UK BBC Radio 5 Live to cover antidepressants this weekend

[[lo...]]

Hi Lapis

 

I listened to it this morning.  I thought it was well balanced.  It certainly highlighted the many problems with these drugs.  Our Buddie who was meant to be on was not in fact invited to do so.  But James Moore described his experiences very well.

Let us know what you thought of the programme.

 

Fiona 

[[La...]]

Hi Fiona,

I've just finished listening to the programme, and yes, I agree, it was quite balanced in terms of looking at some positives and negatives. What was missing for me was a challenge to the idea that the antidepressants make sense for most people (63 million in the UK, according to the numbers, I believe). There's no basis for the chemical imbalance theory, and the GP spoke about serotonin without really explaining it. Nobody gets his/her serotonin level checked before or after an AD is issued, but all of these people talk about serotonin being low or part of the problem with depression. They need to back that up.

 

GPs have little to no training in psychological issues, as far as I understand it, so I don't see why they get to prescribe ADs. I believe it's pretty much the same here in Canada. We also have an issue here with access to affordable talk therapy, since it's not covered by our provincial health plan. From the BBC programme, I got the idea that there is NHS coverage for it there in the UK, so that's another difference between our health care systems.

 

Also, there was no mention of some of the many nasty side effects of SSRIs, including lowered bone density, lowered sodium levels (for people like me, that's a risky thing), sexual side effects, dizziness, insomnia, increased anxiety, interactions with other medications, etc. There was no mention that SSRIs can be teratogenic (i.e. affect babies in the wombs of pregnant mothers) or that they have a black box suicide/homicide warning for children and young adults. There was no mention that some of the medications are impossible to taper without opening a capsule and counting beads or getting special preparations made at compounding pharmacies. There was no mention that we all metabolize medications differently because of our different genetic profiles and enzymes (CYP450), so there's no way of knowing who will do okay or not okay on a particular medication. The way it's done now is a crap shoot.

 

I read a lot of studies on PubMed. They're still testing Prozac on rats, even though it has been available for more than 30 years, I believe. Rats are, um, rather different from human beings. Every time I read a rat (or mouse) study for SSRIs, I slap my forehead in disbelief. How can they extrapolate from rats to humans when it comes to mental health?

 

[[be...]]

Nice wrap up. Know I don't need to watch it.

[[La...]]

benzogirl, I definitely think it's worth listening to. It's a radio programme by the way, not a TV programme. But yes, give it a listen.

 

There were some doctors -- including a GP who's taking an AD herself -- plus a number of people who have had varied experiences with ADs. But I, of course, want to hear a health professional like Dr. James Davies or Dr. Joanna Moncrieff, who can speak to the controversial issues that I mentioned above. I'm asking a lot, I know, but I think these things should be addressed. And this BBC programme could have been an excellent opportunity for that.

 

In any case, I'm glad the BBC addressed the issue of rising AD prescriptions in the UK. I just want more depth.

[[be...]]

I just wish there was an American version. fwiw~~my original provider told me she was on Prozac.

[[be...]]

Thank you guys for the discussion.  I appreciate hearing your impressions.  Can't bring myself to listen right now.  Also, glad to see the article in the Daily Mail today.  

 

Hoping for some trickle-down here in Canada (and the US).

[[...]]

I suppose I am always going to be disappointed with the limited nature of programmes like this, tv or radio, their format isn't designed to get to the nitty gritty of the topic of prescription drug dependency. If I was an innocent novice about SSRI/SNRIs I might think that the people who were highlighting their bad experiences with A/Ds (no reflection on them) might be in the business of scare mongering. I mean the very reasonable sounding GP who took these drugs herself and acknowledged the necessity for careful monitoring, obviously didn't have the foggiest about the horror of protracted withdrawal - not given air time - so perhaps it doesn't exist. She actually started the programme by extolling the "feel good" hormone boosting aspects of A/Ds. So no proper demolition of the chemical imbalance theory then and apparently withdrawal can be managed. I've come across an American psychiatrist called Dr Stuart Shipko and in his experience the longer you take antidepressants and the older you are "the less likely the person is to successfully taper off the SSRI." Certainly backs up what I had to undergo.

 

The great people who shared their terrible time trying to get off antidepressants are the heroes in all this but the programme didn't inform about how awful the side effects are, how potentially serious they are in cumulative exposure, 15, 20, 30 years in some cases, and how people are often parked on them for life without any possibility of ever getting off. I'm not sure that doctors are any more knowledgeable about tapering off SSRIs than benzos. 

 

One last thought, why is the human experience apparently in such dire need of medicating in the 20th/21st century? Altering our brain chemistry perhaps for life can't be the answer. Glad at least that the subject is being covered.

[[La...]]

Thoughtful response, pris. Good to hear your input. Thank you.

[[...]]

Hi Fiona,

I've just finished listening to the programme, and yes, I agree, it was quite balanced in terms of looking at some positives and negatives. What was missing for me was a challenge to the idea that the antidepressants make sense for most people (63 million in the UK, according to the numbers, I believe). There's no basis for the chemical imbalance theory, and the GP spoke about serotonin without really explaining it. Nobody gets his/her serotonin level checked before or after an AD is issued, but all of these people talk about serotonin being low or part of the problem with depression. They need to back that up.

 

GPs have little to no training in psychological issues, as far as I understand it, so I don't see why they get to prescribe ADs. I believe it's pretty much the same here in Canada. We also have an issue here with access to affordable talk therapy, since it's not covered by our provincial health plan. From the BBC programme, I got the idea that there is NHS coverage for it there in the UK, so that's another difference between our health care systems.

 

Also, there was no mention of some of the many nasty side effects of SSRIs, including lowered bone density, lowered sodium levels (for people like me, that's a risky thing), sexual side effects, dizziness, insomnia, increased anxiety, interactions with other medications, etc. There was no mention that SSRIs can be teratogenic (i.e. affect babies in the wombs of pregnant mothers) or that they have a black box suicide/homicide warning for children and young adults. There was no mention that some of the medications are impossible to taper without opening a capsule and counting beads or getting special preparations made at compounding pharmacies. There was no mention that we all metabolize medications differently because of our different genetic profiles and enzymes (CYP450), so there's no way of knowing who will do okay or not okay on a particular medication. The way it's done now is a crap shoot.

 

I read a lot of studies on PubMed. They're still testing Prozac on rats, even though it has been available for more than 30 years, I believe. Rats are, um, rather different from human beings. Every time I read a rat (or mouse) study for SSRIs, I slap my forehead in disbelief. How can they extrapolate from rats to humans when it comes to mental health?

 

 

You make the case against A/Ds so beautifully Lapis, I wish I could express myself half as well as you do and with the grasp of the facts that you have. You do a great job keeping us informed of the latest research and I've made use of your efforts by making a copy of your post about Dr Joanna Moncrieff. It's handy to have information like that when you need to persuade people about the dangers of these drugs, it helps to back up your own personal experience. So your doing the hard work for me, thank you! I collected my A/D on repeat prescription for years without seeing a doctor for a lot of that time. I wish I had done more to challenge that.

[[La...]]

Hi pris,

I'm SO glad my posts are of use to you! That's great to hear! I really do think knowledge is power (in the best sense of the term) when it comes to these things. I've been able to navigate my situation in a relatively positive way with a few health professionals because I've shared medical journal articles with them and asked for their input. I think it helps smooth the way for a better interaction.

 

I found a great book called "The Antidepressant Solution", written by Harvard professor/psychiatrist Dr. Joseph Glenmullen. When I went to my final appointment with the doctor who prescribed my SSRI, I had that book with me and used it to point out the issues that I found most distressing -- bone density, lowered sodium, dizziness, sexual side effects and withdrawal. As well, the last chapter, which explains how the doctors were duped by the way the SSRIs were marketed, offered a chance for my doctor to say, "Yes, that's true.". Having the book made all the difference, I think. We parted in a respectful way.

 

So yes, using facts, logic and rationality are good tactics, I believe. I'm glad you're off the medication too, pris, and I hope you're doing okay.

 

In my opinion, SSRIs are hugely problematic, and I'm appalled at how widely they're prescribed.

[[be...]]

lapis

 

You're posts are always great and they help me a lot! Keep on keeping on.

 

Betsy

[[La...]]

Hey thanks, Betsy! Lovely. I appreciate your posts too!

[[lo...]]

Thanks for the discussion here ... I agree about the deficiencies of the programme but not up to contributing to the discussion right now.

 

Fiona 

[[La...]]

As an example of the forehead-slapping studies on rats and SSRIs, here's a recent abstract that features rats with PTSD who took Prozac and did exercise. Whether any of the parts of this study accurately replicate the complex multi-faceted human experience of PTSD is highly questionable.

 

It's called "Effects of moderate treadmill exercise and fluoxetine on behavioural and cognitive deficits, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis dysfunction and alternations in hippocampal BDNF and mRNA expression of apoptosis - related proteins in a rat model of post-traumatic stress disorder."

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28137660

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

[[...]]

You have to find some dark humour in the studies conducted on rats being treated for PTSD with SSRIs - PTDS induced by the researchers. These poor animals, and I'm no fan of the rat, are tortured in order to discover that the end of the day the main factor in their recovery is not Prozac but exercise. Perhaps this shows that the target of most research should be none drug alternatives but of course where would be the return for the pharmaceutical industry. Anyway I don't consider myself to be analogous with the rat!

 

We have to invest more time, energy and money into psychotherapy not toxic chemicals. I'm with Peter Kinderman, professor of clinical psychology at the University of Liverpool, we have take mental health out of the realm of psychiatry or at the very least it should be prepared to accept that it's causing harm with the biological model and take a very different approach to peoples' mental distress. Most people tend to recover from a bout of depression without any chemical intervention and drugs should be used only in the last resort and definitely not for prolonged periods of time. I do wonder if there are better outcomes in the developing world where they have less access to prescribed psychoactive drugs. 

[[La...]]

Well put, pris. I totally agree!

 

I've seen Dr. Kinderman in a few videos, and I have so much respect for him and the other doctors there who are challenging the status quo (e.g. Dr. Joanna Moncrieff, Dr. James Davies, Dr. Sami Tamimi, Dr. Peter Gotzsche, etc.). Those people are the reason why I keep my gaze firmly focused across the pond. They are leaders. They are speaking the truth, and I can only hope that those in a position to effect real change over there are listening to them.

 

As far as the poor rats go, I just can't believe that any of those researchers actually thinks that the induced physiological stress they subject the animals to can replicate the human experience of PTSD. So sad. How can results from such rodent experiments lead to solutions for human beings?

 

Yes, non-drug options are the way to go for so many psychological ills, in my opinion. I'm not well enough versed to discuss illnesses such as schizophrenia or psychosis, but for most depression and anxiety, I think the medications likely cause more harm than good.

[[La...]]

And if anyone needed another reason to avoid SSRIs, here's a recent case study in which a gentleman who'd had a a stroke developed gastrointestinal hemorrhage from fluoxetine (Prozac), and/or the combination of medications he'd been put on. It was difficult for the doctors to figure out the cause of his bleeding, but in the end, they removed the Prozac from the mix, and his problems cleared up.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28141599 

[[...]]

I'm not sure that their ideas are percolating down to the ordinary GP Lapis where much of the prescribing for A/Ds is centred. The likes of Gotzsche and Professor David Healy have faced some fierce opposition from powerful foes both from proponents of biological psychiatry and big pharma. You probably know that Healy was set to take up a position at the University of Toronto which was dropped after pressure from Eli Lilly - he sued and won an out of court settlement. Meanwhile the general population seem to be wedded to the idea that A/Ds are the answer to the problems. Pharma has done a wonderful job at perpetuating the myth of the serotonin imbalance. You read constantly in magazines and in popular media in general how SSRIs have been a "life saver" for everyone from the ordinary person in the street to famous celebs.

 

The pharmaceutical industry in the UK is the 5th largest in the world in terms of sales, that's a lot of dosh. Gotzsche, Moncrieff, Davies and the others are up against it. Luke Montague is probably right, it may well take a decade and more before this era of mass drugging on the say of psychiatry is consigned to the dustbin.

[[La...]]

Well, I'm sure you're right about what's happening on the GP level, as evidenced by that BBC program citing the 63 million prescriptions (or something like that) for antidepressants in the UK last year. But apparently, these doctors are going to keep on doing what they're doing, so I applaud them.

 

I did read something about Dr. Healy and the possible U.of Toronto gig, but I wasn't clear on the details. Our loss, of course. I'm not sure who -- if anyone -- is speaking out on this subject here in Canada. That's why I keep looking over the pond. The huge focus here, for now at least, is opioids, since the death rate has risen, and it's considered a public health crisis. For now, the issues with ADs and benzos don't seem to be on the radar, sadly. The loss of human potential resulting from side effects and withdrawal effects must be enormous, but they're hard to capture in numbers. With the opioid deaths, however, the figures are stark and clear.

 

I'm not sure how the changes will come about. I keep hoping that those who speak the truth will be heard. I'd love to see the CBC (or our other broadcasters, CTV or Global) -- or any of our major newspapers -- throw some investigative light on the AD and benzo issues.