Eli Lilly in storm over Prozac evidence (Thread 2)

(seeing that this thread has grown to over 200 responses, I feel - due to those that have slower connections, it is required that the opportunity be given to post to others, a new thread be started - that a new thread be "offered")
here is link to the first thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1111641&mesg_id=1111641

and the original post:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/903824a4-5a98-11d9-aa6e-00000e2511c8.html

Eli Lilly, the US drug company, suppressed evidence that Prozac, its best-selling antidepressant, could cause behavioural disturbances, according to allegations published on Thursday in the British Medical Journal.

The US Food and Drug Administration says it would review confidential Lilly documents handed over by the BMJ, which received them this month from an anonymous source. The reports and memos appear to suggest Lilly officials knew in the 1980s that Prozac had troubling side-effects and sought to minimise their likely adverse effect on prescribing.

The journal says the documents “went missing” 10 years ago during a controversial product liability lawsuit filed on behalf of victims of Joseph Wesbecker, who shot eight colleagues dead, wounded 12 more and then killed himself. Mr Wesbecker had a history of depression and was prescribed Prozac a month before the shootings.

One document, a clinical trial review dated November 1988, stated that 38 per cent of patients treated with Prozac but only 19 per cent of those given a placebo “reported new activation”.

The FDA recently warned that Prozac and similar antidepressants could cause “activation” stimulating agitation, panic attacks and aggression.

...more...

Here's some background on Wesbecker:

http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/7776/PROZACBK.HTM

Everyone in Joseph Wesbecker's life disappointed him. His father died in an accident when Wesbecker was only a year old. His mother was not up to the challenges of parenting and placed him in an orphanage. His first marriage was destroyed in part by arguments over what to do about the kids: a younger son with scoliosis, an older son repeatedly arrested for exposing his genitals to strangers. A second marriage ended over hostility with stepchildren. At age 47, Wesbecker was alone.

If anything, Wesbecker's occupational life was even worse. He hated -- even feared -- his job. The high-speed printing facility in Louisville, Kentucky, where Wesbecker worked repeatedly put him "on the folder," a cramped space surrounded by switches. There, subjected to noise and vibration comparable to being inside a jet engine, he was responsible for operating seven three-story-high presses. Wesbecker's co-workers teased him for begging to be given less stressful duties, and his superiors made him work multiple shifts.

Several years earlier Wesbecker made vague threats about harming his second wife's first husband and her daughter. In 1988 he started buying guns: an AK-47 assault rifle, several semiautomatic pistols, hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Wesbecker told a friend he was acquiring weapons "in case he needed them for his bosses"; he told the union president that he "could come in and wipe the whole place out." Wesbecker's threats -- like Wesbecker himself -- were treated with disdain.

He fought against his descent into mental illness. He made twenty-one visits to a psychiatrist, Dr. Lee Coleman, who tried a succession of medications. On August 10, 1989, Coleman put Wesbecker on Prozac, the antidepressant manufactured by Eli Lilly and Company that had been approved as a prescription drug by the F.D.A. two years earlier. But there were some things about Prozac that Lilly never told the F.D.A. and, consequently, that Coleman did not know.

Coleman did not know Lilly had reason to believe that Prozac might exacerbate "suicidal ideation." Suicidal ideation is associated not only with suicide but with acts of violence generally. Since a significant percentage of people suffering from depression experience suicidal ideation, it could reasonably be expected that perhaps 8 percent of people taking an antidepressant like Prozac would already be obsessed with suicidal thoughts. If Prozac did in fact intensify suicidal ideation in some patients, it had the potential of increasing both suicide and externally directed violence in a significant number of people.

...more...

and for background, once again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1111641&mesg_id=1111641

(Mods: as the first thread now contains 226 posts, it is my opinion (an my opinion only) that it be locked and the discussion continued here)

Her doctor told her she was "imagining it" :eyes:

Ya gotta looooove them drug companies huh?

that's more an issue of a bad doctor than a problem with the drug companie.

anxiety is a problem with the drug company.

Though, she dumped her doc pronto.

However, I don't know any psychiatrist or nurse practitioner who does not teach their patients to report an increase in anxiety (among many other possible side effects) immediately, when prescribing any SSRI. That doc is seriously incompetent.

but that doesn't discount what she complained about. :hi:

as a common side effect.

funny her doctor didn't realize it was a "common" side effect.

What are the side effects of Prozac?

The most common side effects seen in people taking Prozac include anxiety or nervousness, insomnia, drowsiness, headache, diarrhea, and rash. In addition, sexual side effects (reduced arousal or satisfaction) may occur. Prozac has also been shown to cause changes in appetite and weight, usually resulting in weight loss rather than weight gain. Most side effects are mild and brief, usually subsiding in a week or two after beginning treatment. Particularly bothersome side effects can be treated with medication or by reducing the dose of the antidepressant, changing the time the medication is taken, or switching to a different antidepressant.

Is there a significant risk of suicide for people taking Prozac?

Suicide is always a risk in people with severe depression, and it may persist until significant remission occurs. However, consumers and their families must be cautious during the early stages of treatment with all antidepressants, when energy and activity may return before mood improves. At this time - when depression is still severe but when a depressed person may have more energy to take action - the risk of suicide can temporarily increase.

I found this info doing a basic internet search "prozac efficacy".

I dunno? All I know is her doctor told her she was imagining her anxiety and that Prozac would not be the "cause."

The doctor clearly screwed up big time. This is further evidence why general practitioners shouldn't be prescribing psychotropic medications. They don't have enough time to diagnose and they don't have enough time to know the medication and they don't have enough time to follow up.

Not true in other parts of the world.

~snip~
Eli Lilly won the case, but possibly lost a long-term war, for the company was obliged to make public incriminating internal documents dating back to 1978.

According to company minutes, Eli Lilly had full knowledge of what its top-selling drug could do to some people. In the company's own words: "There have been a fairly large number of reports of adverse reactions ... Another depressed patient developed psychosis ... Akathisia and restlessness were reported in some patients."

In another meeting, it was noted that, "some patients have converted from severe depression to agitation within a few days; in one case the agitation was marked and the patient had to be taken off drug."

The minutes also revealed that during the approval process, Eli Lilly's trial subjects were put on tranquilizers to counter the akathisia (and presumably skew the drug trial findings in their favor), though no warning was given when the drug came on the market in the US. In Germany, however, Eli Lilly was obliged to put this caveat on its package insert:

"For his/her own safety, the patient must be sufficiently observed, until the antidepressive effect of Fluctin sets in. Taking an additional sedative may be necessary."

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/depression/38923

Even if it is a few years old.

~snip~
Lilly's own internal documents show it was identified as early as 1978. On August 2 of that year, when only three trials were under way, minutes of a meeting of the Fluoxetine (Prozac) Project Team run thus: "There have been a fairly large number of reports of adverse reactions... Another depressed patient developed psychosis... Akathisia and restlessness were reported in some patients." A similar meeting 10 days earlier had noted that "some patients have converted from severe depression to agitation within a few days; in one case the agitation was marked and the patient had to be taken off drug."

The minutes further state that "in future studies the use of benzodiazepines to control the agitation will be permitted". So, from that point on, Lilly's trial subjects would be put on tranquillisers to get them over the akathisia experienced by some in the early days on the drug. Yet once Prozac was on the market, there was no warning to doctors that such action might be necessary.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,258000,00.html

Someone like the individual under discussion here may simply have a reaction creating the opposite effect of that intended: More anxiety in the case of an anxious individual, more depression in the case of a depressed individual. Further, the possibility of akathisia and restlessness was not unknown to any physician for long, so no physician can use that as an excuse today, regardless of where the physician practices in the world.

Nevermind the reality that no prescriber should ever dismiss a reported side effect as imagined. The prescriber should question the patient in order to attempt to find the etiology, however there is no way that drug trials will find every side effect for every individual, and any decent prescriber knows this.

I read the article the other poster provided and the information in there is pretty damning, if you ask me. It shows a pattern of misinformation and lies similar to the what the tobacco companies accomplished with their products.

Obviously, now that the warnings have been forced upon them, and heavily publicized, the majority of doctors and patients will be informed about the extent of these side effects. But these hidden documents prove that they were not in the past. Isn't that the point of this thread?

On this particular side discussion, there's more under discussion than the mere article.

Why is everyone here just playing games instead of trying to discuss what people actually write about?

problems and did not let anyone know, how could the doctor know in such a short time that Prozac was not the drug for this patient?

just about anything can be a side effect to any drug. Just look at the long lists of possible side effects for any drug, even over-the-counter. If she didn't have anxiety before, started taking the drug, and suddenly had anxiety, and the doctor didn't have the sense to think, hey, maybe it's the meds, he's an idiot. Not saying what Lily did was right, but for real, the doctor played a part in it, a huge one.

"just about anything can be a side effect to any drug. Just look at the long lists of possible side effects for any drug, even over-the-counter."

I've known that Prozac and all psychotropes, actually, are very bad drugs for about ten years. Books and articles have been speaking to this problem for quite a while.

Of course, that hasn't stopped big pharma and the screwed up mental health system from trying to force them down people's throats.

Also, I believe that the term "side effects" is rather insidious and euphemistic. These drugs simply have effects, most of them bad... especially on children.

I wonder if Americans will wake up to this national tragedy of making people think they need to be drugged in order to cure or solve a labeled condition that is based on spurious pseudo-science at best and on the greed and control of big pharma and government at worst. Let's hope so.

Sue

"I've known that Prozac and all psychotropes, actually, are very bad drugs for about ten years."

I simply ask you to prove it to me.

I took St. John's Wort for depression and it worked very well for me. Most people here would be for promoting my freedom to use herb's as an alternative to mainstream drugs. Well, the stomach tightness and other side effects from St. John's Wort were annoying so I asked my doctor for an alternative. It was Prozac and it worked much better than St. John's Wort with less annoying side effects. It was a small miracle for me.

Does this mean it will work for everyone? Of course not, but people need to take responsibility for their own bodies and know what the effects of the medication they are taking is having on their bodies. This is more difficult to do with a drug whose effects can only be reported anecdotally from patients who are not in the best state of mind. Does this difficulty in reporting side effects mean that the drug should not be sold? Did Lilly downplay these results because of the anecdotal nature of them? Probably. Was it wrong for them to do that? I don't know for sure because depressed people I know can be very neurotic (sensitive) and are often OCD too. It doesn't mean that their opinions are not valid, it's just not as cut-and-dry as say taking out a liver or a heart attack. Taking out an organ is an obvious side effect and can be quantified easily. Deciding how many anecdotal reports of negative thoughts before/after a psychotropic drug therapy is difficult to quantify. I do not like Lipator because it makes me feel weak/apathetic - I'm not going to go on a rampage against Lipator though. I found out that I was allergic to a certain antibiotic the hard way, but I'm not going on a mission to destroy it. The manic adjustment period for Prozac is well known and I simply stuck with it and after a slightly nutty time I was well adjusted to it and I was able to self-direct myself out of my depression because I was now able to cope with the thoughts I was having and logically see them for what they were.

I hope that we can force the government to change the system so that prescription drugs are affordable to all. I'm tired of not having access to medications because the FDA approval process is cumbersome and slow. I am willing to take slightly more risk and I do a ton of reasearch before I put any foreign substance into my body. I think doctors who are pushing these drugs like crazy (it's the doctors, stupid) should be doing critical follow-up to ensure that their patients are properly dealing with these substances in their bodies.

I suppose we could take all drugs off of the market that have possible (non-lethal) negative side effects associated with them. Heck I'm supposed to be on cholesteral medication now but I just don't want to take it cause I don't like the way it makes me feel. In fact I don't take any medications now at all - maybe my feelings about taking drugs should apply to all, no?

people need to take responsibility for their own bodies and know what the effects of the medication they are taking is having on their bodies.

However, doctors/drug companies that make/prescribe these drugs ALSO need to take responsibility, and admit when there are issues. People can be mindful when their complaints are not dismissed by doctors and drug companies as they so often are. Vioxx, case in point.

I am glad prozac worked well for you and many other people. And, I won't dismiss your experience. However, often when someone has a complaint about a drug that works well for many, that's exactly what happens to them ... dismissal.

Note this quote from the original story:

The reports and memos appear to suggest Lilly officials knew in the 1980s that Prozac had troubling side-effects and sought to minimise their likely adverse effect on prescribing.

is beyond whether one thinks that too many take Prozac, etc. or whether it is a great drug. It seems to work very well for some, not others...

It seems like the issue is that of a company covering up evidence that should have been open to consideration. Instead of the company itself deciding a certain amount of suicide or suicide ideation is acceptable - it should be out there for others to consider.

So it just seems like more corporate malfeasance - over a life or death issue.

...having advanced HIV disease (or any chronic medical condition) makes one prone to depression.

I am quite pleased with the results. Like an medical treatment however, not everyone is going to respond exactly the same way.

http://nccam.nih.gov/clinicaltrials/hiv.htm

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00033176
Further Study Details:

Expected Total Enrollment: 33

Study start: February 2002; Study completion: August 2004

AIDS is characterized by infection with HIV which leads to collapse of the immune system. Although highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has contributed significantly to lowering morbidity and mortality from AIDS, antiretroviral drugs do not fully restore the immune system and patients often fail multi-drug treatment. Hence, there is a need for alternative/complementary medicine (CAM) that can restore an immune system ravaged by HIV/AIDS. To address this need, investigators have formed a multidisciplinary collaboration to evaluate and demonstrate utility of natural immune-based modulators in ethnically diverse patients with HIV/AIDS. The long-term goal of this proposal is to develop a CAM therapy to facilitate immune reconstitution and HIV eradication following cessation of antiretroviral treatment or concurrent with continued antiretroviral treatment. It is based on the premise of a widespread deficiency of glutathione (GSH), vital to lymphocyte function, in patients with HIV/AIDS. The proposed project will study the immunomodulatory and antiretroviral effects of a dietary antioxidant, alpha-lipoic acid (ALA), which is known to efficiently boost systemic GSH.

1: Bilska A, Wlodek L. Related Articles, Links
Abstract
Postepy Hig Med Dosw. 2002;56(2):201-19. Review. Polish.
PMID: 12107963

2: Parcell S. Related Articles, Links
Free Full Text Sulfur in human nutrition and applications in medicine.
Altern Med Rev. 2002 Feb;7(1):22-44. Review.
PMID: 11896744

3: Gahlinger M. Related Articles, Links
No abstract Two ways to stimulate glutathione.
Surviv News (Atlanta Ga). 2001 Dec;:16-7. No abstract available.
PMID: 11802620

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11366747
4: Related Articles, Links
Abstract The 8 most important supplements for people on HAART.
STEP Perspect. 1999 Summer;99(2):18.
PMID: 11366747

5: Lands L. Related Articles, Links
Abstract NAC, glutamine, and alpha lipoic acid. Interview by John S. James.
AIDS Treat News. 1997 Apr 4;(No 268):2-7.
PMID: 11364196

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1724477
20: Baur A, Harrer T, Peukert M, Jahn G, Kalden JR, Fleckenstein B. Related Articles, Links
Abstract Alpha-lipoic acid is an effective inhibitor of human immuno-deficiency virus (HIV-1) replication.
Klin Wochenschr. 1991 Oct 2;69(15):722-4.
PMID: 1724477

You choose what works for you.

Don't be distracted by others' evaluations of what "should" work for you. You judge,...for you.

My question to the world- how many people would be dead if they HADN'T been given prozac? Yes, known side-effects that are hidden, that's a problem. At the same time, I hate this whole issue because discussing it only adds to the stigma of taking anti-depressants. Often the people who complain about the "dangers" of prozac making people crazed maniacs are the same people who claim that medications can't fix mood disorders and sheer willpower should be used instead. Sorry, just had to rant for a minute. Anti-depressants have saved a lot of people and they seldom get a positive word anywhere.

I know two people who became seriously disturbed taking it, and that was fifteen years ago when it first came out and was deemed to be a "miracle drug." Doctors didn't want to hear that it wasn't working.

Maybe doctors are more open-minded about the variability in people now and are willing to accept the drug is not working for some of their patients.

any SSRI... www.drugawareness.org

There are no quick-fixes, period.

There are no miracle-cures, period.

Corporations are out to make profit and "market" their drug to profit and they are disingenuous by PUSHING POSITIVE RESULTS rather than being truthful. Gee,...reminds me of those who have won a recent election.

...on this topic, for some reason.

Regarding this thread and Prozac, as a child psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner, it has been difficult to go with the FDA's recommendation that Prozac be the first line SSRI for children. I and my colleagues have seen the drug produce great results for many incredibly depressed and/or anxious children. However, we have also noted many apparent behavioral side effects, at level far exceeding those noted with Lexapro, Celexa and Zoloft, to name a few of the mainline meds. These have included increased depression and anxiety, lack of impulse control, and "clouding of the mind" to name a few. The drug also produces more and more intense physical side effects like headaches and nausea compared to most SSRI's (Paxil being the main exception).

In the end, it comes down to a need for a full psychiatric evaluation before prescribing medication, and ensuring that therapy is the first line of treatment and is included in any treatment plan where medicine is warranted. Unfortunately, the mainstream press does not cover the ins and outs of the issue, either, which tends to lead to a great deal of misinformation being spread and widely believed. Too many of the "examples" used in the press to show how an SSRI turned someone to suicide have turned out to have very long histories of suicidal ideation and self harm, and those full histories were never followed up on by the same press outfits that used them as the heartwrenching examples that they were. Again, though, we have to remember that medications are tools, and are not inherently evil. The desire for a quick fix that is sometimes inherent in general practitioners and the desire for a cheap fix that is most inherent in insurance carriers are far and away of bigger concern than the meds themselves, which get overused and overemphasized as treatment modalities because of these factors. For some reason, the press does not cover these matters, leaving the drugs themselves as the representation of what's wrong with mental health care for children. Unfortunately, this leaves parents terrified, and likely leaves children who could benefit greatly from SSRI treatment out in the cold with only fear as company.

"For some reason, the press does not cover these matters {the IMPORTANT details!}, leaving the drugs themselves as the representation of what's wrong with mental health care for children. Unfortunately, this leaves parents terrified, and likely leaves children who could benefit greatly from SSRI treatment out in the cold with only fear as company."

I'm so glad that I had personal experience with Prozac and other SSRI's before my daughter started making suicide threats at age 7(!). Her mother was dead set against any anti-depressants mainly due to the "scares" from Prozac and Paxil(in UK). I recommended against Prozac because of her ADHD and I knew it wasn't the best for her anxiety (psychiatrist agreed). I pushed her mother and we put her on Paxil. More bad stories came out about Paxil and kids, but it worked well so we kept it up (dose was small we figured). When Lexapro came along we immediately weened her from the Paxil. We were really worried about this due to "stories" we had heard about coming off of Paxil - the stories made it seem like it was a lot worse than Prozac to get off of (which I had experienced twice before). It wasn't so bad for her. She's now taking Lexapro and hasn't talked about suicide & her major meltdowns are very few and far between (no better/worse than Paxil). We recently put her through a course of neurofeedback therapy and we are now weening her from the Lexapro to see if the neurotherapy has helped retrain her brain so that she can better deal with anxiety. She's been much nicer to her sister since the neurotherapy (part of which I think is due to the fact that she is getting her own special attention) so we are going to risk taking her off of the Lexapro. Cross your fingers for her. As an aside, Concerta (time release - Ritalin) for her ADHD made such an amazing difference for her at school - this was like a miracle for her - she so likes not being singled out for her inability to control her body.

1. Cheap fixes sought by insurance companies; and

2. Quick fixes sought by practitioners (and patients, too);

but, I would add

3. Eager profiteering by large pharmaceutical companies.

Though number 3 is impossible without the first two.

Salud!

I took Prozac for about a year and it really helped lift the fog of my depression. I also made me anxious, killed my libido and made my ears ring. Once I decided it was too much, getting off it was HELL. I often wonder if these suicides were the result of people not going off the drug gradually...

After Prozac, I switched to Paxil, then to Celexa. Both of these were much more effective with fewer side effects. While Prozac was effective, I do think it needs to be placed *last* on the list of SSRIs that are prescribed. The side effects and withdrawal can be too much for some.

Sometimes, I think Prozac gives SSRIs a bad name. This class of drugs has worked wonders for me, as well as many others. I personally have managed to get years of severe depression under control with the help of SSRIs and talk therapy - to the point where I no longer need the drugs.

So it's generally last on the list, though Prozac is nearly there, at least for adults. As you have noted, even Paxil does well for some people, however, and Celexa, Lexapro and Zoloft have shown to be much more tolerable to many more people, providing a great deal of relief for many thousands of folks.

The evidence noted thus far regarding suicides is more closely related to occurrences early in treatment, not when patients go off the medication.

You need a balance of medication with talk therapy. The biggest problem with anti-depressants is that they're given as a cure-all instead of a crutch to get through a bad time. They don't solve the underlying problem of depression.

And please, spare me all the marketing hype about depression being a "chemical imbalance." Most depression in my opinion is due to underlying emotional causes that are not being addressed. If the anti-depressant helps a person to deal with those issues, to go to therapy and start to do the work, then that good. If they are given as a cure for depression, they will just push the smptoms down farther until they erupt into suicide, psycosis, or violence.

Tell that to my ex mother in law who does not even know who she is unless she's using risperidol and an anti-depressant to adjust levels of dopamine, epinephrine, and serotonin. Tell that to her family who found her in the basement throwing up poison and bleeding from the wrists from a suicide attempt from a sudden psychotic break. Thanks to medication, correcting her "chemical imbalance hype" as you call it, shes back to being the woman we all knew and loved so well.

I agree there is a componant of therapy that should be used with anti-depressants...but depression and other mental states can be simply a direct result of poor brain functioning..chemical and otherwise.

Take a look at this....and then tell me there isn't a physiological componant and/or cause to depression. What is known about Neuro-chemistry has come a long way, "doc".

http://www.brainplace.com/bp/atlas/ch7.asp

http://www.brainplace.com/bp/atlas/default.asp

http://www.brainplace.com

I guess my Dr. was clairvoyant, because 10 years ago when he put me on Prozac he also wrote me a prescription for a benzo to ease the transition while I got used to the drug. He told me there might be some agitation at first. There was, for which the benzo helped, and then the agitation ended and I stopped the benzo.

Not saying everybody will have an easy time of it like I did, but anxiety as a side effect was hardly unknown.

This seems like a particularly bad case to blame on Prozac, since this poor man obviously had serious problems long before Prozac.

We seem to be in the mudst of some weird drug side effect hysteria. I kind of figured Prozac would be showing up one of these days. I wonder what's next.

Particularly when the evidence is mounting that the drug companies went out of their way to hide studies and data that demonstrated these serious and life threatening side effects.

Celexa and Effexor's side effects almost killed me. The severety I experience was enormous and the fact that my doctor had never had a patient with the same side effects, led her to actually up my dosage, thinking that I was not getting enough of the medication to receive it's full benefits.

When I later filed a report about my experience with the FDA, I found that I had not been alone in my symptoms, a pattern was emerging from their real-life usage that was quite different from what was described in the clinical trials.

You should be grateful that you have a good doctor who obviously had quite a lot of experience in prescribing these drugs to his patients. Not everyone is so lucky.

It's not hysterical to expect the drug companies' literature to reflect the real world usage of these drugs, particularly as new information comes to light. I don't believe they should be allowed to hide data that could affect the health of the people who take their products in order to feed their own greed. After all, this isn't a new soft drink or lipstick we're talking about here, is it? It really can be a matter of life and death.

what this so-called "hiding" really consists of. All drugs have side effects, some very serious and even lethal. The reason I'm calling it hysteria is because suddenly every drug that ever caused a side effect is under scrutiny.

People do have serious side effects to some drugs. Pick up a PDR somewhere and look up Prozac, Effexor, Celexa or anything else and you will find every imaginable side effect listed. I'll even bet the very side effects you had to Celexa and Concerta are listed.

Additionally, when a Dr. prescribes a new drug, he or she knows there could be some surprises in the side effect department. It was always thus. THAT'S why I'm calling it hysteria. It's like if all of a sudden every car that a person died from a car accident in came under scrutiny and the car maker blamed.

I read the package insert, checked three different online resources, including the PDR and spoke to the doctor, who had never heard of the side effect I was experiencing. However, they are now listed, thanks to the fact that I and others like me, reported them to the FDA or had their doctors report them.

Don't you find it even the least bit suspicious that they didn't fully disclose all of the reactions their patients had to the drug?

And if a car maker did not disclose a dangerous defect or aspect of the vehicle it was selling, and it was later found to have cause the death or injury of many people, wouldn't you think that this would be cause for legal action?

find it suspicious. They aren't going to catch every single side effect that every individual person's body can come up with in clinical trials. Never have, never will.

As far as the car, it depends on how you want to define "dangerous defect." One dangerous defect of a car is that it rolls fast down the highway past other cars rolling equally fast and untold numbers of immovable hard objects with many gallons of flammable liquid on board under the control of an entity with limited (some more than others) capacities. All dnagerous and inherent defects of cars.

Psychotropic drugs change brain chemistry in ways that we are only beginning to understand and in ways that we don't yet even fathom. Is a certain side effect a "dangerous defect"? Or an effect? It's a cost/benefit issue, and I'm not necessarily talking about drug company profits.

Personal reasons, I'm sure you understand. :-)

Though I will say, they were rather bizarre and neurological in nature and not listed in the literature.

the same shite was being sold here in america a hundred years ago out of the back of a wagon.

in med school just so they can conspire together to design life saving drugs that really kill people and make them more crazy. Those BASTARDS. I'll never take another pill, ever. They are all evil quacks with evil intentions, every damn one of them. :sarcasm:

http://www.brainplace.com (edited to add link)

I don't think anybody's saying that all pills are evil. However, there is ample evidence in this case that the makers of Prozac engaged in some very shady practices in getting their drug on the market.

Obviously it helps a great many people. Unfortunately, it also ruined many people's lives, even ending a few. Eli Lilly's internal documents show that they covered up a very severe side effect, ignored their own scientists and generally were greedy bastards.

Why wouldn't you want them to disclose the whole truth about the drug, so you (and your doctor) can make an informed choice about your medication?

when others can spare me the sweeping generalities regarding medications and pharmaceutical companies. Like it or not, while there are a few bad apples that need to be exposed, there are just as many or more good ones. Just because many in the pharmaceutical companies are in the pockets of Republicans..doesn't make them charlatans, snake oil salesmen, or as the previous caller put it...."shit for brains". I happen to know good people in the industry.

I'm not sure how to transfer my original question to your post #157 in the first thread and your response. So if anyone is interested in AWL's post, it was a debunking of psychiatrist and author, Peter Breggin. I asked for a link, and got this one.

http://quackwatch.org/11Ind/breggin.html

I have read Breggin's book, "Toxic Psychiatry" and was very much in agreement with it. Here's a link for Breggin.

http://www.breggin.com /

Background provided, here's my response.

We have two psychiatrists with strong, but differing opinions. After reading through Dr. Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch, I still agree with Breggin. Barret is so traditional that he is almost funny. He doesn't seem to think that there is Gulf War Syndrome, doesn't believe in vitamins (anti Linus Pauling), doesn't believe in the Atkin's diet, doesn't believe in chiropractic medicine, and he doesn't even like PETA. Barrett is a traditionalist through and through. But I encourage DUers to go through both links and decide for themselves.

Breggin's radical rejection of a physiological basis for psychiatric disorders just doesn't jive with what we know from scientific/biological evidence. This notion is derivative of the 1960s humanistic theories of Thomas Szasz and R.D. Laing. Sure, there are many psychiatric conditions that are behavioral (e.g., trichotillomania, simple phobias, fetishism, conduct disorder, etc.), but there are just as many that have a genetic etiology (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, etc.). For the latter conditions, psychiatric medications used to adjust a genetically-based neurotransmitter imbalance is no different than taking medications to adjust for an insulin or blood disorder imbalance. This is not to say that current psychotherapeutic approaches cannot be benefical, as well (e.g., cognitive-behavior therapy for depression).

Barrett has his faults, as well. But, at least he tends to rest on the side of caution and has a higher standard for scientific evidence for prevailing theories of psychiatric disease. To his discredit, the scientific evidence tends to support a biological basis for at least a small group of Gulf War Syndrome patients (e.g., Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy evidence of brain stem changes).

Regards,
JB

Your insight is extremely valuable here.

DU is a wonderful outlet for my frustrations with what I perceive to be a decline in the American ideal. A quick scan on my prior posts will show that I tend to be caustic and radical, but this is only because I have to be reasoned in my professional life.

I consider DU therapy.

JB

It is therapeutic to express thoughts without so much screening!!!!

:bounce:

Allows one to be a bit more "human" and creative,...and a bit less stricture and structure.

but then, not all psychotropics are the same for every condition. that and the emotional stigma at the time might have compounded the sense of worthlessness. or it could have been plain ol' high school hormones.

whatever it was it didn't work for me. hmm, logitudinal studies are useful. i guess the data is just coming to the light; shame on eli lily hiding important data from researchers and medical practitioners, some people could have been gravely hurt from such deliberate secrecy.

harming people with secrecy is wrong, no matter if the drug may have been a positive influence. wrong is wrong, and eli lily committed wrong here. for shame.

there were A LOT of suicides and such taking place just after prozac entered the market.
They explained it away by saying saying that this stuff PROVED that Prozac was working properly and well.

The rationale went this way:
The person is depressed and too depressed to do anything about it.
The person takes Prozac.
The person begins to recover from the depression.
The person decides to do something about the root cause of the depression.
The killing spree is not the fault of Prozac.
CONCLUSION:
Prozac effectively ended the depression.

And HOW.

check this out....

http://www.brainplace.com

Brain Spec imaging is the latest way to evaluate and diagnose brain disorders in humans. Dr. Amen has successfully treated many disorders using both natural and pharmacological therapies depending on what is found. I was one who happened to believe some diagnosis are too subjective and still do. My opinion changed somewhat after discovering Dr. Amen's work using brain spec imaging. Look at his work with ADHD, anger, post traumatic stress, depression, anxiety, phychosis, drug and alcohol abuse. All can be measured using brain spect imaging. Problem is, most insurance wont pay for it, leaving the majority of people relying on a subjective diagnosis.

Check out the before and after treatment photos YES, USING PHARMACEUTICALS such as prozac, zoloft, depakote and others.

Drug abusers beware...you wont like what dope does to your brain.

brain disorders and functions http://www.brainplace.com/bp/atlas/default.asp

images of normal/abnormal http://www.brainplace.com/bp/atlas/ch2.asp

images of depression http://www.brainplace.com/bp/atlas/ch7.asp

images of ADD/ADHD http://www.brainplace.com/bp/atlas/ch12.asp NOTICE BEFORE AND AFTER TREATMENT USING ADDERAL/RITALIN

images of drug, alcohol, and tobacco use http://www.brainplace.com/bp/atlas/ch15.asp

Images of bipolar disorder http://www.brainplace.com/bp/atlas/ch8.asp

I can't say that I understand how they read those images, but the text about treatment options for different conditions was interesting.

I've studied his work for some time, its amazing. He's on the leading edge when it comes to brain function. Check out his "prescriptions for healing the brain" and the "do's and don'ts" of brain health. Its great information for all.

Peace out...

Daniel

I'm going to study this in more detail.

Thanks for the links!

One of his clinics is only about an hour away. My friend had the financial resources to take her ADHD son there. It cost her about $3000. The results in her son's life and her families well being is amazing. He was properly diagnosed using brain scans, and properly treated with the right medication, the right dietary supplements, and the right diet. He is excelling in school and in sports.

I've posted before as to my distrust of the anti-depressants as cures. I don't think the clinical evidence is there that the drugs are doing a lot. Still every body is different as to its mental-physical reaction to the changes caused by ingesting the drugs. But I think there is often a very important physical component to any kind of mental disturbance. If you have a bad stomach or liver or anything, it's pretty easy to feel depressed. Even if prozac or some other drug is used, it seems to me equally important to make sure the other health and wellness elements are factored in. Diet needs to be looked at and improved (probably cutting down or cutting out sugar and excess starch, etc.), some provision made for at least moderate exercise, maybe a colonic, an adjustment, some massage, etc. etc. And the life and social support parts of the equation are important. I'll bet in nearly every case where Prozac was helpful, there were a lot of other factors that contributed as well: a supportive family or group or individual, new measures taken in diet, exercise, etc., new books being read offering new hope, etc. etc. No matter how good the drug, if there's not a willing and "believing" patient, it's likely not going to do much good.

I think that anti-depressants have a place in the treatment of depression. They are by no means a cure. Research has suggested, through the use of before and after brain scans, that talk therapy can be as effective as medication. There have been research that has suggested that the combination of anti-depressants and talk therapy can be more effective that either. I think that where people get in trouble with anti-depressants is when they depend on them to make them feel good, and never make any changes to deal with the root cause of their depression. Diet is a huge factor, so is support, so is talk therapy. Diet is huge because the ingredients that form neurotransmitters are created in the gut. A diet that is poor in vegetables and protein isn't going to enable a person's body to create the chemicals that his brain needs. Along comes a doctor who listens to the patient's list of symptoms and prescribes an antidepressant (usually an SSRI type such as Paxil, Effexor, Prozac, Zoloft, etc.) This effectively allows your brain to make more efficient use of the neurotransmitter seretonin. May people begin to feel less depressed after they have taken these medications for a few weeks. They report having more energy. Under the right circumstances, this can translate to a marked improvement in a person's well being. But I don't think that happens unless a person is undergoing some form of therapy, or a 12 step program, etc. If they using their new found energy to make live style changes, the positive effects can be everlasting. That is the best case and that happens often. Worst case, a person has deep rooted causes for their depression, perhaps childhood trauma, perhaps an extremely poor diet, perhaps a bad marriage that they won't let go of, or a job they hate, stress in their lives that they don't eliminate by taking a pill. Nothing changes but the medication. Suppose this person has no real support system, or they were misdiagnosed and depression is merely a symptom of something much more severe. Suppose this person is having thoughts of suicide, or homicide. Most people who suffer from depression usually do, at one time or another. Along comes the medication and what happens first for the average person suffering from depression who starts on meds? They have more energy. Before the depression starts to lift, they have more energy. In some extreme cases, they are very suicidal, but they don't have the energy to carry out the plan. But with the meds, they have the energy and they do it. That is worst case. Every case is different, the effect of each type of antidepressant are different on each individual. The result is everything in between success and suicide. All of these antidepressants work on only one neurotransmitter, seretonin. Most people who use drugs, alcohol, or nicotine develop a defiency in another neurotransmitter, dopamine. These medications don't address that. They don't help much if the problem isn't related to seretonin. A balanced diet is one way to make sure that you create the missing brain chemicals you need. A problem is that years of a poor diet don't disappear overnight. Sorry I was so long winded. Can you guess that I have been dystemic most of my life and that this issue is near to my heart.

SSRIs are only a small part of the equation. I know this from experience. Many people see these drugs as the cure itself. The cure is in talk therapy, diet, exercise, and changing one's bad emotional habits.

Prozac cures depression about as much as Novocaine cures a bad tooth. All Prozac does is lift the pain of depression so you can get to the real problems and fix them.

more about the study you mention that found, thru brain scans, that talk therapy was equally effective in treating depression. If you don't have it at your fingertips, don't go to a lot of trouble, however. It sounds reasonable to me. It's like the drugs put us in a different place in our mental-physical-spiritual house, but it's up to us to interpret what this difference means and coordinate all our reactions with this new interpretation. My best wishes to you olddad.

a couple of months ago. It may have even been on NOW. It was very interesting.

remember several suicides related to prozac...and they were stated as being associated with prozac use at the time.

There were articles back in the late eighties discussing this issue.

Where did those articles go? Why did it take so long for this issue to resurface? Why wasn't this fully investigated then?

Most of those stories turned out to be baseless in their pronouncements against Prozac, with much of the press push coming from L. Ron Hubbard and company. The Scientologists, it turns out, are more dangerous than the pharmaceutical companies for those who suffer from depression.

Are you serious? Scientologists are not the only people who are criticizing these drugs.

The reason these lawsuits disappeared is that the drug companies wanted them to. They settled out of court, even the high profile cases like Del Shannon and Phil Hartman & his wife.

They finally ran across a family that wouldn't take their money and this forced them to produce documents from the original clinical trials that proved they were aware of the more serious nature of the side effects and chose to manipulate the studies in order to get their drugs approved.

If you would research the topic a little more thoroughly instead of accusing those of us who are a little angry at once again, being endangered by big business in the name of the almighty dollar, then perhaps you might know of the Forsythe case and the internal memos it exposed.

You also might know that the memos also exposed their strategy of ignoring any concerns about possible problems with the drug, to the discomfort of some of the company's own scientist. They basically used lies and subterfuge to get around doing a study the FDA demanded, instead producing their data from a meta-analysis of their previous clinical trials, including data that the FDA had already rejected. They did not mention anything about benzodiazapams they used to counteract the severe anxiety in their clinical trials, nor did they mention the akathisia or the patients who committed suicide.

Sound fair to you?

They didn't give a rat's ass about evidence. They had their own agenda that cares not for evidence. And they pushed and supported many unsupported claims that were never paid out of court or otherwise. Thank you very much.

You want to discuss fairness? Then please address the posters who make sweeping generalizations against medication. Now wouldn't that be fair? It's funny that you chose to address me solely.

By the way, it's also true that many "cases" were never settled because the behaviors being blamed on Prozac had already been displayed for years by the patients in question. Yet the mainstream media chose not to report this. Sorry, but it's not just the drug companies who've used poor arguments and poor data, and I won't get caught up in a discussion that doesn't include all sides of "reality."

I've made a few posts to this thread, two were to you, a third to another DUer. I'm not sure how this counts as "addressing you solely". :eyes:

Did you even read the article I posted above about the data that Lilly hid and manipulated to get their drug approved by the FDA? Don't you care that they used bad science and shoddy research to produce a drug that is given to adults and children on a daily basis.

I am not a scientologist (far, far from it), and it infuriates me that you would insinuate that just because I am critical of SSRIs, that my opinion should be lumped in with theirs. Particularly in light of the recent extensive UK research on SSRIs. Or don't you care about those studies either?

The fact is, we still, to this day, do not actually know exactly why SSRIs work on depression. We have some ideas and theories, but the truth is, it is still an educated guessing game. You say you don't want to get into a discussion that doesn't include all sides of "reality" (your quotations, not mine), yet you neglect to include that simple fact.

and hearsay"

You did not admonish anyone else for making sweeping claims.

You know my point, and yet you just play games.

If you want to discuss with genuine interest, curiosity and an open mind, please do, but you have not done that at all thus far.

There are documented cases of suicide among first time users of almost, if not every SSRI type anti-depressant. Since Prozac was the first on the market and for a long time the most widely prescribed of the SSRI class anti-depressants. I think this is due to a variety of factors and that the rate of suicide among SSRI anti-depressants is probably very low compared to the rate of suicide of people who are depressed and are not on medication.

I am, by no means endorsing the product, or this class of products. I have tried several and could never get past the side effects of any of them. I take a low dosage of an older tricylic class anti-depressant that works well for me.

However, I think the reasons that people have committed suicide while taking Prozac (or other SSRI's) are logical if examined more closely. One reason is that they don't work for everyone and people respond differently to the same dosage. I have taken fractional doses of some of these and still couldn't adjust to them. Some people become more depressed when the start taking them. That would account for a few suicides. For a lot of people, they stop working after about a year and can have a reverse effect. That would account for a few suicides. Another factor that as explained to me by a professional in the field was intersting. This had to do with the fact that many people who suffer from severe depression are already suicidal but actually lack the energy to act out their plan. With SSRI type anti-depressants, one of the first effects that you notice is an increase in energy. This happens before the depression starts to lift. During this short period of time, people have the energy to carry out their plan. I know this sounds odd to people who have not suffered from depression, but it will make sense to people who have been there.

Thanks!

Is there a significant risk of suicide for people taking Prozac?

Suicide is always a risk in people with severe depression, and it may persist until significant remission occurs. However, consumers and their families must be cautious during the early stages of treatment with all antidepressants, when energy and activity may return before mood improves. At this time - when depression is still severe but when a depressed person may have more energy to take action - the risk of suicide can temporarily increase.

I was diagnosed with acute anxiety disorder. I made the mistake of telling my psychiatrist that my mother was on Prozac and it was working for her. Accordingly, I was given a prescription for Prozac. I had terrible side affects right from the beginning. Some that made me feel crazier than I already did. I was told to "give the drug a chance. It had worked for my mom. It would work for me. The symptoms continued and I requested to change medications. My psychiatrist told me this was all in my head, so to speak. She said that I was exaggerating. I stopped taking the Prozac and the side affects stopped just like that. Long story short I asked for a new psychiatrist. My psychiatrist said she promised to work with me. I agreed and she changed my medications. I take several meds a day and have had a mostly successful experience. ( a few minor side affects that I can live with) I was eventually diagnosed with PTSD. I wish I'd had a brain scan. But I was told that they were too unreliable. (read: too expensive). Unfortunately many professionals have their own agenda Everyone needs to be their own best advocate, with support from trusted family or friends who can help you when you cannot help yourself.

Have you considered EMDR or EFT for treatment of PTSD?

EMDR and EFT have both been proven effective in the treatment of PSTD and anxiety disorders. Here's a good reference...

http://www.emdr.com/