Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, we should not be blaming the patients. Blame the doctors and psychiatrists who have convinced their patients that there is a pill for everything, even being sad. Blame Big Pharma and their cutesy ads for everything under the sun. Blaming the patient comes in dead last. I'll blame sunspots first.
That said, patients who have been trained over decades to think they have no control over their own feelings are a problem as well. But they didn't get that way overnight, and retraining has to be consistent - and MDs and psychiatrists are simply NOT INTERESTED in doing this. They WANT you to be dependent on them for pills forever.
Frankly (I am a trained clinical psychologist) I think control of the DSM should be removed from the purview of psychiatrists altogether - they keep coming up with more and more excuses for throwing pills at people, pills that often have very serious side effects and are rarely any more effective than placebo. This bit in the latest version of the DSM that is giving permission to identify CHILDREN as "manic depressive" and then dosing them up with powerful, harmful psychotropic meds is just printed awfulness. ALL kids are "manic depressive" - they have mood lability out the ying-yang. Its natural for kids to be that way. And the way it was written, normal childhood behaviour in that vein is now an excuse to drug them out of their minds.
I doubt there is a single human being on the planet who doesn't qualify for SOME kind of psychiatric diagnosis now or in the past, the way that thing has been written. Psychiatrists make a whole lotta money dispensing psychotropic meds. Letting THEM write the criteria for deciding who should take them is like hiring a wolf and his crew of fox-workers to build your hen house.
Big Pharma created a marketing campaign that said "chemical imbalances" in the brain exist which need adjustment. That turned out to be untrue (plenty of research online). Doctors bought the bait of the cute pharmaceutical reps in their short skirts and then sold the drugs to their unsuspecting patients.
In the meantime, there are "Black Box Warnings" on many of these drugs, yet many patients still swear by them - citing that they feel better on the drugs (placebo effect?).
Many people have died from ODing on these drugs, or committing suicide based on the effects the drugs have caused.
Please inform yourselves of the dangers of these drugs, which are now reported to be "more deadly than opioids."
Pat yourself on the back if you were prescribed these drugs, but researched and decided not to take them.
Edited to add: The article mainly talks about benzos and even suggests that SSRI's could be a better solution (and those drugs also have Black Box Warnings).
Please furnish support for the highlighted paragraph or admit it is strictly your opinion and does not belong in the discussion of drug overdoses.
Oh you gave me my first chuckle. I guess all the pharma doctors who spill stuff all over are OK to go. I'm sure she's the only one who throws scripts away...she wishes she had not taken the 2 caps of Cipro...should have thrown that one away. We are friends and she trusts me more than the doctors and their drugs and the grief from them.
And what are your qualifications and training that have her convinced you are more capable of influencing her decisions regarding her medical well being than educated, trained medical professionals?
Please furnish support for the highlighted paragraph or admit it is strictly your opinion and does not belong in the discussion of drug overdoses.
"Chemical imbalance" is a speculative theory of mental illness, but you can prove that to yourself by some internet research. Correlation is not causation. The chemical imbalance myth is the foundation upon which the other statements you dispute are based, so spend some time on that one first and it will help shed light on the others.
Big Pharma created a marketing campaign that said "chemical imbalances" in the brain exist which need adjustment. That turned out to be untrue (plenty of research online).
Such as what? Show us some scientific studies please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobodysbusiness
Doctors bought the bait of the cute pharmaceutical reps in their short skirts and then sold the drugs to their unsuspecting patients.
You're arguing your point using sexism? Now that's persuasive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobodysbusiness
In the meantime, there are "Black Box Warnings" on many of these drugs, yet many patients still swear by them - citing that they feel better on the drugs (placebo effect?).
Many people have died from ODing on these drugs, or committing suicide based on the effects the drugs have caused.
Show us scientific research that the side effects cause suicide, rather than just your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobodysbusiness
Please inform yourselves of the dangers of these drugs, which are now reported to be "more deadly than opioids."
Pat yourself on the back if you were prescribed these drugs, but researched and decided not to take them.
Edited to add: The article mainly talks about benzos and even suggests that SSRI's could be a better solution (and those drugs also have Black Box Warnings).
Many drugs have warnings. Anti anxiety drugs are certainly not unique in that. There is a place for them and other drugs that treat mental illness. Should people try other methods first? Of course. But sometimes these drugs should be prescribed.
It's almost impossible to OD on benzos; believe me I've tried in the past. I remember looking it up after my last suicide attempt failed and you have to take like a thousand pills or some ridiculous number like that to actually off yourself. (I'm doing much better these days).
The problem with benzos is they are highly addictive. My doctor prescribed them for me in 2002 after I started having serious panic attacks. He never warned me how addictive they were, however as bad as my panic attacks were I would still have taken them BUT I wouldn't have taken them daily like I did. Been on them ever since. At one time I was taking 3 mg. a day; 1 mg. around 3 p.m. and 2 mg. an hour before bed. While I weaned myself down to 2 mg. a day, even if I try taking 1 3/4 pills I can't sleep the whole night. When I don't sleep I'm very vulnerable to depression so it's a vicious cycle.
Last edited by chiluvr1228; 08-05-2018 at 07:40 AM..
The first thirty or forty years of TV we had no advertisements for alcohol or drugs. Advertisements for these dangerous substances is a relatively new concept. It also coincides with many of our problems spiking.
I have always felt that our doctors should prescribe. We sent them to medical school and they supposedly studied which medications are best for which conditions and they are supposed to keep up with advancements in their field.
When any pharmaceutical is advertised some patients will go to their doctors and demand that medication (regardless if the doctor feels the same way). So, regardless of the doctor's years of training and to make their patients happy, they give their patients what they want. To me it says they are not practicing medicine; they are trying out for a political career. However; there is always a chance the wrong medication might work simply because their patients believed (but not in all cases).
Regardless; I wish that Fifth Ave. never got involved in drug sales!
Watching these drug commercials convinces me NOT to take any of them because of the side effects they list!
My mom lived to early 90's and took no drugs...she prayed a lot, a form of meditation as I see it.
I took some valium years ago when working and in some stressful jobs, and when I would fall I said omg, get off this stuff. Then I read the book: I'm Dancing as Fast as I Can and that did it for good.
Watching these drug commercials convinces me NOT to take any of them because of the side effects they list!
It gets me that people can watch these commercials, see all the possible side effects, and still run to their doctors and insist they want that drug! But the commercials have to work; the industry is spending big bucks on advertisement and it is not directed at our doctors. It is directed at the public; which means our doctors are listening to their patients instead of their training - not a good thing!
I liked it better when they could not even advertise alcohol on TV. Although they did advertise cigarettes for many years and you see where that got us! Dangerous drugs and addictive substances should not be advertised and that should be the end of it - but money talks.
It gets me that people can watch these commercials, see all the possible side effects, and still run to their doctors and insist they want that drug! But the commercials have to work; the industry is spending big bucks on advertisement and it is not directed at our doctors. It is directed at the public; which means our doctors are listening to their patients instead of their training - not a good thing!
I liked it better when they could not even advertise alcohol on TV. Although they did advertise cigarettes for many years and you see where that got us! Dangerous drugs and addictive substances should not be advertised and that should be the end of it - but money talks.
I would hope that they are weighing the benefits against the risks...if your condition is bad enough then accepting some risk may be acceptable. Also don't believe that just because a side effect is listed that it is inevitable or even common...and that it is permanent. Some of the side effects themselves are not only rare but very minor. And many times just stopping the drug will alleviate the side effect.
Here are the official percentages - the language is very clear:
Very common affects more than 1 in 10 people – ie the risk is 10% or higher
Common affects between 1 in 100 and 1 in 10 people – ie risk is 1% to 10%
Uncommon affects between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 100 people – ie risk is 0.1% to 1%
Rare affects between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 1,000 people – ie risk is 0.01% to 0.1%
Very rare affects less than 1 in 10,000 people – ie risk is less than 0.01% (This includes isolated reports, or where the absolute risk is not known or can’t be quantified. For example, if identified through post-marketing safety surveillance and the frequency cannot be estimated from the available data).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
