Re: skeptical about anti-depressants

November 23, 2011

They only work for a few weeks, or a few months at most, and then the brain

adjusts to them, after that you risk never ever be able to recover from

depression again. Believe me, I know from experience.

The enormous stress caused by depression makes many biological changes, but the

idea that faulty biology causes depression is purely a marketing myth dreamt up

by drug companies.

Kv

>

> Ever since I started seeing my therapist earlier this year, I've been adamant

about not taking any anti-depressants. But lately, I've been feeling that my

problems are biological (not acceptance?) and that I should start. I scheduled

an appointment with a psychiatrist, but I'm still worried and a little skeptical

about taking them. I really don't trust man-made items all too much, I'd rather

put my faith into nature. Man has proven to be failures and the stem off all

problems in the world today. Nothing man has made has ever survived to be more

than memory, except maybe ceramic pottery, but clay is naturally from the earth

so that's subjective to perception. Straight up, I don't trust man, especially

when it comes to altering body chemistry. But then I look at myself and I'm

already pretty self-destructive in the sense that I repress almost all emotions

at all times, I have self-loathing and rage-filled episodes over really stupid

stuff. The last was me getting mad at my grandma because she wouldn't answer me

when I asked her how is she happy. She answered with an attack saying, " I don't

need blah, blah, blah to be happy, I enjoy solitary things... " It pissed me off

because after living with her for 23 years, she still hasn't opened up and I

still feel a communication barrier between us. That led to me throwing and

breaking everything that touched my hands and punching holes in my door. I can't

handle myself and a part of me thinks anti-depressants will help, but taking

them will put me against my value of natural > man-made. I'm delusional, I know.

But I'm stuck and need advice, personal experiences, etc. And how long do people

usually stay on this shit. One of my main concerns is that when my medical runs

out, where am I going to get my fix? My therapists said they are non-addictive

kinds... wtf, bananas can be addictive. Skateboarding has proven to be

addictive.

>

November 23, 2011

Hiya KaleJust a few little thoughts. 1) You sound like you are thinking of the "do I take anti-depressants" as an alternative course to practicing ACT. Like the meds will be a nice substitute for ACT, or work where ACT can't work (eg you say you can't accept something biological). Personally, I think that if you are going to take medication then this should COMPLEMENT your work on ACT. I take some medications and I feel they help smooth the road out a little bit, but I feel that ACT is in the driving seat. 2) If you are highly suspicious of medication, and feel that they go against your values, I think that might be a cue for

you to re-double your efforts practicing ACT exercises before embarking necessarily on something you inherently don't trust. Just my opinion. You will find this forum is far better equipped to help you there, rather than with the issue over "to med, or not to med". Where are you stuck with ACT? Where can we help you with it? 3) Try not to let "do I take anti-depressants" become a new struggle for you. Your mind will turn that question into an issue of immense significance if you let it. You've also probably seen how other people on the forum have become "hooked" on this issue. It really isn't anywhere near as important a question as it is made out to be. Of far more significance are the decisions you take each day in helping you live towards your values. Try to focus a little more on those, and getting those

right. Best of luck, Kale. x To: ACT_for_the_Public Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2011, 18:30 Subject: skeptical about anti-depressants Ever since I started seeing my therapist earlier this year, I've been adamant about not taking any anti-depressants. But lately, I've been feeling that my problems are biological (not

acceptance?) and that I should start. I scheduled an appointment with a psychiatrist, but I'm still worried and a little skeptical about taking them. I really don't trust man-made items all too much, I'd rather put my faith into nature. Man has proven to be failures and the stem off all problems in the world today. Nothing man has made has ever survived to be more than memory, except maybe ceramic pottery, but clay is naturally from the earth so that's subjective to perception. Straight up, I don't trust man, especially when it comes to altering body chemistry. But then I look at myself and I'm already pretty self-destructive in the sense that I repress almost all emotions at all times, I have self-loathing and rage-filled episodes over really stupid stuff. The last was me getting mad at my grandma because she wouldn't answer me when I asked her how is she happy. She answered with an attack saying, "I don't need blah, blah, blah to be happy, I enjoy

solitary things..." It pissed me off because after living with her for 23 years, she still hasn't opened up and I still feel a communication barrier between us. That led to me throwing and breaking everything that touched my hands and punching holes in my door. I can't handle myself and a part of me thinks anti-depressants will help, but taking them will put me against my value of natural > man-made. I'm delusional, I know. But I'm stuck and need advice, personal experiences, etc. And how long do people usually stay on this shit. One of my main concerns is that when my medical runs out, where am I going to get my fix? My therapists said they are non-addictive kinds... wtf, bananas can be addictive. Skateboarding has proven to be addictive.------------------------------------For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.orgIf you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may unsubscribe

by sending an email to ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/<*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional<*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join (Yahoo! ID required)<*> To change settings via email: ACT_for_the_Public-digest ACT_for_the_Public-fullfeatured <*>

November 23, 2011

>

> Try not to let " do I take anti-depressants " become a new struggle

> for you ... It really isn't anywhere near as important a question as

> it is made out to be.

et al,

I strongly disagree. It's a massive question with potentially life-long

health implications. If anyone wonders why I say this please back-

channel me and I'll provide further info.

We can't resolve questions about meds on this list, true. But we ought

to refrain from erring the other way and assuming it is a non-issue.

- Randy

November 23, 2011

Here is my experience with anti-depressants. I have used them for more than 20 years. I would rather not take these, however so far every time I quit, I find my depression returning. I have plenty of emotional pain and anxiety to deal with even while on the medicine. I am new to ACT, beginning therapy in June 2011. Hopefully as I learn more I will get to a place where I can again try life without these chemicals....but in the mean time I believe they are helpful. I have never had any withdrawal symptoms during the times when I quit using them. Ultimately it is a calculated risk, balancing the short-term and potential long-term side effects with the benefit in the mean time. Perhaps I am lucky in that I appear to be one who improves when using these medications.

Ever since I started seeing my therapist earlier this year, I've been adamant about not taking any anti-depressants. But lately, I've been feeling that my problems are biological (not acceptance?) and that I should start. I scheduled an appointment with a psychiatrist, but I'm still worried and a little skeptical about taking them. I really don't trust man-made items all too much, I'd rather put my faith into nature. Man has proven to be failures and the stem off all problems in the world today. Nothing man has made has ever survived to be more than memory, except maybe ceramic pottery, but clay is naturally from the earth so that's subjective to perception. Straight up, I don't trust man, especially when it comes to altering body chemistry. But then I look at myself and I'm already pretty self-destructive in the sense that I repress almost all emotions at all times, I have self-loathing and rage-filled episodes over really stupid stuff. The last was me getting mad at my grandma because she wouldn't answer me when I asked her how is she happy. She answered with an attack saying, " I don't need blah, blah, blah to be happy, I enjoy solitary things... " It pissed me off because after living with her for 23 years, she still hasn't opened up and I still feel a communication barrier between us. That led to me throwing and breaking everything that touched my hands and punching holes in my door. I can't handle myself and a part of me thinks anti-depressants will help, but taking them will put me against my value of natural > man-made. I'm delusional, I know. But I'm stuck and need advice, personal experiences, etc. And how long do people usually stay on this shit. One of my main concerns is that when my medical runs out, where am I going to get my fix? My therapists said they are non-addictive kinds... wtf, bananas can be addictive. Skateboarding has proven to be addictive.

-- Jerry jraypeterson@...

November 23, 2011

oscar,this a well-laid out advice. thanks, i also gleaned some applicable stuffs for myself. i do take meds to ensure my brain chemistry is taken cared of,but i'm also putting much effort on my own ACT awareness (as I'm not much into exercises) on top of my (new) therapist (aside from shrink) asi still struggle with a lot of issues that affects my being productive at work.not because you take meds, your doctor push it to you further. yesterday, my doctor and i worked out a new meds regimen on reducing the dosagesof some meds that i really need to maintain, and took out my anti-anxiety pill and another one for sleep and concentration

disorder as i'm improvingon my awareness side.i look forward to better self-management hereon. thank you.roger To: "ACT_for_the_Public " <ACT_for_the_Public > Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 7:09 AM Subject: Re: skeptical about anti-depressants

Hiya KaleJust a few little thoughts. 1) You sound like you are thinking of the "do I take anti-depressants" as an alternative course to practicing ACT. Like the meds will be a nice substitute for ACT, or work where ACT can't work (eg you say you can't accept something biological). Personally, I think that if you are going to take medication then this should COMPLEMENT your work on ACT. I take some medications and I feel they help smooth the road out a little bit, but I feel that ACT is in the driving seat. 2) If you are highly suspicious of medication, and feel that they go against your values, I think that might be a cue for

you to re-double your efforts practicing ACT exercises before embarking necessarily on something you inherently don't trust. Just my opinion. You will find this forum is far better equipped to help you there, rather than with the issue over "to med, or not to med". Where are you stuck with ACT? Where can we help you with it? 3) Try not to let "do I take anti-depressants" become a new struggle for you. Your mind will turn that question into an issue of immense significance if you let it. You've also probably seen how other people on the forum have become "hooked" on this issue. It really isn't anywhere near as important a question as it is made out to be. Of far more significance are the decisions you take each day in helping you live towards your values. Try to focus a little more on those, and getting those

right. Best of luck, Kale. x To: ACT_for_the_Public Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2011, 18:30 Subject: skeptical about anti-depressants Ever since I started seeing my therapist earlier this year, I've been adamant about not taking any anti-depressants. But lately, I've been feeling that my problems are biological (not

acceptance?) and that I should start. I scheduled an appointment with a psychiatrist, but I'm still worried and a little skeptical about taking them. I really don't trust man-made items all too much, I'd rather put my faith into nature. Man has proven to be failures and the stem off all problems in the world today. Nothing man has made has ever survived to be more than memory, except maybe ceramic pottery, but clay is naturally from the earth so that's subjective to perception. Straight up, I don't trust man, especially when it comes to altering body chemistry. But then I look at myself and I'm already pretty self-destructive in the sense that I repress almost all emotions at all times, I have self-loathing and rage-filled episodes over really stupid stuff. The last was me getting mad at my grandma because she wouldn't answer me when I asked her how is she happy. She answered with an attack saying, "I don't need blah, blah, blah to be happy, I enjoy

solitary things..." It pissed me off because after living with her for 23 years, she still hasn't opened up and I still feel a communication barrier between us. That led to me throwing and breaking everything that touched my hands and punching holes in my door. I can't handle myself and a part of me thinks anti-depressants will help, but taking them will put me against my value of natural > man-made. I'm delusional, I know. But I'm stuck and need advice, personal experiences, etc. And how long do people usually stay on this shit. One of my main concerns is that when my medical runs out, where am I going to get my fix? My therapists said they are non-addictive kinds... wtf, bananas can be addictive. Skateboarding has proven to be addictive.------------------------------------For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.orgIf you do

not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may unsubscribe

by sending an email to ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/<*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional<*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join (Yahoo! ID required)<*> To change settings via email: ACT_for_the_Public-digest ACT_for_the_Public-fullfeatured <*>

November 23, 2011

I have to second this post by Randy. It is definitely not a decision to be made

lightly. Having taken Paxil(Paroxetine)for a period earlier this year, and

having suffered massive side effects both whilst taking it and upon withdrawal

from it (some of which, over 6 month later, are still with me!:-() I would

caution anyone to seek out as much information as they can so that they can make

the best informed decision possible.

Kate

> >

> > Try not to let " do I take anti-depressants " become a new struggle

> > for you ... It really isn't anywhere near as important a question as

> > it is made out to be.

>

> et al,

>

> I strongly disagree. It's a massive question with potentially life-long

> health implications. If anyone wonders why I say this please back-

> channel me and I'll provide further info.

>

> We can't resolve questions about meds on this list, true. But we ought

> to refrain from erring the other way and assuming it is a non-issue.

>

> - Randy

>

November 23, 2011

Kale, you are too late, man. I can give you a link to an article about the addictive qualities of refined sugar, hook you up with proponents for the horrors of fluoride, or with information about the brain-destroying properties of cell phones. Reality is a very chaotic and unsafe placeâ€“we have only the choice of which risks we take, not living free of them.Values. How much will you risk to live a valued life, to keep your grandmother safe from you, to have a little serenity in your life? I have seen meds work miracles or induce ugly side effects. I'd recommend approaching that psych with an open mind and discussing things form the perspective of risks and values, pros and cons, and not from the unrealistic stance of guaranteed safety.I have also seen cases where meds were outgrown with the development of psychological coping skills. This is also very individualized, but it would not hurt to discuss this hope wi the doctor as well. Information is empowering when you step back from your fears enough to use it!Good luck.D

Ever since I started seeing my therapist earlier this year, I've been adamant about not taking any anti-depressants. But lately, I've been feeling that my problems are biological (not acceptance?) and that I should start. I scheduled an appointment with a psychiatrist, but I'm still worried and a little skeptical about taking them. I really don't trust man-made items all too much, I'd rather put my faith into nature. Man has proven to be failures and the stem off all problems in the world today. Nothing man has made has ever survived to be more than memory, except maybe ceramic pottery, but clay is naturally from the earth so that's subjective to perception. Straight up, I don't trust man, especially when it comes to altering body chemistry. But then I look at myself and I'm already pretty self-destructive in the sense that I repress almost all emotions at all times, I have self-loathing and rage-filled episodes over really stupid stuff. The last was me getting mad at my grandma because she wouldn't answer me when I asked her how is she happy. She answered with an attack saying, "I don't need blah, blah, blah to be happy, I enjoy solitary things..." It pissed me off because after living with her for 23 years, she still hasn't opened up and I still feel a communication barrier between us. That led to me throwing and breaking everything that touched my hands and punching holes in my door. I can't handle myself and a part of me thinks anti-depressants will help, but taking them will put me against my value of natural > man-made. I'm delusional, I know. But I'm stuck and need advice, personal experiences, etc. And how long do people usually stay on this shit. One of my main concerns is that when my medical runs out, where am I going to get my fix? My therapists said they are non-addictive kinds... wtf, bananas can be addictive. Skateboarding has proven to be addictive.

November 23, 2011

>

> Kale, you are too late, man. I can give you a link

> to an article about the addictive qualities of refined sugar,

> hook you up with proponents for the horrors of fluoride,

> or with information about the brain-destroying properties of

> cell phones. Reality is a very chaotic and unsafe place

> we have only the choice of which risks we take, not living

> free of them.

Darrell,

The flip side of your list of risks here is indeed the

part where we get to choose, yes?

What I mean is, two of the three risks here are real

public health risks, not just obsessions.

I.e. new research apparently shows that cell phones

really *are* health risks if held next to the head when

used. Hence all those people who now use those little

headphone/mic sets are doing something sensible. I don't

use such a headphone/mic set myself, but I can understand

why some people do.

And refined sugar is a real health risk. I am eating

very little sugar these days as part of my own diet

effort. Other people I know are doing the same.

So what I take away from this is that fusion or worry

about a concern does not necessarily mean it's not a

legitimate concern; and that ACT can help us defuse

to the extent we can now make choices rather than

feel frozen around an issue. My own view is that a

concern about technology risks (i.e. " manmade " vs.

natural) may be very much connected to a person's

values, once fusion around that concern is seen for

what it is.

- Randy

November 24, 2011

>

> On the issue of meds, the forum focuses on the polar ends, discussing

> the issue like tennis spectators flitting their gaze from one side to the

other.

> I recommend to Kale and others that a focus is also given to the middle

> ground. It is a valid perspective too!

,

What you're citing is your anecdotal experience. Often that is

good evidence - but perhaps not in this case. If you are curious

as to why I say this, you can read a VERY long blog post of mine -

it is in 3 parts, and you will have to read all the way to part 3 to

find what I am referring to:

http://wp.me/p1HoMM-dG

It really is a topic that rewards reading up on. And I apologize if

I seem contentious or out of place.

- Randy

November 24, 2011

In this case we're not talking about a spectrum of opinions so much as a

spectrum of consequences, and some of those consequences are severe. Peoples'

opinions will of course differ based on their own experiences of those

consequences. But there are real life implications involved here, it's not as

if someone deciding to take antidepressants has a choice as to which end of the

spectrum *their* consequences will fall.

Again, it behooves someone to inform themselves as fully as possible before

deciding.

Kate

> >

> > Try not to let " do I take anti-depressants " become a new struggle

> > for you ... It really isn't anywhere near as important a question as

> > it is made out to be.

>

> et al,

>

> I strongly disagree. It's a massive question with potentially life-long

> health implications. If anyone wonders why I say this please back-

> channel me and I'll provide further info.

>

> We can't resolve questions about meds on this list, true. But we ought

> to refrain from erring the other way and assuming it is a non-issue.

>

> - Randy

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.org

>

> If you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may

> unsubscribe by sending an email to

> ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links

>

> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>

November 24, 2011

>

> . . . it is all anecdotal and it is all valid . . .

That is exactly the view I am questioning in my blog piece - the

part 3 I mentioned to . Again, I don't want to prolong the

debate, but I do want to encourage folks to read up on the issue if

they are curious or concerned.

- R.

November 24, 2011

>

> I re-read the last page of your blog in which you say " Also

> useful about these accounts is how Whitaker later in the book

> is able to return to each person and show how their experience

> jibes with the long-term outcome data. Your own experience

> may be positive or negative, but you cannot really point to

> that experience as proof of any sort. " Those two sentences

> seem to contradict each other.

It's not the clearest writing, I agree. Rewording would make it

clearer that the apparently positive experiences are in particular

are problematic. Basically what I'm saying is, the research cited

by Whitaker shows that it's possible to have different individual

experiences with psychiatric meds, without these experiences

violating the fundamental paradigm he's describing: that it is

impossible to know whether the drug actually helped you.

The problem involves at least four aspects:

1) Many mental illnesses - even supposedly intractable ones such

as schizophrenia - can remit on their own, i.e. you get better

without taking a drug or therapy or what have you. This is

especially true in supportive community settings versus horror

shows like many psychiatric wards. Remission of this sort was

well-known prior to the psychopharmaceutical era and data shows

it is still the case in countries where meds are not prescribed so

heavily. Thus, if you take a med and get better, you can't assume

it was the med - you might very well have gotten better anyway.

2) The supposed mechanisms by which psychiatric meds " work "

have been shown to be false. We are at the point now

where pro-med researchers admit this, even as advertising

campaigns for meds continue to promote the discredited

mechanisms. Also, it's been clearly shown that meds disrupt

rather than enhance brain function, but you'd never know it from

the advertising. And the advertising (which is repeated by

GPs who know nothing about meds but often prescribe them)

is what people remember and believe explains a drug " helping "

them. Yet where does a false explanation leave you as an individual

having to decide whether to take or stay on a drug? I'd say not

in a very good place.

3) The placebo effect is massive for antidepressants and is

capable of piercing the so-called " double blind " tests. The

drug companies are privately alarmed by this - but again it's

not something you'll hear via their advertising. For an individual,

the problem is you have no way of knowing whether your

initial positive response was placebo-driven or not. And once

you're on the med for a while typically an initial positive

response tapers off, leaving you wondering what to do.

4) More and more evidence shows that psychiatric meds,

since they interfere with normal brain function, can make

people dependent on them. A classic example is with

antidepressants. So when people say " I know my meds are

working, because if I go off them for any period of time,

I get depressed again, " it seems quite possible this is

an effect of the medication rather than the reappearance

of a true disease state. And again, as an individual, how

could you possibly know?

There's more, but these four factors alone are enough to

create a big problem. Human beings are bad at figuring out

causation to start with - and when you fuzz up the picture

like this, we're very apt to get it wrong.

It's not comforting, I know. But at a certain point the

responsible thing for society to do is to begin to acknowledge

these issues rather than allow enormously large and profitable

companies to push data under the rug, continue to bribe

doctors and misshape university research, etc. It's large

scale damage that goes beyond you and me.

ACT isn't by itself opposed or in favor of medication. But

many researchers and therapists within the ACT community

are alarmed at the way big pharma has pushed these kinds

of drugs on us - including on kids, who are most at risk

of being damaged by them.

- Randy

November 24, 2011

I should add that all of the below is only in regards to individuals

having apparently positive outcomes. Regarding outcomes in

general, the data is again quite clear that people with the same

diagnosis do better without going on psychiatric meds than if

they do go on them.

And that's the last bit I'll post in this thread. I apologize for

ignoring the convention of the list not to get embroiled in

the pros and cons of meds. My main concern has been that

we avoid accidentally making it seem like " Oh, meds, no big

deal " when maybe it is a big deal.

- R.

> >

> > I re-read the last page of your blog in which you say " Also

> > useful about these accounts is how Whitaker later in the book

> > is able to return to each person and show how their experience

> > jibes with the long-term outcome data. Your own experience

> > may be positive or negative, but you cannot really point to

> > that experience as proof of any sort. " Those two sentences

> > seem to contradict each other.

>

> It's not the clearest writing, I agree. Rewording would make it

> clearer that the apparently positive experiences are in particular

> are problematic. Basically what I'm saying is, the research cited

> by Whitaker shows that it's possible to have different individual

> experiences with psychiatric meds, without these experiences

> violating the fundamental paradigm he's describing: that it is

> impossible to know whether the drug actually helped you.

>

> The problem involves at least four aspects:

>

> 1) Many mental illnesses - even supposedly intractable ones such

> as schizophrenia - can remit on their own, i.e. you get better

> without taking a drug or therapy or what have you. This is

> especially true in supportive community settings versus horror

> shows like many psychiatric wards. Remission of this sort was

> well-known prior to the psychopharmaceutical era and data shows

> it is still the case in countries where meds are not prescribed so

> heavily. Thus, if you take a med and get better, you can't assume

> it was the med - you might very well have gotten better anyway.

>

> 2) The supposed mechanisms by which psychiatric meds " work "

> have been shown to be false. We are at the point now

> where pro-med researchers admit this, even as advertising

> campaigns for meds continue to promote the discredited

> mechanisms. Also, it's been clearly shown that meds disrupt

> rather than enhance brain function, but you'd never know it from

> the advertising. And the advertising (which is repeated by

> GPs who know nothing about meds but often prescribe them)

> is what people remember and believe explains a drug " helping "

> them. Yet where does a false explanation leave you as an individual

> having to decide whether to take or stay on a drug? I'd say not

> in a very good place.

>

> 3) The placebo effect is massive for antidepressants and is

> capable of piercing the so-called " double blind " tests. The

> drug companies are privately alarmed by this - but again it's

> not something you'll hear via their advertising. For an individual,

> the problem is you have no way of knowing whether your

> initial positive response was placebo-driven or not. And once

> you're on the med for a while typically an initial positive

> response tapers off, leaving you wondering what to do.

>

> 4) More and more evidence shows that psychiatric meds,

> since they interfere with normal brain function, can make

> people dependent on them. A classic example is with

> antidepressants. So when people say " I know my meds are

> working, because if I go off them for any period of time,

> I get depressed again, " it seems quite possible this is

> an effect of the medication rather than the reappearance

> of a true disease state. And again, as an individual, how

> could you possibly know?

>

> There's more, but these four factors alone are enough to

> create a big problem. Human beings are bad at figuring out

> causation to start with - and when you fuzz up the picture

> like this, we're very apt to get it wrong.

>

> It's not comforting, I know. But at a certain point the

> responsible thing for society to do is to begin to acknowledge

> these issues rather than allow enormously large and profitable

> companies to push data under the rug, continue to bribe

> doctors and misshape university research, etc. It's large

> scale damage that goes beyond you and me.

>

> ACT isn't by itself opposed or in favor of medication. But

> many researchers and therapists within the ACT community

> are alarmed at the way big pharma has pushed these kinds

> of drugs on us - including on kids, who are most at risk

> of being damaged by them.

>

> - Randy

>

November 24, 2011

30% to 50% of people takinig antidepressants are likely to develop chronic depression so it say's in the article below. This research has been done by psychiatrists and their findings can't be brushed under the carpet. Some people are lucky, others are not. It's your gamble.

It also appears that once an antidepressant has worn off it is unlikey it can ever be made to work again at that strength, which sounds to me like permanent changes have been made to the brain. I have heard of people taking higher and higher doses of these drugs but they never work so well after that.

Extract:

In an article about tardive dysphoria, published in Medical Hypotheses, El-Mallakh and colleagues point to the somewhat alarming statistics that the incidence of treatment-resistant depression is increasing. In the early 1990s the incidence of treatment-resistant depression was estimated to be in the region of 10-15 percent, but by 2006 the figures reported were 30-50 percent. They, and others, now believe that antidepressant treatment itself may contribute to a chronic depressive syndrome.

Treatment response to antidepressants is under question. Various studies point to situations where initial response to antidepressants are favorable only to find the response is lost over time (known as tachyphylaxis). Once this initial response is lost it does not appear to return. In one study, patients taking MAOI medication not only didn't respond to subsequent treatment, they reported worse symptoms of depression than before.

With antidepressants, the longer they are used the less effective they appear to become and what's worse, there's a chance that depression could become more severe. Fava calls this an "oppositional model of tolerance" which basically means the brain dislikes the disruption caused by antidepressants and compensates in the opposite direction; result, a worsening of the problem the antidepressants tried to solve in the first place.

http://www.healthcentral.com/depression/c/4182/141813/antidepressant

Kv

> > >> > > Try not to let "do I take anti-depressants" become a new struggle > > > for you ... It really isn't anywhere near as important a question as > > > it is made out to be. > > > > et al,> > > > I strongly disagree. It's a massive question with potentially life-long > > health implications. If anyone wonders why I say this please back-> > channel me and I'll provide further info. > > > > We can't resolve questions about meds on this list, true. But we ought> > to refrain from erring the other way and assuming it is a non-issue.> > > > - Randy> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------> > > > For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.org> > > > If you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may > > unsubscribe by sending an email to > > ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links> > > > > > > > > > > >>

November 25, 2011

Oh! and finding peace of mind again is very important too. Right now I am only

halfway through the mincer, but I am getting more used to uncomfortable feelings

and distress, so I one day I hope to master these things better.

Kv

> > >

> > > In this case we're not talking about a spectrum of opinions

> > > so much as a spectrum of consequences, and some of those

> > > consequences are severe . . . it's not as if someone deciding

> > > to take antidepressants has a choice as to which end of the

> > > spectrum *their* consequences will fall.

> >

> > These are two brilliant points. You cannot advise someone

> > that a risky option is not really that risky based simply on

> > your own outcome.

> >

> > As a comparison, there was discussion on the list awhile back

> > about beta blockers. I was curious enough to look up the risks

> > of that particular drug class, and did not find anything alarming -

> > there are particular risks for folks with existing conditions, but

> > apparently nothing more. My point is that if someone had merely

> > said, " I had a great experience with beta blockers, therefore you

> > need not worry about whether they are safe, " that wouldn't have

> > been good advice. It is one thing to relate our personal experience,

> > another to assume that this generalizes into a meaningful risk

> > assessment.

> >

> > - R.

> >

>

November 25, 2011