Pink Sasquatch, you spent a lot of time writing messages to me, so I think it's only fair that I reply. I repeat, I'm not going to win any debating points and I don't intend to persuade anyone, but I'll address your points.
My information covered the results when phases two and three of STAR*D were completed, respectively. I agree, it sounds like I could do with seeing the original info. I'm not sure if it's online anywhere but I'll have a look.
When I said AD trials I meant the clinical trials, the ones used for FDA approval. Maybe I should have been more clear. Those are usually about 6 weeks long, and test one drug at a time. Logically they would of course. But no one seems to be interested in finding out how combos of these meds affect the body and brain, though it appears that plenty of studies use these combos (as a look at PubMed reveals).
You did ask me to look at PubMed. A cursory glance tells me that ADs are now being recommended for obesity and type II diabetes. I know people who have been prescribed them for sleep problems, and muscle pain. Several of the sources I have referred to here say that you can CURE type II diabetes with diet. No I'm not aware of any clinical trials that prove this. Someone needs to do some. Think about it though. You get type II diabetes from poor diet usually (though if you are taking a psych drug this can also be a cause -- why they are being prescribed for its actual treatment is anyone's guess). Correct your diet by cutting out the things that muck your blood sugar around, eat foods that help you heal, exercise, and see if that doesn't help a little bit more than popping a pill down your throat. Since I started the Paleo diet my own blood sugar has stabilised. I no longer get highs and crashes throughout the day from eating sugar or junk or meals loaded with simple carbs. It's so common-sense that I don't see why anyone should need to wait for a clinical trial to decide to do it themselves.
Yet when my neighbour developed the disease, she came home from the GP's office with leaflets telling her to eat crackers and bread with every meal, and a low-fat diet. She could have sugar and cookies as long as she didn't have too many, and she needed to make sure everything she ate was low-fat. I couldn't believe my eyes. No wonder she has to take drugs. She's never going to get better eating like that. The way to manage diabetes is by eating simple carbs with every meal? Sugar is OK?? Also, fat helps to slow the digestion of these things and she's told to restrict it. I don't know what studies, if any, influenced the people who wrote these leaflets, but their ignorance of nutrition is frankly distressing.
Studies on PubMed are still using olanzapine (Zyprexa). They claim it "helps." This is the drug that Lilly knew caused a higher incidence of type II diabetes, but hid the information until they were forced to reveal it in a court case -- one of a number of court cases brought by people who developed the disease on the drug. It made headlines. Yet obviously this is seen as an "insignificant" side effect because so many people are "helped" by this drug.
I question how they decide that someone has been "helped." Often a standardised test such as the Hamilton is used, though there are others. I've seen the Hamilton myself; I've taken it. In assessing my depression it asked me if I blamed all the ills of society on myself, whether I wanted to kill myself, whether I felt worthless, etc. The fact that I said "no" to all these questions would have influenced my score. I felt utterly awful and it was difficult to function. But I kept things in perspective; I didn't believe that the illness was all my fault, I didn't hate myself for it, and I just wanted to find a way to put it right. OK so that shows I wasn't severely depressed, you might say. Can't you see though, how BIASED these judgements are? There's no objective or biological test for depression. Its presence and degree, and its absence, are purely subjective. Even the criteria in the DSM are subjective. They have to be.
Other questions on the Hamilton include how well you are sleeping and how anxious you feel. The doc could knock you out with a strong medication to address these things, whether or not it affects your mood. I tried one that kept me in a zombie state for three days and I could barely stay awake. But my Hamilton score would have improved wouldn't it? Because I sure as hell was sleeping well and I had no anxiety.
You said:
your statement is true for most drugs, not just antidepressants. The complex effects on the body of a given drug are generally unknown.
Yes, most drugs have side effects. Wouldn't you like to prevent yourself from needing to take any? Try following Buzsaw's regime.
What's more there are side effects, and side effects. Psychotropic meds affect the brain. Not one of the places most people would be willing to get side effects in, is it? One of the side effects is tardive dyskinesia. The risk is particilarly high for neuroleptics like Zyprexa. Here is what Peter Breggin says about it in his book, Your Drug May Be Your Problem: How and Why to Stop Taking Psychiatric Medications.
Tardive dyskinesia (TD) is a common yet potentially disastrous reaction to all of the neuroleptic drugs. TD involves irreversible abnormal movements of any of the voluntary muscles of the body. It commonly affects the face, eyes, mouth and tongue, as well as the hands and arms, feet and legs, and torso. It can also affect breathing, swallowing and speech. In some cases, spasms of the eyes are so severe that the person cannot see.
One variant of TD is tardive dystonia, which involves painful spasms, often of the face and neck. Tardive dystonia can be disfiguring and disabling, potentially impairing even the ability to walk.
Another variant of TD is tardive akathisia. The individual is virtually tortured from inside his or her own body as feelings of irritability and anxiety compel the person into constant motion, sometimes to the point of continuous suffering. We agree with T. van Putten and S. Marder who observe that akathisia, "in the extreme case, can drive people to suicide or to homicide."
Neuroleptics actually suppress the symptoms of tardive dyskinesia while the disease is developing. As a result, the afflicted individual, the family, or the doctor may not recognize the impairment until the symptoms break through or until the drug dose is reduced.
The rates of TD are extremely high. Many standard textbooks estimate a rate of 5%-7% per year in healthy, young adults. The rate is cumulative so that 25%-35% of patients will develop the disorder in 5 years of treatment. Among the elderly, rates of TD reach 20% or more per year. (Frenkel et al. 1992, p. 111) For a variety of reasons, including the failure to include tardive akathisia in estimates, the actual rates are probably much higher for all patients. (Dilsaver 1990, Lawrence 1985)
We have seen the lives of numerous individuals and their families wrecked by tardive dyskinesia. In many cases, patients and their families were not informed by doctors about the dangers of TD. (Schatzberg etal., 1997b, p.8) In other instances, several doctors -- one after another -- ignored obvious symptoms of the disorder. Often the drug dose was mistakenly increased instead of being reduced and stopped. The failure to stop the drugs at the first sign of the disorder resulted, in these cases, in painful, severely incapacitating, disfiguring twitches and spasms. The afflicted individuals were unable to work or to carry on a normal family or social life. often they became depressed, felt humiliated by their physical appearance, and withdrew from loved ones.
Breggin defends these patients in court cases. These effects of neuroleptics (and they can be effects of antidepressants as well) have been known for decades. Yet they are still developed and prescribed. I am utterly outraged that any drug that could produce these effects, which are sometimes permanent, should be approved for use at all. I've heard neuroleptics referred to as a chemical lobotomy. Not only is TD common with their use, but the way they "treat" symptoms like psychosis is by tranquilising and depersonalising the patient.
The studies in journals like PubMed nevertheless go on recommending them. There are other non-drug treatments for schizophrenia however. Dr. Abram Hoffer has had success in treating it with large doses of niacin and vitamin C. My ND has helped people heal from psychosis through her diet and supplement regime.
I belong to other lists besides hers. Some are for people who have been damaged by the drugs, or who have friends or loved ones who have been. Some of them saw their children commit suicide on the drugs. Some of these lists are just general health or mental illness topics. It is again obvious that people are suffering from the drugs and from withdrawal. Not all of them obviously. A number also say they have been helped by them. I ask this though: at what price? Let's say they go on the drugs once, feel they've been helped, and go on to live normal lives. Does that excuse all the other people whose lives have been wrecked by those same drugs? The people who conduct the clinical trials, who are usually the makers of those drugs, seem to think so. As I've said here before, I feel it is the height of callousness to ignore this kind of suffering. You would tell someone to take a drug like Zyprexa, and risk developing TD or diabetes, because it is "tried and tested," whereas a naturopathic approach -- unlikely to do any harm whatsoever -- is not?
These drugs damage people. I find that unacceptable when there are better, healthier alternatives to healing.
™ Version 4.2