Jump to content

Study, Jan/19: Pharm treatments for GAD: a sys review and network meta-analysis


[se...]

Recommended Posts

Big study here published in the Lancet.  According to the results, Cymbalta (!!), Lyrica, Effexor and Lexapro are among the best drugs for treatment of generalized anxiety disorder.

 

Full title: Pharmacological treatments for generalised anxiety disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

 

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Generalised anxiety disorder is a disease that can be associated with substantial dysfunction. Pharmacological treatment is often the first choice for clinicians because of the cost and resource constraints of psychological alternatives, but there is a paucity of comparative information for the multiple available drug choices.

 

METHODS:

A systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed on randomised trials in adult outpatients with generalised anxiety disorder identified from MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang data, Drugs@FDA and commercial pharmaceutical registries. Placebo and active control trials were included. Data were extracted from all manuscripts and reports. Primary outcomes were efficacy (mean difference [MD] in change in Hamilton Anxiety Scale Score) and acceptability (study discontinuations for any cause). We estimated summary mean treatment differences and odds ratios using network meta-analyses with random effects. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018087106.

 

FINDINGS:

Studies were published between Jan 1, 1994 and Aug 1, 2017, in which 1992 potential studies were screened for inclusion. This analysis is based on 89 trials, which included 25 441 patients randomly assigned to 22 different active drugs or placebo. Duloxetine (MD -3·13, 95% credible interval [CrI] -4·13 to -2·13), pregabalin (MD -2·79, 95% CrI -3·69 to -1·91), venlafaxine (MD -2·69, 95% CrI -3·50 to -1·89), and escitalopram (MD -2·45, 95% CrI -3·27 to -1·63) were more efficacious than placebo with relatively good acceptability. Mirtazapine, sertraline, fluoxetine, buspirone, and agomelatine were also found to be efficacious and well tolerated but these findings were limited by small sample sizes. Quetiapine (MD -3·60 95% CrI -4·83 to -2·39) had the largest effect on HAM-A but it was poorly tolerated (odds ratio 1·44, 95% CrI 1·16-1·80) when compared with placebo. Likewise, paroxetine and benzodiazepines were effective but also poorly tolerated when compared with placebo. Risk of reporting bias was considered low, and when possible all completed studies were included to avoid publication bias.

 

INTERPRETATION:

To our knowledge, this is the largest contemporary review of pharmacological agents for the treatment of generalised anxiety disorder by use of network analysis. There are several effective treatment choices for generalised anxiety disorder across classes of medication. The failure of initial pharmacological therapy might not be a reason to abandon a pharmacological treatment strategy.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30712879

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had such terrible experiences with the two ADs that were suggested to me....waaaaaay too many side effects. I just have nothing good to say about them due to my experience. If they're helping some others, that's great, but I would never recommend them to anyone based on my experience. I was never diagnosed with GAD, but I think they just prescribe these meds to everyone.

 

One of them (Cymbalta) was supposed to be for neuropathic pain, but it just about killed me with the diarrhea and dizziness that resulted. I've never had diarrhea that bad in my life -- before or since. Scary as hell. It was hellish getting off it too -- opening capsules and counting beads, etc. Brutal. I have huge regret for having taken that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised by these results.  Benzos seem so much more effective compared to ADs and lyrica in my experience.

 

My experience with ADs was initially (first 2-3 months) pretty good and then pretty uneven over the years and I tried several.  The side effects were problematic - tolerable enough to keep trying and using.  They wouldn't go away though and eventually I realized they were causing more problems than I was aware (more problematic ones like fatigue, weight gain, brain fog, cognitive difficulty I didn't notice for many years).  Benzos overpowered a lot of that on the upswings but the crashes and w/ds eventually overtook me before I knew what was happening and turned me into someone else completely.  It was a messed up journey when I look back but the benzos (specifically xanax) overshadowed everything because it was so effective for me.

 

Thank God I never went on cymbalta but I did try effexor and lexapro and I found sertraline better for me (perhaps because that's the one I started with).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was prescribed Prozac as a follow-up to the horrific Cymbalta experience, and it was supposed to -- possibly -- get rid of the dizziness that "might" have been from the Cymbalta. No. No. No. It did not. It likely made it worse. These meds affect the vestibular system, not to mention sodium levels (mine dropped below normal the whole time), bone density (detrimentally), sexual function (sometimes for very long afterward too), etc., etc. And, of course, they have withdrawal syndromes -- sometimes referred to as "discontinuation syndromes". Whatever. Same thing.

 

Brutal.

 

I just regret it all. I wish I'd been warned. Maybe I wouldn't still be in this mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was prescribed Prozac as a follow-up to the horrific Cymbalta experience, and it was supposed to -- possibly -- get rid of the dizziness that "might" have been from the Cymbalta. No. No. No. It did not. It likely made it worse. These meds affect the vestibular system, not to mention sodium levels (mine dropped below normal the whole time), bone density (detrimentally), sexual function (sometimes for very long afterward too), etc., etc. And, of course, they have withdrawal syndromes -- sometimes referred to as "discontinuation syndromes". Whatever. Same thing.

 

Brutal.

 

I just regret it all. I wish I'd been warned. Maybe I wouldn't still be in this mess.

 

Absolutely.  I wish I was better monitored (physiologically) too while on all of this.  I had no idea what it might be doing to my labs.  I'm deeply hurt by the way I was treated or neglected to be more precise.  Bull shit!  And this study??  I'm sure it'll be more reason to keep the status quo and hurt more and more people.  We need to start treating people like people because most of these "problems" are not really "problems".  They are normal responses to an abnormal environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the intro, they DO refer to the fact that there are "cost and resource constraints of psychological alternatives". Right. True. But it doesn't mean that medications work or are safe. Sad state of affairs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's all over my chart that I have GAD, and medical personnel have tried unsuccessfully to get me to take ADs. Now I'm glad that I didn't! They promised all kinds of things. My NP even went so far to say that I could get off my bp pills by being on an AD because it would make me more relaxed (!!). One of my doctors refused to taper me from Ativan but instead wrote out an Rx for Paxil.

 

The anxiety is benzo-related. It's been with me since the beginning, along with high bp and dizziness. I expect it'll be the last to go.

 

(And, Lapis, would you believe that my doctor pushes diuretics each time I see him, even though I protest that I'm not going to take them again??? My sodium is still at 135, and he seems anxious for it not to be over that. How to get through to him about the seriousness of low sodium seems impossible...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry, just stay the course. You know what you need, or, in this case, don't need. More meds may mean more unwanted side effects. If you're not comfortable taking more, you have the right to just say, "No, thank you." I don't know why your doc would want to focus on a specific sodium level of 135. The range is 135-145, so if it goes up a point or two, it's fine, isn't it? Anyway, you're obviously doing something right, so keep it up!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Lapis!! I knew I'd get good advice from you. Other patients of his may have problems with salt, but I don't, so it's a moot deal.  :smitten:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was prescribed Prozac as a follow-up to the horrific Cymbalta experience, and it was supposed to -- possibly -- get rid of the dizziness that "might" have been from the Cymbalta. No. No. No. It did not. It likely made it worse. These meds affect the vestibular system, not to mention sodium levels (mine dropped below normal the whole time), bone density (detrimentally), sexual function (sometimes for very long afterward too), etc., etc. And, of course, they have withdrawal syndromes -- sometimes referred to as "discontinuation syndromes". Whatever. Same thing.

 

Brutal.

 

I just regret it all. I wish I'd been warned. Maybe I wouldn't still be in this mess.

 

Absolutely.  I wish I was better monitored (physiologically) too while on all of this.  I had no idea what it might be doing to my labs.  I'm deeply hurt by the way I was treated or neglected to be more precise.  Bull shit!  And this study??  I'm sure it'll be more reason to keep the status quo and hurt more and more people.  We need to start treating people like people because most of these "problems" are not really "problems".  They are normal responses to an abnormal environment.

 

Hi guys,

 

This study is funded by Lundbeck, a pharmaceutical company. A good heuristic for reading medical research is to take all studies done by pharmaceutical companies and throw them in the trash. Unfortunately, 85% of all medical research is funded by the pharmaceutical industry, which is why the number of positive drug studies dwarf the number of negative studies (studies on side effects, adverse events, increased mortality, birth defects etc.).

 

All of these studies look at the drugs in question for a very specific period of time, for a very specific group of people who would be expected to benefit (allegedly), using very specific scales to measure and very specific statistical methods to exaggerate the benefit of the drug over placebo. It isn't research that would be replicable by an impartial team of scientists, so it isn't science, it's corporate science aka a marketing tool. I'd recommend Bad Pharma by Dr. Ben Goldacre and Pharmageddon by Dr. David Healy to understand this research. Healy also has a book coming out soon about clinical trials specifically, which looks very good. I will likely pre-order it.

 

That being said, I think the independent research says ADs have a small benefit over placebo for the treatment of anxiety. But they really warp your nervous system, so you'll end up paying later for that small bit of temporary relief. You actually end up with lower serotonin activity while still on SSRIs, for example. The serotonin transporter (SERT) activity decreases something like 50-60%. These things just wreak havoc and should only be used in cases of very severe anxiety or depression, as Dr. Allen Frances, the guy who headed the task force for DSM-4, recommends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was prescribed Prozac as a follow-up to the horrific Cymbalta experience, and it was supposed to -- possibly -- get rid of the dizziness that "might" have been from the Cymbalta. No. No. No. It did not. It likely made it worse. These meds affect the vestibular system, not to mention sodium levels (mine dropped below normal the whole time), bone density (detrimentally), sexual function (sometimes for very long afterward too), etc., etc. And, of course, they have withdrawal syndromes -- sometimes referred to as "discontinuation syndromes". Whatever. Same thing.

 

Brutal.

 

I just regret it all. I wish I'd been warned. Maybe I wouldn't still be in this mess.

 

Absolutely.  I wish I was better monitored (physiologically) too while on all of this.  I had no idea what it might be doing to my labs.  I'm deeply hurt by the way I was treated or neglected to be more precise.  Bull shit!  And this study??  I'm sure it'll be more reason to keep the status quo and hurt more and more people.  We need to start treating people like people because most of these "problems" are not really "problems".  They are normal responses to an abnormal environment.

 

Hi guys,

 

This study is funded by Lundbeck, a pharmaceutical company. A good heuristic for reading medical research is to take all studies done by pharmaceutical companies and throw them in the trash. Unfortunately, 85% of all medical research is funded by the pharmaceutical industry, which is why the number of positive drug studies dwarf the number of negative studies (studies on side effects, adverse events, increased mortality, birth defects etc.).

 

All of these studies look at the drugs in question for a very specific period of time, for a very specific group of people who would be expected to benefit (allegedly), using very specific scales to measure and very specific statistical methods to exaggerate the benefit of the drug over placebo. It isn't research that would be replicable by an impartial team of scientists, so it isn't science, it's corporate science aka a marketing tool. I'd recommend Bad Pharma by Dr. Ben Goldacre and Pharmageddon by Dr. David Healy to understand this research. Healy also has a book coming out soon about clinical trials specifically, which looks very good. I will likely pre-order it.

 

That being said, I think the independent research says ADs have a small benefit over placebo for the treatment of anxiety. But they really warp your nervous system, so you'll end up paying later for that small bit of temporary relief. You actually end up with lower serotonin activity while still on SSRIs, for example. The serotonin transporter (SERT) activity decreases something like 50-60%. These things just wreak havoc and should only be used in cases of very severe anxiety or depression, as Dr. Allen Frances, the guy who headed the task force for DSM-4, recommends.

 

:)

 

Not happy for the reality, it’s just a great post by Data_Guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

:)

 

Not happy for the reality, it’s just a great post by Data_Guy.

 

My friends in real life have to tell me to shut up about it, otherwise I will drone on and on until the room is empty and dark :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was prescribed Prozac as a follow-up to the horrific Cymbalta experience, and it was supposed to -- possibly -- get rid of the dizziness that "might" have been from the Cymbalta. No. No. No. It did not. It likely made it worse. These meds affect the vestibular system, not to mention sodium levels (mine dropped below normal the whole time), bone density (detrimentally), sexual function (sometimes for very long afterward too), etc., etc. And, of course, they have withdrawal syndromes -- sometimes referred to as "discontinuation syndromes". Whatever. Same thing.

 

Brutal.

 

I just regret it all. I wish I'd been warned. Maybe I wouldn't still be in this mess.

 

Absolutely.  I wish I was better monitored (physiologically) too while on all of this.  I had no idea what it might be doing to my labs.  I'm deeply hurt by the way I was treated or neglected to be more precise.  Bull shit!  And this study??  I'm sure it'll be more reason to keep the status quo and hurt more and more people.  We need to start treating people like people because most of these "problems" are not really "problems".  They are normal responses to an abnormal environment.

 

Hi guys,

 

This study is funded by Lundbeck, a pharmaceutical company. A good heuristic for reading medical research is to take all studies done by pharmaceutical companies and throw them in the trash. Unfortunately, 85% of all medical research is funded by the pharmaceutical industry, which is why the number of positive drug studies dwarf the number of negative studies (studies on side effects, adverse events, increased mortality, birth defects etc.).

 

All of these studies look at the drugs in question for a very specific period of time, for a very specific group of people who would be expected to benefit (allegedly), using very specific scales to measure and very specific statistical methods to exaggerate the benefit of the drug over placebo. It isn't research that would be replicable by an impartial team of scientists, so it isn't science, it's corporate science aka a marketing tool. I'd recommend Bad Pharma by Dr. Ben Goldacre and Pharmageddon by Dr. David Healy to understand this research. Healy also has a book coming out soon about clinical trials specifically, which looks very good. I will likely pre-order it.

 

That being said, I think the independent research says ADs have a small benefit over placebo for the treatment of anxiety. But they really warp your nervous system, so you'll end up paying later for that small bit of temporary relief. You actually end up with lower serotonin activity while still on SSRIs, for example. The serotonin transporter (SERT) activity decreases something like 50-60%. These things just wreak havoc and should only be used in cases of very severe anxiety or depression, as Dr. Allen Frances, the guy who headed the task force for DSM-4, recommends.

 

Where do you see it's funded by Lundbeck?  And where did you get the "85% of all medical research is funded by the pharmaceutical industry" figure?

 

Your post brings up that it should be mentioned that the authors disclosed the following funding:

 

AS reports personal fees from Medibio outside the submitted work.

NF reports personal fees from Ipsen, Takeda, Biogen, Sanofi-Aventis,

Allergan, and Tesaro outside the submitted work. All other authors

declare no competing interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

:)

 

Not happy for the reality, it’s just a great post by Data_Guy.

 

My friends in real life have to tell me to shut up about it, otherwise I will drone on and on until the room is empty and dark :)

 

I bought “Anatomy of an Epidemic,” you have a friend over here (me) 👍🏼

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Where do you see it's funded by Lundbeck?  And where did you get the "85% of all medical research is funded by the pharmaceutical industry" figure?

 

Your post brings up that it should be mentioned that the authors disclosed the following funding:

 

AS reports personal fees from Medibio outside the submitted work.

NF reports personal fees from Ipsen, Takeda, Biogen, Sanofi-Aventis,

Allergan, and Tesaro outside the submitted work. All other authors

declare no competing interests.

 

Hey Seltzerer,

 

That was my mistake, I was looking at a very similar study on the same subject. However, this is a systematic review of other studies, so if you examine the studies included, you will find the vast majority are funded by pharmaceutical companies. Sorry for the error.

 

As for the 85% figure, that's from Dr. John Abramson, a faculty member of Harvard Medical School, where he teaches primary care. Here he says it in an interview: https://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/blogs/qa-dr-john-abramson-overdosed-america

 

Apologies for the lack of references. I haven't been able to sleep much lately, so I've been getting lazy, but I still try to contribute a post or two per day. I do plan on writing up some comprehensive posts with references, as the user Perseverance has done for a number of useful subjects, but I need to still improve a bit so that I can read and concentrate longer.

 

My main point, which I think we have all learned, is that the knowledge doctors often have about these drugs is illusory. Dr. John Ioannidis has pointed out, in some of the most cited research of this century, that most published studies are false, for the exact reasons I went over in my initial post. He is one of the most cited researchers on the planet, and if you have the time and patience, I'd recommend going over his work. He's not well known to the general public, but he is a genius and an ally to people who want medicine to be based on actual scientific evidence. I just wish he would write a book for the general public. He has written something like 6 novels of experimental fiction in Greek, so....there's that. I guess he still had some free time in between churning out extremely influential medical research like a boss :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your views, Data_Guy.  Some of the anti-pharma and anti-psychiatry (and anti-research? from Ioannidis?) work makes sense but there’s a lot of nonsense as well IMO.  Applying it widely to a discussion on a specific piece of research that comes out usually derails the discussion into the wider more passionate anti-pharma/anti-psychiatry debates and is most often counterproductive in my experience.  I’m more inclined to listen elsewhere to be honest.  To one of your points, I don’t agree that being very specific with timeframes, measurements, or analyses exaggerates results.  And reproducibility is important I agree but I’m not so much worried about it with this study.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your views, Data_Guy.  Some of the anti-pharma and anti-psychiatry (and anti-research? from Ioannidis?) work makes sense but there’s a lot of nonsense as well IMO.  Applying it widely to a discussion on a specific piece of research that comes out usually derails the discussion into the wider more passionate anti-pharma/anti-psychiatry debates and is most often counterproductive in my experience.  I’m more inclined to listen elsewhere to be honest.  To one of your points, I don’t agree that being very specific with timeframes, measurements, or analyses exaggerates results.  And reproducibility is important I agree but I’m not so much worried about it with this study.

 

I don't think it is counterproductive. Entire classes of drugs have been approved  that are essentially placebos with terrible side effects prescribed to tens of millions of people using these exact pseudoscientific research methods. Drug companies used to not even publish studies that showed negative results for their drugs until that was outlawed. Very easy to create a biased data set if half the studies are negative and you don't publish them. Also easy to kill and maim thousands of unsuspecting patients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[f6...]

 

Where do you see it's funded by Lundbeck?  And where did you get the "85% of all medical research is funded by the pharmaceutical industry" figure?

 

Your post brings up that it should be mentioned that the authors disclosed the following funding:

 

AS reports personal fees from Medibio outside the submitted work.

NF reports personal fees from Ipsen, Takeda, Biogen, Sanofi-Aventis,

Allergan, and Tesaro outside the submitted work. All other authors

declare no competing interests.

 

Hey Seltzerer,

 

That was my mistake, I was looking at a very similar study on the same subject. However, this is a systematic review of other studies, so if you examine the studies included, you will find the vast majority are funded by pharmaceutical companies. Sorry for the error.

 

As for the 85% figure, that's from Dr. John Abramson, a faculty member of Harvard Medical School, where he teaches primary care. Here he says it in an interview: https://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/blogs/qa-dr-john-abramson-overdosed-america

 

Apologies for the lack of references. I haven't been able to sleep much lately, so I've been getting lazy, but I still try to contribute a post or two per day. I do plan on writing up some comprehensive posts with references, as the user Perseverance has done for a number of useful subjects, but I need to still improve a bit so that I can read and concentrate longer.

 

My main point, which I think we have all learned, is that the knowledge doctors often have about these drugs is illusory. Dr. John Ioannidis has pointed out, in some of the most cited research of this century, that most published studies are false, for the exact reasons I went over in my initial post. He is one of the most cited researchers on the planet, and if you have the time and patience, I'd recommend going over his work. He's not well known to the general public, but he is a genius and an ally to people who want medicine to be based on actual scientific evidence. I just wish he would write a book for the general public. He has written something like 6 novels of experimental fiction in Greek, so....there's that. I guess he still had some free time in between churning out extremely influential medical research like a boss :)

 

👍🏻 Just disgusting! Still trying to market these drugs... 🤢 100% profit-driven bullshit. Makes me so angry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your views, Data_Guy.  Some of the anti-pharma and anti-psychiatry (and anti-research? from Ioannidis?) work makes sense but there’s a lot of nonsense as well IMO.  Applying it widely to a discussion on a specific piece of research that comes out usually derails the discussion into the wider more passionate anti-pharma/anti-psychiatry debates and is most often counterproductive in my experience.  I’m more inclined to listen elsewhere to be honest.  To one of your points, I don’t agree that being very specific with timeframes, measurements, or analyses exaggerates results.  And reproducibility is important I agree but I’m not so much worried about it with this study.

 

The above bolded will exaggerate results when tailored to a desired outcome, certainly.

 

I don’t know who Ioannidis is yet, but I have great faith in Whitaker and his findings are damning, he also begins and sets his research and writing angle from an objective and accurate a genesis as is possible, from what little I have read so far.

 

It’s not to say my posts on such matters aren’t for want of a cooler delivery at times, but it doesn’t take a lot of digging to find corruption in studies such as this.

 

My suggestion: let’s find out as much as we can about who did the research and study to begin, before there is any discussion at all. That would be the litmus, for me.

 

So before I read next time, which I don’t because I generally know what I’ll find just by the tone and the above bolded, I’ll look at who did the study... then I’ll read it. Bet you I can find dirt on just about any group funding any one of the studies we generally read and comment about here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It says the article wasn’t funded, I highly doubt the “most comprehensive” study was done without some kind of compensation.

 

The author’s names in permalink cannot be followed, here is what we know about them so far:

 

Authors

Slee A1, Nazareth I1, Bondaronek P1, Liu Y1, Cheng Z2, Freemantle N3.

Author information

1

Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London UK.

2

Department of General Surgery, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK.

3

Institute for Clinical Trials, University College London, London UK. Electronic address: nicholas.freemantle@ucl.ac.uk.

 

So this would take some looking into, and I’m certain the realities would be stomach-turning. I don’t have it in me to pursue, at present. I think I’ll leave the News and Fat sections to other posters for a time. This isn’t worth the cost of any further compromise to my health.

 

Not sure what else to say, no hard feelings though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your views, Data_Guy.  Some of the anti-pharma and anti-psychiatry (and anti-research? from Ioannidis?) work makes sense but there’s a lot of nonsense as well IMO.  Applying it widely to a discussion on a specific piece of research that comes out usually derails the discussion into the wider more passionate anti-pharma/anti-psychiatry debates and is most often counterproductive in my experience.  I’m more inclined to listen elsewhere to be honest.  To one of your points, I don’t agree that being very specific with timeframes, measurements, or analyses exaggerates results.  And reproducibility is important I agree but I’m not so much worried about it with this study.

 

The above bolded will exaggerate results when tailored to a desired outcome, certainly.

 

I don’t know who Ioannidis is yet, but I have great faith in Whitaker and his findings are damning, he also begins and sets his research and writing angle from an objective and accurate a genesis as is possible, from what little I have read so far.

 

It’s not to say my posts on such matters aren’t for want of a cooler delivery at times, but it doesn’t take a lot of digging to find corruption in studies such as this.

 

My suggestion: let’s find out as much as we can about who did the research and study to begin, before there is any discussion at all. That would be the litmus, for me.

 

So before I read next time, which I don’t because I generally know what I’ll find just by the tone and the above bolded, I’ll look at who did the study... then I’ll read it. Bet you I can find dirt on just about any group funding any one of the studies we generally read and comment about here.

 

MP,

 

I should clarify that the main problem with pharmaceutical sponsorship of the study is that they all have a policy of not releasing the raw data from the study. Not even the regulators see this information. If they released it, there would be no problem, because we could see the methodological tricks and statistical manipulation as clear as day. For now, we have insiders like Healy and Goldacre to inform us. Also the large gap in efficacy of the drugs between the industry sponsored trials and the independent research seems to be clear evidence of malfeasance.

 

I actually have known a couple women who have had kids while on antidepressants, which their doctor told them posed very few risks to their kids. Well one of their babies experienced a withdrawal syndrome after they were born and was in quite a bit of discomfort for months. Of course the doctors called it "Neonatal adaptation syndrome", but the proper non-euphemistic name is obviously drug withdrawal. Here is the description of that syndrome: "Newborns who have been exposed to SSRIs/SNRIs in utero occasionally experience neonatal adaptation syndrome (NAS), which generally exhibits as some combination of respiratory distress 7, 23-26, feeding

difficulty 23, 27, jitteriness 23, irritability, temperature instability 23, 24, sleep problems 28, tremors 29, shivering 29,

restlessness 29, convulsions 24, 30, jaundice 27, 28, rigidity 29, and hypoglycaemia 23, 24, 28, 30. "

http://www.perinatalservicesbc.ca/Documents/Guidelines-Standards/Newborn/AntidepressantUseExposedNewbornGuideline.pdf

 

I don't know how many mothers this has happened to, but I imagine most of them are led to believe they were just unlucky and stay quiet because they are ashamed and upset. It is pretty sickening.

 

Then you have insanely biased, pharma-sponsored sites like this one advising women and doctors: http://www.motherisk.org/prof/updatesDetail.jsp?content_id=1062

 

This website is associated with a major public hospital in Canada and the proprietor, Gideon Koren, is now under investigation for academic fraud. He has ruined quite a few lives in his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your views, Data_Guy.  Some of the anti-pharma and anti-psychiatry (and anti-research? from Ioannidis?) work makes sense but there’s a lot of nonsense as well IMO.  Applying it widely to a discussion on a specific piece of research that comes out usually derails the discussion into the wider more passionate anti-pharma/anti-psychiatry debates and is most often counterproductive in my experience.  I’m more inclined to listen elsewhere to be honest.  To one of your points, I don’t agree that being very specific with timeframes, measurements, or analyses exaggerates results.  And reproducibility is important I agree but I’m not so much worried about it with this study.

 

The above bolded will exaggerate results when tailored to a desired outcome, certainly.

 

I don’t know who Ioannidis is yet, but I have great faith in Whitaker and his findings are damning, he also begins and sets his research and writing angle from an objective and accurate a genesis as is possible, from what little I have read so far.

 

It’s not to say my posts on such matters aren’t for want of a cooler delivery at times, but it doesn’t take a lot of digging to find corruption in studies such as this.

 

My suggestion: let’s find out as much as we can about who did the research and study to begin, before there is any discussion at all. That would be the litmus, for me.

 

So before I read next time, which I don’t because I generally know what I’ll find just by the tone and the above bolded, I’ll look at who did the study... then I’ll read it. Bet you I can find dirt on just about any group funding any one of the studies we generally read and comment about here.

 

MP,

 

I should clarify that the main problem with pharmaceutical sponsorship of the study is that they all have a policy of not releasing the raw data from the study. Not even the regulators see this information. If they released it, there would be no problem, because we could see the methodological tricks and statistical manipulation as clear as day. For now, we have insiders like Healy and Goldacre to inform us. Also the large gap in efficacy of the drugs between the industry sponsored trials and the independent research seems to be clear evidence of malfeasance.

 

I actually have known a couple women who have had kids while on antidepressants, which their doctor told them posed very few risks to their kids. Well one of their babies experienced a withdrawal syndrome after they were born and was in quite a bit of discomfort for months. Of course the doctors called it "Neonatal adaptation syndrome", but the proper non-euphemistic name is obviously drug withdrawal. Here is the description of that syndrome: "Newborns who have been exposed to SSRIs/SNRIs in utero occasionally experience neonatal adaptation syndrome (NAS), which generally exhibits as some combination of respiratory distress 7, 23-26, feeding

difficulty 23, 27, jitteriness 23, irritability, temperature instability 23, 24, sleep problems 28, tremors 29, shivering 29,

restlessness 29, convulsions 24, 30, jaundice 27, 28, rigidity 29, and hypoglycaemia 23, 24, 28, 30. "

http://www.perinatalservicesbc.ca/Documents/Guidelines-Standards/Newborn/AntidepressantUseExposedNewbornGuideline.pdf

 

I don't know how many mothers this has happened to, but I imagine most of them are led to believe they were just unlucky and stay quiet because they are ashamed and upset. It is pretty sickening.

 

Then you have insanely biased, pharma-sponsored sites like this one advising women and doctors: http://www.motherisk.org/prof/updatesDetail.jsp?content_id=1062

 

This website is associated with a major public hospital in Canada and the proprietor, Gideon Koren, is now under investigation for academic fraud. He has ruined quite a few lives in his career.

 

Data_Guy,

 

The bolded is precisely the problem, I agree, we never have full access to the complete rundown of these specifications and how they are decided on. The raw research and who the researchers are and how exactly they are compensated is all so well hidden and masked that there is hardly any point in trying to read any of the absolute malarkey that gets published. Sometimes it’s blatant and other times it’s only blatant to those who have watched the documentaries that help clarify what we are seeing in plain sight but the general populace blindly trusts.

 

I don’t doubt your sources, I’ve respected my assessment of your record of accuracy and objectivity for some time. I try not to get too excited so as not to interfere with your progress, but I may have slipped up here, God only knows.

 

I know, I’ve brought faith in by now. It’s all so taxing. But what matters for our purposes is discernible science... and I can only trust that as far as I can follow it with my eyes. I found some scary science about bzds, some involving in vivo (womb) development and it was looking like one of the rare compilations of citations with scientific method which can be followed by the reader.

 

Brain fried. 😫 Over and out. One edit to add this: the one documentary I’m thinking of specifically is “American Addict”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the way I tend to get impassioned on here about these matters is harmful to myself and others, I’m sorry seltzerer. I may not agree, but I did not go about this the right way, again.

 

I know that I am powerless over the way I respond on threads like this, because I keep on with it. It has to be an addiction, so I don’t expect any response here but I feel like it’s best if I do the 12 steps on myself regarding this issue and the anger I feel.

 

Sorry buddies. I’ll see what I can do differently from here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the way I tend to get impassioned on here about these matters is harmful to myself and others, I’m sorry seltzerer. I may not agree, but I did not go about this the right way, again.

 

I know that I am powerless over the way I respond on threads like this, because I keep on with it. It has to be an addiction, so I don’t expect any response here but I feel like it’s best if I do the 12 steps on myself regarding this issue and the anger I feel.

 

Sorry buddies. I’ll see what I can do differently from here.

 

Thanks, mon pilote.  I understand your passion and anger here and hope the steps help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...