351–360 of 400 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they're saying they wouldn't be so easily prescribed in the US
Actually the opposite. Pharma making people addicted: Opioid epidemic and all.
I was prescribed benzos because of sleeping issues, but I was also taking phenibut at the same time. After about 3 weeks of using large doses of the benzos every night, I stopped taking them, but a year later I still feel pangs of withdrawal sometimes when I get stressed. It took me another 4 months to get off the phenibut and a month or so after that before my sleep returned to normal. There were months where I mayb…
I don't think they're meant to be taken that way. I've had the same bottle of Xanax around for 5 years. It's more like a "break the glass in case of emergency" type thing. Usually reserved for going to funerals or weddings of people I hate, when I can't tie my tie because I'm in a cold sweat. As the kind of alcoholic who never turns down a drink, it surprises me how strongly I don't want to touch diazepam, how little…
I was finally roused to go help my brother who had done the same thing but instead of sleeping he wrecked my motorcycle and bounced his face off a tree (helmet on, he was ok).
A few minutes down the road my uncle had done the same thing but was already home--he managed to total my cousin's car (his son's car) in the driveway....in reverse.
After that I was done with benzos forever. My brother and uncle weren't though. As a result they are both in an early grave.
There is more to the story but benzos we're always central to dangerous addiction, raging drug abuse, and heroine use. Around that time my brother almost died by drowning in a bowl of fruit loops on a benzo bender. His girlfriend found him face down in the bowl and saved him--and subsequently left him afterward.
My dad (also dead from addiction) was on benzos for many years...very small dose. He was an alcoholic and the benzo+alcohol mix (I found to be a very common self medication and recreational outlet) literally destroyed his life.
I have a pretty negative and reactionary stance against the whole range of pills that people deal in. Though, my experience is one where I have never seen anyone be helped by them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should probably read about the pharmaceutical industrial complex to balance out your wildly biased and one-sided, unbalanced perspective. Are you honestly going to claim that the many multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry doesn't have a financial incentive to lead people toward 1) daily use medications that gives the industry a monthly recurring revenue stream, 2) where many people on them long-term becaus…
> Are you honestly going to claim that the many multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry doesn't have a financial incentive to lead people toward... Benzodiazepine patents expired long ago. Same with most SSRIs. If you're suggesting that pharma execs are conspiring to get rich by selling people their $4/month generic Prozac prescriptions, then I don't know what to tell you. I suspect your thinking is motivated mo…
"The black box suicide warning is for the startup period and is a rare side effect."
Right, so once you kill off the people who will have that "adverse event" then it's all good!
Except, let's go to the actual clinical trials - where it shows you're more likely to kill yourself if you take them then if you don't.
So your argument seems to be it's okay if more people kill themselves by taking these medications, so long as the overall quality of life increase of the majority improves? Is that what your stance is? You're okay with more death - rather than finding and supporting/providing a solution that doesn't increase death? I'm curious how you value life?
It seems you have more of a moral framework that the "health of a society is more important than the health of the individual"? That would open up into a whole discussion on its own of how one orients and how one determines an individuals value and impact on society; I believe the individual is the most important factor, and each life is priceless - a whole universe is lost with each life lost.
Instead of saying what I'm saying is dangerous without actually citing the clinical trial data as evidence - which I'm not doing either - but I'm not saying what you're saying is dangerous and "misinformation" - if you want to stop being so shallow in your replies we can go into the actual research and data, but you already admitted the "black box suicide warning" - and where you just don't seem to care that the "rare side effect" actually results in more people killing themselves if they took it than if they didn't take it.
But you seem like an extremely intelligent ideologue, highly articulate, but who's never actually gone down into the data - and also where some people dying is minimized by you as a "rare side effect" yet without
And a statement like "SSRIs have a net reduction in suicidal ideation" is also dishonest and misdirection because you're then ignoring, avoiding mentioning there's an increase in suicide - e.g. there's a net increase in death if you take them; but yes, if you kill off all the people who will have the "rare side effect" and then your pool of people who'd participate in future clinical trials have already been pruned off, then those future trials will ; so then we'd have to get into the ethics and review of clinical trial design - which more often than not is lacking.
"I'm very confident in my knowledge of these subjects and it's clear from your posts that you've been consuming some alternative medicine propaganda. "
You're so full of yourself, it's incredible - and the double standard is hilarious.
Where's your citation of the data if you're so confident in your knowledge, and why is what your saying not the actual propaganda?
Anyone with better logic and critical thinking than you will see how your skirting actually addressing my points as well. E.g. That same patient population - in clinical trials, where you have the placebo group and the group given the SSRIs - MORE PEOPLE KILLED THEMSELVES IN THE SSRI GROUP THAN THE PLACEBO GROUP.
Your second last sentence doesn't even fit the frame of how clinical trials are done: the control group isn't the "general public" - the control group compared to are those who qualify through whatever method for the medication - but then are selected for the placebo, and less of them in that group in clinical trials kill themselves; and you don't even realize that. Are you willing to at least concede that point?
So I'm the one who has "NO idea" what I'm talking about?
And if you respond, please respond to each line so we can all see if/what you're cherrypicking and avoiding.
Or at very minimum just respond if you concede/admit to your logical mistake about putting forward the argument that the control group is the general public - when it's not - because otherwise you're so indoctrinated and arrogant that you're just throwing out terms like "dangerous" and "misinformation" as filler.
There are probably a good 6-12 books you should read on the pharmaceutical industry to open up your eyes to their shenanigans; and these books are very well written, very well researched, citing research, etc - to pre-emptively counter your shallow-weak-empty "conspiracy theorist" argument point drivel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I have seen something similar happen too - a temporary illnes that most likely didn't need any drugs, prescription for drugs that caused side effects, but then another drug for those side effects and the situation repeated 5 times in total, passing 3 different doctors. The real solution that worked was to stop taking everything. Unfortunately listening to average doctor is a recipe for illness. Doctors belong to…
> Against all 'expert' opinion, I'm pretty on average everyone would be better off trying to cure themselves using information from the internet - or at the very least everyone on hn. Yes, why would it take more than an internet search or two to diagnose and fix one of the most complex systems known to man? Having people spend half a decade or more studying this is an obvious absurdity, tantamount to slavery! Beyond…
There's a big difference between trying to learn everything and about some specific issue. Every doctor would destroy anyone self-taught on general medical knowledge, of course, but in areas that are specifically relevant to that person - anyone of above average intelligence can definitely become more competent than an average doctor, just because the person with a problem is motivated to spend hours or even days finding relevant information. Then there's of course the whole area of surgery where self-treatment is borderline impossible - which is a major part of medical studies.
>For a lot of diseases there are no treatments without serious side-effects, and drugs to address those side-effects can have other side-effects and so on. A lot of symptoms are common to many illnesses, so you need a wide array of information to arrive at a correct differential diagnosis (quickly).
This describes an absolute best case and presents it as the average. Chances are if you go to a doctor with a viral infection you will get a prescription for antibiotics, an obvious absurdity. Why? Because a patient expects 'something', so doing that makes the uninformed patient happier - while in reality, at best it's minimally harmful.
This is so prevalent there are multiple studies about this, eg:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5093394/
"More than half the GP respondents to the survey in Australia self-reported that they would prescribe antibiotics for an URTI to meet patient expectations. Our qualitative findings suggest that ‘patient expectations’ may be the main reason given for inappropriate prescribing, but it is an all-encompassing phrase that includes other reasons."
More than half! That's the actual quality of care that's being delivered, it's worse than doing nothing at all. Risk of side effects is completely ignored. Millions of people have allergy to amoxicillin, one of the most commonly prescribed one.
My opinion based on my experiences, experiences of others and studies like that - is that advice from an average doctor is completely worthless. Of course there are competent doctors - but there's a contradiction here: for any specific problem, the only way to determine competency is to become competent yourself, but the moment you do, you stop needing the advice. Therefore, as long as you're capable of doing research based on symptoms, and the situation isn't an emergency - going to a doctor is pointless. Yet the law system is doing everything it can to force me.
>Not to mention, while classes of life saving medications are highly addictive, so patient's access to them must be carefully managed to avoid making their lives even worse. Benzodiazepines, as in TFA, are a good example.
This is paternalism and it's abhorrent. In fact I have another related real life story: my grandma has extreme sleep problems and no OTC supplements helped. After some research I decided that etizolam is the safest and most likely to help drug - which turned out to be right, as it worked perfectly for over 2 years, along with a very strong increase in general mood (etizolam itself is mildly anxiolytic - but probably mostly due to more sleep) and mental capability. No side effects reported. Unfortunately it became a controlled substance here (even though in some countries it's a normal prescription drug - at least Japan and Italy) and she definitely didn't want to break any laws. As the daily dose was small (0.7mg before sleep - chosen experimentally as the minimum one that worked), there were no noticeable withdrawal symptoms. Went to a doctor, eventually got a prescription for zolpidem. Result: works for sleep, but also caused an enormous increase in depression symptoms and noticeable memory problems. Real life result from "managing access".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got to see this side of American medicine while in high school. My great aunt unofficially overdosed on a cocktail of drugs prescribed by a group of loosely coordinating doctors. When she passed, her cocktail included 12 prescriptions. One of her doctors had prescribed her medication to lower her blood pressure while another had her on medication to raise it.
Here in the Basque Country we have a public health system, named Osakidetza. Such system implemented, like five years ago, a centralized electronic prescription system. Now doctors in the public system have to use that to make prescriptions which solved all problems caused by bad doctors handwriting, and also solved problems like you mentioned, because the system detects and warns against conflicting medications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here in the Basque Country we have a public health system, named Osakidetza. Such system implemented, like five years ago, a centralized electronic prescription system. Now doctors in the public system have to use that to make prescriptions which solved all problems caused by bad doctors handwriting, and also solved problems like you mentioned, because the system detects and warns against conflicting medications.
That's awesome! TIL that the Basque country has a separate medical system, i would have thought that would be one of the things alongside foreign affairs and military that wouldn't be devolved to autonomous regions. In France there's a similar system being rolled out currently, Dossier médical partagé, which is opt-in, and contains all of your diagnosis, tests, prescriptions, so that doctors can quickly see your medi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a suspicion that many people who are getting these long-term benzo prescriptions aren’t just going to a random doctor and walking out with huge prescriptions. I think the vast majority of doctors wouldn’t dare risk their job or career like this. I suspect there’s a lot of word of mouth references where patients are telling their friends which doctors prescribe which medications and giving guidance about what t…
If those doctors were outliers, it would have been very simple and quick to detect the anomalies. And, I went to a random doctor, twice in the last couple of years, both prescribed me SSRIs including two psychotic substances. I have been fine without taking them. Anecdotal, but perhaps it attenuates your suspicions, mine is that it's pretty generalised.
It’s benzodiazepines that are the problem. These should be reserved for short-term use in extraordinary circumstances, but a small number of doctors seem to hand them out too aggressively.
SSRIs and benzos are in entirely different risk categories. That’s why benzos are controlled substances and SSRIs are not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comments like these are baffling. Where are people finding these psychiatrists who are blindly writing prescriptions and sending people out the door? Around here (US location) my medical professional friends are all hesitant to prescribe any controlled substances to more than a certain number of their patients for fear of getting flagged. Whenever I read these stories of people receiving benzos and other scheduled su…
The job of psychiatrists in the US is in large part diagnosis and prescriptions, at least when it comes to the more routine mental health conditions. If therapy is part of the treatment plan, they're often referred down to a psychologist or therapist for that part of things. A psychiatrist can do therapy....but their hourly rate is a whole lot higher. ---------------- As to personal experience, my current psych (ADHD…
You could always request a more in-depth conversation if necessary.
Benzos are a completely different scenario because, unlike your ADHD medication, they’re not indicated for long-term use except in extraordinary circumstances. They can’t be compared to your long-term ADHD prescriptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have personal experience with Guanfacine (and Clonidine), beta blockers (Propanolol/Labetalol), Etifoxine, Phenibut, and a myriad of benzos. Long history of RX for anxiety disorders, which I eventually tapered off of and quit due to dependence. Can attest to Etifoxine being effective without side effects, guanfacine and clonidine being mildly effective. Beta blockers never did much for me but YMMV.
After all of those, what did you settle on for managing anxiety long term? Was it the Etifoxine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good to hear! Glycine 3 gram before sleep can be useful as a combination. it relaxes the body too and relaxe the mind also. There are interesting studies showing positive effects on sleep and no tolerance. magnesium l threonate before sleep, the lthreonate variant penetarte the brain far more than regular magnesium, and it acts as a mild NMDA antagonist, which means it decrease maximal excitation. it is also a great…
> the lthreonate variant penetarte the brain far more than regular magnesium How is this possible? Don't the magnesium ions fully dissociate once they come in contact with water, so that there's just free floating Mg+ and threonate?
I have made extensive research on magnesiusm forms in the past, there was a great study comparing the amount of magnesium that crossed the blood brain barrier per form. Between a form and another the difference had a lot of variation. Magnesium taurate (not threonate) was the one with the highest crossing. however this study included all forms except threonate.. threonate is known to cross the brain much more than the others and it shows in studies, the effect on synaptogenesis/ gained IQ points is huge and incomparable with other forms. The unknown is how threonate and taurate compare. I'm not aware of comparative studies for threonate but you can see e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31806980/ for absolute values.
As to why? I don't know.