Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Most people on antidepressants don’t need them

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 167 posts

Re: Most people on antidepressants don’t need them

#101

Post by snarg »

spookyuser wrote: post #7

I can tell this thread is going to be a nightmare but whatever I really want to share my experience in case there are people similar to me that need to hear this: I cannot emphasise enough how much Escitalopram (lexapro) has helped me with issues I didn't even know I had until I started taking it. At which point I realised I was living in a constant state of anxiety up to that point, and I probably should have been o…

I know someone who insists that her life was saved by escitalopram. However, please be aware that SSRIs are not necessarily free to try, physiologically nor socially speaking. I tried it at the recommendation of my doctor for anxiety. It did not help, and the side effects (lack of empathy, weight gain despite loss of appetite, and others) worsened my situation and strained friendships.

However, my real issues began when I tried to _stop_ taking it. I've experienced opiate withdrawal from pain medication, which was enough to make me sympathetic toward heroin addicts, but SSRI withdrawal was by far the worst I've ever experienced. I used SSRIs for 3 months, but it took 6+ months to wean myself off of them due to debilitating "brain zaps". I got the lowest dosage pills and shaved them onto a milligram scale. I crushed them and dissolved them into a titration solution so that i could wean myself more slowly. I read about psychiatrist claims that SSRI withdrawal "brain zaps", which, it turns out, are known to affect some people, are benign because they "only last a fraction of a second". That may be true for a single zap, but when they occur once every five, ten, or twenty seconds, it's a different story. When these "zaps" occurred, not only was it disorienting, but it felt like I missed half a second of time, and when they got bad, a substantial brain fog set in. They destroyed my focus, and i couldn't get much work done. Driving became dangerous: I would simply miss the existence of entire cars, and I had a few close calls before I realized what was going on and refused to drive any longer while in that state. Weaning more slowly would keep the zaps at bay, but once they began on a given day, it was too late, and my day was over: taking more escitalopram at that point would help, but only gradually over the course of the day.

My withdrawal reaction isn't shared by most, but from my research, it also isn't so rare. I fully recognize that SSRI meds help many people, but be wary about trying them "just to see if it helps," and be aware that once your body gets accustomed to them, coming off of them may not be the experience that your doctor described.

Re: Most people on antidepressants don’t need them

#102

Post by pipeline_peak »

I've taken Prozac zoloft mirtazapine Cymbalta, and wellbutrin, probably a few more I can't remember.

They all made me incredibly anxious, like I could jump off a building. I dknt know why.

I'm about to schedule with a psychiatrist for Lexapro, wish me luck.

Re: Most people on antidepressants don’t need them

#103

Post by aa-jv »

fragmede wrote: post #94
aa-jv wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>psychiatric industry The same people reaping massive profits are telling you whether or not you should think of these drugs as 'normal' or not. Nothing is normal about a lifetime addiction - whether the high you get is a party high, or a "I am feeling normal, where normal has been defined for me by a high priest who actually happens to also be my pimp" ..

My life-long addiction to food and water and oxygen would like to disagree.

No post body was provided.

Re: Most people on antidepressants don’t need them

#106

Post by aa-jv »

cameronh90 wrote: post #97
aa-jv wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These drugs ruin lives just as efficiently as they 'improve' them. Be very, very careful if you are going to advise people that they should overlook the evidence of this fact, "because they're great for me so you should try them too!". Yes, you are pimping these drugs in so doing.

It's very rare that these drugs ruin someone's life. For the most part, if they don't work for you, you just stop taking them and try something else instead without any long term side consequences. There is the very well known risk of suicide in adolescents in particular, which is printed in a black box warning on all of these drugs. This potential side effect usually very early on in the treatment, and usually occur…

>It's very rare that these drugs ruin someone's life.

I don't agree, I think its just under-reported/under-studied, because it clearly won't make anyone any money to do so ..

For-profit mental health should be illegal, or at least treated the same as religion - do it if you want, but don't force your ideologies on others who don't agree with you ..

Re: Most people on antidepressants don’t need them

#108

Post by amanaplanacanal »

sirsinsalot wrote: post #69
swayvil wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Like it or not, you are your neurology. You are your synaptic structure, you are your neurotransmitters. Yeah, but look who's saying that. Your neurology etc. By that logic the cast of Seinfeld is a tribe of gnomes living inside your tv.

Not really, I'm just saying you are your neurons and their configuration and function. If not, what are "you"? There's nothing else but the state and mechanics in your brain and their interface with the world. I appreciate for some, this fact is scary. For some, it undermines odd outdated ideas of soul or spirit. That doesn't make it less true. Sometimes this complex, organic, non-deterministic, environment coupled,…

> If not, what are "you"? There's nothing else but the state and mechanics in your brain and their interface with the world.

I would say that’s only probably correct. Plenty of people would say you are completely wrong. I’m undecided, personally.

Re: Most people on antidepressants don’t need them

#109

Post by galangalalgol »

aa-jv wrote: post #98
edanm wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's quite a huge accusation, do you have any evidence to back that up at all? Cause if I understand the implication correctly, you're basically saying that the 2-3 megacorps who control food production (which is already far from true, IMO) are literally poisoning people to cause them to need antidepressants.

Are pharmaceuticals food? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2021/... Americans eat the most hyper-processed food on the planet. They're also over-prescribed with anti-depressant pharmaceuticals. Causation/Correlation? You decide: move outside the scope of Bayer's and Monsanto's reach, and see for yourself how less depressed you feel on a daily basis after a few months of real food .. Final word:…

Is there anywhere outside their reach that doesn't involve giving up all the other benefits of the industrial revolution? I'm not a Luddite, I like labor saving devices andblife saving procedures, and even some medicines.

Re: Most people on antidepressants don’t need them

#110

Post by m_a_g »

I think SSRIs must be analyzed separately for depression and anxiety disorders.

SSRIs are only marginally better than a placebo for depression. But they are incredibly beneficial for panic disorders and GAD (a bit anecdotal). Still, they will not "get rid of" panic disorders and GAD; only CBT or other therapies can do that. But SSRIs should not be dismissed easily for anxiety disorders, especially if the alternative is using Xanax or recreational drugs (including alcohol).

Post reply on HN