fails you will get a new dx there is no room inside the system to get well is what I am thinking and I curse the days I know I need to go to any doctor with all my sensitivities and reactions they do not understand.. which makes me more of an anomaly - a one off -  that oh oh dies from a drug reaction.. collateral damage you see.. it must have been genetic... 

 

Gag.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InvisibleUnless

commercial industry is literally a war, and follows the psychology and practical influence of more explicitly militarized wars with bombs and AK-47s.  its not just about self-preservation, but also defining who is 'your group' in various social circumstances so that you have the benefits and power of numbers through allies in whatever situation you my find yourself in.  sometimes medical professionals define themselves, through their actual actions, as being on the 'side' of patients, or at least specific patients, but that is usually in rare circumstances.

 

the most prominent groupings are class groupings, which follow lines like income, profession, native city/country/etc, ethnicity, and other experiences that make people feel like they have common thoughts and goals.  part of warfare, for civilians and military personnel alike, is de-identifying with the enemy.  labels, propaganda, actual physical barriers, attacks on associated beliefs (philosophies, religions, culture, interactive styles, etc) and other forms of drawing very apparent social lines are a part of this dissociation, and being categorized as patients, or specific kinds of patients especially (ie 'psych patient' or 'pain patient', etc), enables the doctors to function more discriminatorily and with less emotional investment in the impact of their actions.  its not mere professional detachment, but the necessary reclassification of individuals to maintain distance from the threat they pose to our very humanity.  empathy is essentially the opposite of science and scientific progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
btdt

 its not mere professional detachment, but the necessary reclassification of individuals to maintain distance from the threat they pose to our very humanity.

Yes I see it all the time with doctors I feel it too.. even if they con me when I am sitting there ... they are practices in the are of deception they do it all day long when I read the reports they write about me after I have left  then I see what whores they actually are.. one thing to my face not showing a hint of "reclassifying me to my face"  but behind me back the ***** is working hard. ( *****: as in person with no morals, no scruples and manipulates to do the job )  

 

  empathy is essentially the opposite of science and scientific progress.

and this is why they fail to heal anyone maybe science as one more tool of whores needs to be done away with...

 

in seeing a sex type ***** everyone knows the score.. but this kind have a parade of power behind them.. so we can't tell the truth about it.

peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InvisibleUnless

glad i try to read these via email for the most part---the filter really takes the piss out of your analogy in the actual posting.

 

its an important point...people here largely see professions like government officiation and criminal defense lawyering as 'whoring' but that mindset does not extend to doctors, research scientists, or other essential cogs in the medical entrapment system save the rare exception.  are people oblivious to the unending payoffs and kickbacks or is the facade of objective science something they purposefully maintain because, like almost all social facades, it is part of what keeps them on their own planned paths in life?

 

over here, if you try to express disillusionment regarding one or more pillars of society (military industrial complex, big pharma, government, obese ag, etc) you get an ostracizing 'radicalist' label and can rarely be anywhere as functioning as you normally would be unless you have some personal clout (like big actors, for instance, who sometimes have the latitude to be less 'normal'---might make a few enemies or lose some roles, but also get more press and some politically motivated casting/projects).  having convictions is penalized and sanctioned against in a consumerist capitalist social structure; it can create niche opportunities, but is more constricting than freeing (and surely more constricting than just being or playing 'normal').

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alexjuice

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/sexual-health/fda-approves-says-no-female-viagra-n411711

 

 

 



The Food and Drug Administration approved a so-called "female Viagra" pill Tuesday, saying it wanted to offer an option to women with sexual dysfunction, a decision that disappointed doctors and advocates who said the drug didn't work safely enough to justify approval.

 

"Today's approval provides women distressed by their low sexual desire with an approved treatment option," said Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

 

The drug, which will be sold under the brand name Addyi, is known generically as flibanserin. It works by changing how brain cells respond to various message carrying chemicals called neurotransmitters, with the aim of changing a woman's sexual desire over time.

 

 

I am not surprised to see this drug get approval but I think it's very sad. I can predict today that some percentage of women who take this medicine with have their lives destroyed.

 

Says wikipdia:

 

 


By modulating these neurotransmitters in selective brain areas, flibanserin, a 5-HT1A receptor agonist, D4 receptor very weak partial agonist/antagonist, and 5-HT2A receptor antagonist, may improve the balance between these neurotransmitter systems [restoring healthy sexual response].

I am biased by all the time I spend around these parts, but I can't imagine how anyone in the world takes this neurotransmitter gobbleygook seriously.

 

Such is it, C'est la vie!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JanCarol

https://www.nwhn.org/consumer-alert-pass-on-the-pink-pill-or-pass-out/

 

 

The National Women’s Health Network is warning all women about the health risks of the new “pink pill” – known as flibanserin and branded as Addyi – alleged to boost female libido. Rather than rely on drug company marketing, NWHN recommends that women educate themselves and pass on the pink pill.

Alert Background:

A pharmaceutical giant known for price gouging and shady business practices paid $1 billion in cash last August to market the drug to millions of American women with “acquired generalized hypoactive sexual desire disorder”. While some women do suffer from sexual dysfunction, Addyi is not a safe solution.

The drug is so ineffective, and has such dangerous side effects, that the FDA rejected it twice, before caving in to pressure, orchestrated by the drug company, to approve a sex drug for women because men have Viagra. The pink pill is NOT a female Viagra. It is so risky that only doctors and pharmacists who are specially trained and certified can prescribe and dispense it, and women must sign a statement taking responsibility for following their doctor’s exact orders. Addyi has a high risk of side effects that include passing out, especially with alcohol.

 

and a distributable pdf:

https://www.nwhn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/NWHN_Addyi_Fact_Sheet_P2.pdf

 

Includes 10 reasons why this drug is a bad idea.

 

I'm wondering how long it will be before we get women who need to taper this thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JanCarol

topics merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JanCarol

And as for sex being a human need, try telling that to these people:  http://www.asexuality.org/en

 

As we no longer need to proliferate the planet, to "be fruitful and multiply," people (mostly young people, but not all) are finding new ways to relate to romance, relationship, and communication of requirements via asexuality.  There may be chemical causes for this (glyphosate binding to hormones, for example, as well as antidepressants before and during pregnancy), but it's real, and growing.

 

People can accept who they are and what they need and want without caving to social norms or media pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy