Sensitive Topic: Can *anyone* refute this guy?
Question:
> BTW, other NGers have privately e-mailed me or told on the phone > thatthey also feel there is a HS clique mentality here. I am not alone > in that belief.
I’m sorry to hear this. I try to be supportive of most of the people on here. I know some people feel neglected when their posts don’t get answered but I don’t always respond to them because I simply do not know what to say sometimes. There are some people I *am* rather fond of on this group, and that is mostly because they are frequent posters and/or I have gotten to know them over a period of time. This doesn’t necessarily mean I value other people’s opinions less. I read about 95% of the posts here regardless of whom they are from but I have a tendency to stick with who is familiar. That’s one of the perks of staying with a NG for awhile and getting to know & trust one another. I’m sorry if it seems like a HS clique to some people. However, in my defense, if I ever saw Monkey, Shana or Louis attack another member of this group in such a viscous and repetitive manner as you did these past few days, I would honestly say something to them also. The fact that I’m even writing to you proves that I don’t hate you and that I think you are intelligent and worthwhile. I could have killfiled you a long time ago with the likes of Squirty. As far as foul language is concerned- it does not bother me if someone is using it to describe a situation they are going through. What bothers me is when people start name calling (at other members of our group). There is a difference between a rant about your family verses deliberately trying to insult one another. I just think you need to get your temper under control and remember that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Ida
Response:
Question: > Can Prozac or other SSRI’s *really* cause a permanent burnout of serotonin > receptors in the brain after long term usage?
Answer: My SSRI has changed my life so significantly that even if it does cause some damage in the long run, the many, many very good years I get from it are definitely worth the risk to me. But why even worry about crossing that bridge? I may never even come to it. The tragedies I concoct and obsess about in my mind are often far worse than reality will ever be. Jill — jill.wilker…@mciworld.com
Response:
Hi- This is my first post to the newsgroup….I’ve been on Prozac for OCD and depression since I was 13, I am currently 19….I am on 80mg/day and I’m not sure how much it’s helping…I come from a Christian Scientist background so I have kind of an ingrained distrust of medicine…but I do notice a lot of benefit from it although I worry a lot about the negative effects. Lately my obessions have been focusing on OCD and Prozac itself, which has turned into a rather annoying downward spiral. This idea of Prozac causing permanent brain damage REALLY scares me (especially with 6 1/2 years and the maximum dosage under my belt). I’d really appreciate any other experiences you’ve had with coming off the medicines, any more insights into this issue, etc, and thank you for those of you who have already shared. Much love Andy
Response:
Hey Stephon, Shut the fuck up and go to bed!!! Tom
Response:
george Luby <tel…@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10260-37C2E188-21@newsd-283.iap.bryant.webtv.net… Whatatrip/whatapsycho/whatanasshole/whataloser/whatanidiot/whatafuckup/what a doucebag/whatanuneducatedfool/whataknowitallschmuck > wrote: > Everyone knows I am just fine. > Everyone "who" Roger??? I sincerely doubt that "everyone" knows you are > fine. You are one of the biggest assholes I have never met in my life.
If you would bend over in front of a mirror, you would see an even bigger asshole, well you’d see two assholes, one that shits and another that eats it. (I just made that up and you are welcome to use it, and you can prove it is true). > Don’t you ever go on vacation? I am so sick of the mindless drivel you > post on this NG. You are leading suffering and hurting people astray. At > the very least, you are making people more confused.
They don’t have to read it and neither do you. That will solve their confusion. The world is not going to change, and either am I, in order to create your or any one else’s view of the world. — Take care of your "self". whatatrip rbol…@premier1.net
Response:
Stephen George <steph…@georgeharris.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7pvof7$537$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk… > >>Everyone knows I am just fine. > Highly debatable point. Scott genuinely thinks that he may be ill.
Scott genuinely thinks a lot of things that reflect his sickness, not mine. Believe me, Scott would not know what real illness is, he is stuck on ocd, can’t see past it and you are stuck on him. Big mistake on your part. I am by far mentally healthier than either Scott or you. > If that doesn’t convince you nothing will. That’s why I don’t think that > he can be trusted to behave in a responsible manner to the children > in this newsgroup – he’s had a "thing" about parenting/children for > practically all his life. It’s a disorder of personality.
Children and parenting is an aspect of mental illness that is grossly underestimated, yes, in my opinion but not only in my opinion. The only "children" who are at risk because of my behavior are you and Tom. > >> The drugs may have caused some damage but I don’t notice it > >> and can’t identify anything. > Meaningless subjective statement – induces unnecesary doubt.
Your critque is very meaningless. It illuminates your illness. > No – he *hypothesised* rather than rationalised. How many illegal drugs > did he also take in the same 2.5 year period?
I can answer that…..none, and have not taken any illegal drugs since 1969. > Roger’s post was of little intrinsic value, as I’ve already discussed above. > His inferences, subjectiveness and rhetoric induce uncertainty in > Flydream4’s > mind. She has a very long history of obsessions about brain damage. > So does at least one other person in the newsgroup (Lars). To induce > fear in their minds with a valueless post is hardly "support". Roger never > stops to consider the psychological effects of his posts on other people. > He just writes any old crap and calls it "support". Anyone who disagrees > with him is told that they "don’t understand".
You know very little about ocd and the "proven" treatments for it despite your adhearance to it’s utterances. Utterances have little value if you don’t understand them and can put them into practice. What is NOT supportive is to offer reassurance, particularly reassurance that is not truthful. If you think I am not supportive, you need to go to a behavior thearapist like Dr Claiborne. He would tell you that yes, you could get brain damage. If you were here when he was, you would know and understand. I am much more reassuring than he is. > Hopefully, I’ve shown how I arrived at my "negative interpretation" of his > post.
You did a poor job of it. All you succeeded in doing is showing everyone that you are the sick one. Your mistake was putting your faith in Scott. But then, that might be your lot. > Roger himself says that he should never have been born – check the OCD > health scare thread. His parents failed to meet the parenting standards of > his obsessive zero population growth "religion".
Actually, I believe my parents could have learned "parenting standards" under favorable environmental circumstance and since my parents had only two children, they met the standards of zero population growth. — Take care of your "self". whatatrip rbol…@premier1.net
Response:
Tom, You are SO wrong. See, when I use the "F" word, it is because I am angry and writing a vent or something. You just use it in your everyday writing, talking SHIT to people. (Another swear word, OH NO!!!) There is a big difference. When people are angry, they often say things that they don’t mean, I mean, we’re only human! I don’t use the "F" word like it is "going out of style" either. I use it when I am angry.Go to dejanews and check the archives and you will see that I don’t just use foul language on a daily basis, I use it to express myself when I am angry or I need to get a point across. You on the other hand, use dirty language as often as you use the words "the" and "a". A LOT more than most people on this NG. And again, why don’t you answer my question…why the hell do you keep reading this newsgroup if you hate everyone on it so much?!?!?!?! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Shana, >You are right. Ishould not have used the word "flame" but instead wroe >that you and others use very profane and poor language. be hnest Shana, >you swear your ass off. Of course Iswear at people. You missed the >point. I am saying many people flame or come fter me for my bad langage >but never you or louis and so on. >Your comment abut you being in HS, or treating you like one, I have ZERO >understanding of what you were trying to relate. >Look, Shana, you are a nice, but very troubled young women who is only >half my age and I have no interest in "getting into with you". You are >too young and vulnerable. All i wrote was to askothers whyit is sowrong >when I swear, but no when others do. You just happened to write that >"ARGH!!!!" post and used the "F" word quite often. >So, please, calm down, relax, and don’t worry about anything i wrote. I >probably used poor judgement in including you because of your tender >age. And that is not a put dow, just my feelings. >TL
Shana shaynuh…@aol.com
Response:
Hi Trevor, >Steve, rather than just flaming Roger could you do me a favour and quote his >response detailing which parts were unsupportive and fueled her obsessions?
Can do… >> Like Peter Breggins, it doesn’t look like we are going to find out.
Worthless statement – induces unnecesary fear through uncertainty. >> He is not nuts and he does bring up some valid questions and
observations. Unsupported statement. Unquantified. Roger’s personal opinion. >> I saw him in a debate with another person of like mind on one side and >> bio/behaviorals on the other side.
Anecdotal evidence, identity of individuals unknown. Date of debate unknown. How many "bio/behaviourals"? Vague. >> Of course both sides talked past each other but he did hold his own >> and even had the opposition backtracking.
Worthless, anecdotal, personal opinion. Infers superiority of Breggin’s arguments with no evidence to support that inference. Meaningless. Outcome of debate unknown. >> I took them for 2.5 years and stopped taking them.
What is "them"? At what dose? Valueless statement. >>Everyone knows I am just fine.
Highly debatable point. Scott genuinely thinks that he may be ill. I genuinely believe that he has Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder in the light of his statements about belonging to the 60’s and 70’s zero population movement, his views on governmental control of the right to bear children, his snide attacks on parents here, especially Scott, Joe and Mary, his disgusting post to a child. Read this article about OCPD carefully: http://www.ocdonline.com/articlephillipson6.htm If that doesn’t convince you nothing will. That’s why I don’t think that he can be trusted to behave in a responsible manner to the children in this newsgroup – he’s had a "thing" about parenting/children for practically all his life. It’s a disorder of personality. >> The drugs may have caused some damage but I don’t notice it >> and can’t identify anything.
Meaningless subjective statement – induces unnecesary doubt. >> His theory of serotonin receptor burn out might be just what some people >> need in order to function more normally. They may have too many receptors >> due to genetics or some behavioral cause and thus need to have the number >> reduced.
Guesswork. Unsupported by any evidence. Pretends to be a genetics expert. Mixes genetics and behaviourism in "some" vague manner. Assumes that too many receptors are a bad thing. Who are "some" people? More normal than what? Combines his personal theories with Breggin’s theory. Leads the reader to think that his personal theories are equally valid to Breggin’s. Moves away from discussing the extract to form his own hypothesis. Garbage! >Roger said he took the drugs himself for 2.5 years and is fine and also >rationalised that the receptor burnout (if it exists) may even be helpful. >Learning to rationalise doubt induced anxiety is a needed skill and Roger >gave a pretty good example of how to do it.
No – he *hypothesised* rather than rationalised. How many illegal drugs did he also take in the same 2.5 year period? >The response you made to Fly was well thought out and showed flaws in the >arguments Breggins makes.
Flaws? It was absolutely *riddled* with assumptions and missing information! It wasn’t worth the paper it was written on! >I personally don’t believe it makes him a total loser though. I read his works >late last year and it was part of my information gathering in deciding to take >myself off Zoloft. I also consulted four GP’s, my psychologist and other stuff >on the ‘net. It was a decision that turned out to be a good one as the Zoloft >was having a negative effect on my behaviour. Two months earlier it was >needed and helpful.
Why didn’t you consult a psychiatrist or specialist? Can you trust everything you read on the ‘net? You’ve recently (if my memory serves me correctly) returned to taking some meds. Maybe coming off the Zoloft was an error of judgement. In any case, you cannot validate Breggin’s theories on the basis of one solitary experience. >And some of your supportive remarks about being a long term user of the >drugs are echoed by Roger so I’m confused as to what you are actually >objecting to.
Roger’s post was of little intrinsic value, as I’ve already discussed above. His inferences, subjectiveness and rhetoric induce uncertainty in Flydream4’s mind. She has a very long history of obsessions about brain damage. So does at least one other person in the newsgroup (Lars). To induce fear in their minds with a valueless post is hardly "support". Roger never stops to consider the psychological effects of his posts on other people. He just writes any old crap and calls it "support". Anyone who disagrees with him is told that they "don’t understand". >You’ve shown good analytical skills here in the past so I would appreciate >you showing me how you arrived at your totally negative interpretation and >how it justifies a statement that Roger should never have been born.
Hopefully, I’ve shown how I arrived at my "negative interpretation" of his post. Roger himself says that he should never have been born – check the OCD health scare thread. His parents failed to meet the parenting standards of his obsessive zero population growth "religion". Regards, Steve
Response:
Hi, Fly! Like the others have said, don’t sweat it. I haven’t read Breggin’s book, but I recently came across an essay, "Listening to Prozac and ADD" http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pcronin2/LISTEN.htm which speaks approvingly of Breggin’s ideas. According to the essay, in TALKING BACK TO PROZAC, Breggin casts aspersions on Judith Rapaport, author of THE BOY WHO COULDN’T STOP WASHING. Since that was probably the first and, for a time, the only book about OCD for lay people (and was an eye-opener for me personally), Breggin’s supposed berating of her essentially killed any credibility he would have with me. For those who are interested, Breggin has his own web site: http://www.breggin.com/ Just remember, as r…@my-deja.com says: => First of all, look at his career, scaring people about drugs => (especially popular ones) is how he makes his living …
Response:
>No one seems > to go after Louis, Monkey, Shana, Stehon George and others when they > flame. I understand the HS clique mentality when I see it.
HS clique mentality? Is that what you choose to think it is? The reason I have never flamed Louis, Monkey, Shana and others is because they have never ridiculed me on this newsgroup. They can disagree with me all they want to, but they do it in a caring and civilized way. Ever since you’ve come back to this newsgroup, all I’ve seen you do is insult people. If you would keep your ego out of the way and offer support and/or *constructive* criticism, you might get people to listen to you but most of the time you don’t. You seem to enjoy belittling people. I know you don’t like me but I’m being honest here. Sincerely, Ida
Response:
Excuse me Tom, but this is the second post of yours where I have seen you bring my name into it! For your information, I have not flamed anyone on this newsgroup, so why are you saying I have? I come here for support, not to see you talk about me like I am some high schooler trying to become popular in a newsgroup! Show me some proof where I have flamed anyone! The only time I have been even remotely rude to anyone was when Squirtsalot first came on here and offended Kbeth. As for my language which you commented on in an earlier post, you really have NO ROOM to talk! You have practically called every person on this newsgroup some derogatory name. Tell me, why the hell do you come here if you hate everyone so much? Enlighten me Tom! >No one seems >to go after Louis, Monkey, Shana, Stehon George and others when they >flame. I understand the HS clique mentality when I see it.
Shana shaynuh…@aol.com
Response:
Shana, You are right. Ishould not have used the word "flame" but instead wroe that you and others use very profane and poor language. be hnest Shana, you swear your ass off. Of course Iswear at people. You missed the point. I am saying many people flame or come fter me for my bad langage but never you or louis and so on. Your comment abut you being in HS, or treating you like one, I have ZERO understanding of what you were trying to relate. Look, Shana, you are a nice, but very troubled young women who is only half my age and I have no interest in "getting into with you". You are too young and vulnerable. All i wrote was to askothers whyit is sowrong when I swear, but no when others do. You just happened to write that "ARGH!!!!" post and used the "F" word quite often. So, please, calm down, relax, and don’t worry about anything i wrote. I probably used poor judgement in including you because of your tender age. And that is not a put dow, just my feelings. TL
Response:
Ida, Thanks for your comments regarding my post. I should have not written that Monkey, Louis, Shana, and little "psycho" stevie george flame people, but that they often use very foul language, but NO ONE "calls" them on it. No one swears more than Louis Johnson, but whers the uproar, Ida? Monkey can use some very foul language but no one writes that they are offended by it. Shana uses the "F" word like it is going out of style. And little "psycho" stevis george flames people and also uses the "F" word. Where’s the outrage. And you should be offended IDA whether it is directed at you or others. For example, people flame the crap otu of me when I go after someone or use profane language. Why not this people? Look, you wrote this post to me totellme to stop flmaing. I know you would NEVER argue with your good pal Monkey or Louis Johnson. That is whata clique mentaltiyis. AA a double standard. How do you know I dislike you, Ida? I assumed you, like most NGers, dislike me. But, I know there are about 6 billion people on this planet, so it really doesn’t bother me, if ten, twenty or more people from one little website don’t like me. Take care, TL
Response:
Ida, BTW, other NGers have privately e-mailed me or told on the phone thatthey also feel there is a HS clique mentality here. I am not alone in that belief. The difference between me and the others is that I don’t give a sh*t and will take on anyone here. Many others are afraid to do so. TL
Response:
Trevor, Nice to know there is at least one person left on this "warring" NG that is remaining calm, reasonable and lucid. I thought your post was well written and well thought out. I think Stephon feels a little too "proprietary" about this NG. He will learn. Thanks for the few nice comments you wrote on my behalf. As far as your second post goes under this thread, well, my posts were written before both of yours. I guess you didn’t see all of them. I wrote that "shutup" comment to steve last night (EST). So, I didn’t "let you down". Hey, little stevie flamed me after I wrote two nice posts about him. What can you do? Overall, Trevor, you are one of the very few posters I like on here ( i am not sure you want that distinction?!), but I have read posts of yours I have disagreed with but never responded to. You had a long running dialogue with stephon about you and your life and some of the things you wrote were so self serving, egotistical and so on, but i let it go. You called yourself a genious, were in a 1% elite intelligence category, could be making so much more money, etc. That wasn’t the Trevor I knew and liked , but again, I let it go because I, unlike others here, understand that people are not one dimensional and that we are never going to agree 100% on everything. I think there are more posters that are here that have tempers, than just me and Squirty baby!! No one seems to go after Louis, Monkey, Shana, Stehon George and others when they flame. I understand the HS clique mentality when I see it. But, anyway, thanks for being a voice of reason. The group needs it badly. Ido feel badly for those who are now afraid to post with all this arguing going on. And yes Trevor, you are right again. I will eventaully leave and come back, but not even close for the reasons our little wimpy English friend has so incorrectly pointed out. Good luck "down under", TL PS No way Pat Rafter wins his third US OPEN!!!
Response:
Tom Luby belched: >Hey Stephon, >Shut the fuck up and go to bed!!! >Tom
I can’t think of a reply! Would it be asking too much of you to inject a little fertile imagination into that space between your ears? Ask Roger for a spliff – you could maybe learn to relax together and chill out as well. Boring trolls are always the worst; still, you won’t be around for long – your childish temper will see to that.
Response:
Stephen George <steph…@georgeharris.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7pvpeh$5hc$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk… > Tom Luby belched: > >Hey Stephon, > >Shut the fuck up and go to bed!!! > >Tom > I can’t think of a reply! Would it be asking too
Neither can I. There I am saying nice things about you Tom and you do this to me! > much of you to inject a little fertile imagination > into that space between your ears? Ask Roger > for a spliff – you could maybe learn to relax
What’s a spliff? And can we please just confront the issue at hand and leave others out of it? > together and chill out as well. Boring trolls are > always the worst; still, you won’t be around for > long – your childish temper will see to that.
Yes, I suspect Tom will leave soon but not for the reason you cite. Regards, Trevor
Response:
Stephen George <steph…@georgeharris.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7pvof7$537$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk… > Hi Trevor,
Hi Steve, [snip] I see that Roger has decided to enter the fray so I’ll not comment on your response except for the bit that applies to me. > >on the ‘net. It was a decision that turned out to be a good one as the > Zoloft > >was having a negative effect on my behaviour. Two months earlier it was > >needed and helpful. > Why didn’t you consult a psychiatrist or specialist? Can you trust > everything > you read on the ‘net? You’ve recently (if my memory serves me correctly) > returned to taking some meds. Maybe coming off the Zoloft was an error
Yes, Dothiepin, an old tricyclic that has served me well in the past. The SSRI’s that I’ve tried don’t like me (Zoloft, Luvox & Serzone). I wish I had stopped the Zoloft about three weeks earlier, it was helpful to start with but as my natural optimism returned the effects were over-stimulating. I was having problems sleeping as a result of a change in my lifestyle and Dothiepin has always helped in that regard. The six months I was off the Zoloft were extremely good. The attack on my mother has made another huge shift in the emotional landscape and I was on a low dose of Xanax for about a week. I suspect I’ll be quitting the Dothiepin soon, the sources of stress have been dealt with and I’d rather develop a natural coping mechanism. I have always used the drugs in this way. It works well for me. I prefer to expose myself to the stress as much as possible with meds as a fallback. > of judgement. In any case, you cannot validate Breggin’s theories on the > basis of one solitary experience.
I didn’t say that my experience validates Breggin. I said I took Breggins opinions into account in making a personal decision. As I said in another post, his opinions represent one end of the spectrum and are not the full picture. Like everything I read or hear I integrate it into my own belief system according to my own needs. We all do this, some are more aware of it than others. My needs require as broad a base of knowlege as possible so I look at as many sources as I can find, even the ones that are a bit extreme. I also expose myself to as many new situations as I can conceive to gather data. I have started a new push in redeveloping my life and realised I needed chemical help for a while. I expect that once the ball is rolling I will dispense with the meds until I enter another phase of change and adjustment. Regards, Trevor
Response:
Hi Fly, You seem to be in the same situation I was in a year ago. I think that checking out Breggin’s book was one of the worst things I ever did. I remember that I was taking Prozac at the time and was really scared of it. I even had the nerve to ask my psychiatrist why she thought it was safe. I stopped taking my prozac for 5 days and subsequently did terrible on my SAT test. Don’t make the same mistake I did. Breggin’s book is wrong for a number of reasons. First of all, look at his career, scaring people about drugs (especially popular ones) is how he makes his living (just take a look at his new book, Talking Back to Ritalin). Second, prozac has been around since 1983, it has not caused any of the drastic reactions that Breggin predicts. I have taken prozac since age 13 (3 years) and have not experienced anything wrong with my brain (my IQ is still the same). Third, Prozac has generated a lot of media hype. Especially negative publicity about Prozac causing suicidal urges. This makes it an easy taget for Breggin. You may have heard Breggin mention "Prozac Survivor Groups" in his book. Many of the groups are completely false while others, about 10% are genuine. The reason for this is one religious organization (and I won’t name names) that vehemently opposes psychiatry. It runs many "anti-psychiatry" organizations and websites. To my knowledge there is only one anti psychiatry site on the internet that renounces affiliation with this organization. Interestingly, the author of Talking back to Prozac, Breggin, neither announces nor rennounces his affiliation to this organization and I seriously question his motives for writing such a book (other than money). Lastly, if Prozac might "cause brain damage" then the pharmaceutical industry would have definetly investigated into this by now. Having a deffective drug out on the market could have the ability of generating many lawsuits against Eli Lilly (Prozac’s manufacturer). If you still have doubts, think of it this way, how much has prozac helped you? I much rather take a drug than live with my miserable OCD, without prozac my life would be a mess, and at a critical time when college admissions are involved, not taking prozac would be far more damaging to me than any of the ridiculous things Breggin mentions. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
Response:
Roger – how about *supporting* Flydream4 rather than fuelling her obsessions? You just don’t give a shit about anybody, do you. What a pity your parents didn’t believe in zero population growth. SG
Response:
Stephen George <steph…@georgeharris.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7pvd4r$v8t$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk… > Roger – how about *supporting* Flydream4 rather > than fuelling her obsessions? You just don’t give > a shit about anybody, do you. What a pity your > parents didn’t believe in zero population growth. > SG
Steve, rather than just flaming Roger could you do me a favour and quote his response detailing which parts were unsupportive and fueled her obsessions? I can’t see it. What I see is a factual response which had to include a level of doubt because we really don’t know all the effects these drugs have. Part of dealing with OCD is learning to cope with doubt. By saying Breggins is a total whacko and can be utterly ignored might put her mind at ease in the short term but doesn’t give her the real skills needed to deal with uncertainty. Roger said he took the drugs himself for 2.5 years and is fine and also rationalised that the receptor burnout (if it exists) may even be helpful. Learning to rationalise doubt induced anxiety is a needed skill and Roger gave a pretty good example of how to do it. The response you made to Fly was well thought out and showed flaws in the arguments Breggins makes. I personally don’t believe it makes him a total loser though. I read his works late last year and it was part of my information gathering in deciding to take myself off Zoloft. I also consulted four GP’s, my psychologist and other stuff on the ‘net. It was a decision that turned out to be a good one as the Zoloft was having a negative effect on my behaviour. Two months earlier it was needed and helpful. And some of your supportive remarks about being a long term user of the drugs are echoed by Roger so I’m confused as to what you are actually objecting to. You’ve shown good analytical skills here in the past so I would appreciate you showing me how you arrived at your totally negative interpretation and how it justifies a statement that Roger should never have been born. Regards, Trevor
Response:
Whatatrip/whatapsycho/whatanasshole/whataloser/whatanidiot/whatafuckup/what adoucebag/whatanuneducatedfool/whataknowitallschmuck wrote: Everyone knows I am just fine. Everyone "who" Roger??? I sincerely doubt that "everyone" knows you are fine. You are one of the biggest assholes I have never met in my life. Wherever you live, stay there. Oh, BTW, hows your trailor park doing????? But, in my opinion, you are sssooooooo very far from "fine". You are the typical screwed up guy who never left the 60’s. I bet you are related to Timothy Leary. LOL! I would always assume that anything the majority finds weird and different, you will heartily embrace. Don’t you ever go on vacation? I am so sick of the mindless drivel you post on this NG. You are leading suffering and hurting people astray. At the very least, you are making people more confused. Pathetic!!! Tom Luby
Response:
Hi Fly, – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Flydream4 wrote: >Please not read any further if you obsess over and over and over what you read. >Can Prozac or other SSRI’s *really* cause a permanent burnout of serotonin >receptors in the brain after long term usage? >That’s what Breggin says. If someone could try and disprove some of these >theories again I would appreciate it. (I’m TOTALLY sick and tired of obsessing >about this and wish I hadn’t taken the stupid detour to check the book
out!!!) Fly – a suggestion for the future! Try to avoid worrying yourself by reading these sort of things… you know that each time you will obsess about it, whatever the evidence or arguments are. You ask "can *anyone* refute this guy"? Well, nobody can prove that he’s *right* – it’s only *his* theory. *Anyone* can have a theory – it doesn’t mean it’s right though! Maybe he’s got an axe to grind about Prozac? He wouldn’t be the first to do that. "That’s what Breggin says" – I bet that his book doesn’t mention anyone who says something different, does it? Nope – thought not! So it’s hardly a fair and *balanced* view of things, is it? Nope! >TALKING BACK TO PROZAC by Dr. Peter R. Breggin MD, p.155-156: >"…While Prozac is trying to stimulate or energize serotonin >activity by blocking the removal of the neurotransmitter from its synapse, >the brain is trying to compensate by shutting down the nerves that produce >the serotonin. When Prozac blocks the removal of serotonin from the synapse, >causing an excess amount of it to remain there, the brain cell reacts by >refusing to release any additional serotonin into the synapse. These >compensatory mechanisms are especially active in the first two weeks of drug >treatment and theoreticaly could cause a net decrease of serotonergic >activity at that time."
Note the word: *THEORETICALY* (sic) in the final sentence. Theoretically, the earth could be destroyed today by a stray asteroid. But I ain’t gonna worry about it! Theoretically, when I go shopping later today, I could be robbed, killed, squashed by a car – but I ain’t gonna worry about it! Theoretically, I could have a nervous breakdown today – but I ain’t gonna worry about it! Theoretically, I could fall in love today, or win loads of money… yes, I think I’ll concentrate on all the *positive* theories today! Much better idea… >"…The initial compensatory shutdown mechanism is not the only way the brain >tries to overcome the Prozac-induced glut of Serotonin in the synapses. The >brain develops another more ominous reaction that continues to increase over >time. The second mechanism – called down-regulation – causes receptors for >serotonin to literally disappear from the brain. As discussed in chapter 4, >in many areas of the brains of experimental animals, the receptors >drastically diminish in number, sometimes with losses as high as 40 percent >and 60 percent in regions of the brain involved in mental functioning.
How much Prozac were the animals given? Often animals are given dozens of times the dose given to humans – which makes it pretty meaningless. If it was true then wouldn’t we need higher and higher doses of anti-depressants all the time, to stay stable? I’ve been on the same dose for ages and remained stable. I think that if a human lost 60% of their receptors in the mental functioning regions of the brain that someone would *surely* have spotted it by now!!! Have you noticed any problems with my brain, Fly? On second thoughts – don’t answer that! :) >The changes are persistent during exposure to the drug. Since no trace of the >receptors can be found, the most likely assumption is that they have died >off."
Note the word ASSUMPTION. Doesn’t exactly sound *scientific*, does it! *Theory*, *assumption*… howzabout my own description: pure guesswork! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->"Are these serotonin receptor losses permanent? Are patients taking Prozac at >risk of losing large percentages of their brain receptors? The >straightforward studies required to determine the permanency of receptor >losses are not being carried out. I’ve seen no indication that Lilly has made >any attempt to see if the receptor losses are permanent. Although they would >be extremely easy and inexpensive to do in the early stages of animal >testing, the FDA has not asked the drug companies to carry them out as a >prerequisite for the approval of psychiatric drugs. In recent interviews with >neuroscientists around the country, I have found no inclination on the part >of any of them to investigate whether or not these changes in the brain can >become permanent." >This is what scares me to death!!!! Why aren’t these studies being carried >out???? > Fly
Can you be *sure* that nobody *outside* the US is doing these tests? The world is a mighty big place!!! (The FDA is only one of many organisations around the world.) If these tests *are* easy to do then don’t you think that drug companies’ competitors would do them, to gain an advantage and sell more of their own drugs? And it’s extremely unlikely that they would ever publish reports on competitor’s drugs if they found *no* problems with them!!!! Bad for business! Notice that he doesn’t specify who these "neuroscientists" are *or* how many he interviewed. Always *highly* suspicious!!! Was it 2? Or 20? Or 50? Or 5,000? Were they reputable? Who did they work for? What type of work were they doing? What type of past experience did they have? Did any of them have a vested interest? Did he choose them randomly or did he pick out his personal friends – or people who only supported his theories? In fact, he doesn’t even specify which *country* – he leaves it to you to make that ASSUMPTION. In fact, typical of someone trying to "sell" their theory, plus their book, of course, he leaves a heck of a lot for you to ASSUME, all by yourself, doesn’t he? And for anyone who has OCD that always means ASSUMING the *worst* possible scenario! I would forget the whole thing, Fly. (As soon as I click on <Post> that’s *exactly* what I intend to do.) And please choose your reading matters carefully!!!! Obsessing is just as bad for your health as *any* THEORETICAL musings. Very kind regards, Steve PS How many books have you read saying that drugs are WONDERFUL and really improve your life etc., etc. Probably none – because negative sounding medical books sell *much* better than positive ones! Who’s going to buy a cheerful, happy sounding medical book??? *Nobody*.
Response:
Please not read any further if you obsess over and over and over what you read. Can Prozac or other SSRI’s *really* cause a permanent burnout of serotonin receptors in the brain after long term usage? That’s what Breggin says. If someone could try and disprove some of these theories again I would appreciate it. (I’m TOTALLY sick and tired of obsessing about this and wish I hadn’t taken the stupid detour to check the book out!!!) TALKING BACK TO PROZAC by Dr. Peter R. Breggin MD, p.155-156: "…While Prozac is trying to stimulate or energize serotonin activity by blocking the removal of the neurotransmitter from its synapse, the brain is trying to compensate by shutting down the nerves that produce the serotonin. When Prozac blocks the removal of serotonin from the synapse, causing an excess amount of it to remain there, the brain cell reacts by refusing to release any additional serotonin into the synapse. These compensatory mechanisms are especially active in the first two weeks of drug treatment and theoreticaly could cause a net decrease of serotonergic activity at that time." "…The initial compensatory shutdown mechanism is not the only way the brain tries to overcome the Prozac-induced glut of Serotonin in the synapses. The brain develops another more ominous reaction that continues to increase over time. The second mechanism – called down-regulation – causes receptors for serotonin to literally disappear from the brain. As discussed in chapter 4, in many areas of the brains of experimental animals, the receptors drastically diminish in number, sometimes with losses as high as 40 percent and 60 percent in regions of the brain involved in mental functioning. The changes are persistent during exposure to the drug. Since no trace of the receptors can be found, the most likely assumption is that they have died off." "Are these serotonin receptor losses permanent? Are patients taking Prozac at risk of losing large percentages of their brain receptors? The straightforward studies required to determine the permanency of receptor losses are not being carried out. I’ve seen no indication that Lilly has made any attempt to see if the receptor losses are permanent. Although they would be extremely easy and inexpensive to do in the early stages of animal testing, the FDA has not asked the drug companies to carry them out as a prerequisite for the approval of psychiatric drugs. In recent interviews with neuroscientists around the country, I have found no inclination on the part of any of them to investigate whether or not these changes in the brain can become permanent." This is what scares me to death!!!! Why aren’t these studies being carried out???? Fly
