![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 1356 to 1380 of 8406. Go back in thread:
Posted by Squiggles on November 24, 2002, at 21:28:03
In reply to Re: Fiery Rhetoric » Squiggles, posted by Geezer on November 24, 2002, at 21:24:27
How often in your opinion? And how can
i bring that up without offending or
jeopardizing an otherwise good relationship
with my doctor?tx for paying attention to me;
Squiggles
Posted by Donna Louise on November 24, 2002, at 21:32:48
In reply to Re: Side-effects - best data » Donna Louise, posted by ayuda on November 24, 2002, at 21:15:26
I also know what you mean about the dreams. It was really bad with the paxil. Sometimes I felt like the dream world was more real than than the waking world. I felt like I floated in and out of a dream state all day. That felt like what I call disassociation. I also had it on Effexor. I still am having vivid dreams with the Lexapro but they are not following me into waking life as with the paxil and effexor. I have heard that vivid dreams are a result to something the SRI does to REM sleep. Not sure what it is exactly. By the way, I was on the paxil and effexor at the same time and went off them both while starting the lexapro, doing both over a period of 2 weeks I think it was, and I had very little withdrawal symptoms. I have detoxed from paxil before, without simultaneously starting another SRI and thought I was going to die.
I do not take a mood stablizer, I am just a run of the mill depressive/anxiety type. When I say emotional numbing, I am talking about what may very well feel like what a mood stablizer does, I don't know. I just don't feel as sensitive or reactive. I am thinking that is what a mood stablizer must do, as I type this. hmmm.
Also, to let you know, I also took Celexa for a few months and d/c'd it due to an extreme amount of tension in the neck and shoulders. I am sure there is a word for this...anyway, I do not have that on the lex. So I am a pretty satisfied customer, if I could just get the sex thing settled...Donna Louise
>
>
> Thank you so much for that info. You and JLM have given me the name for that -- depersonalization. It is so appropriate. It makes life feel like being at an IMAX movie, or like you said, like you are dreaming. I am really hoping that I don't experience it with the Lexapro -- and it is heartening to hear that you haven't had it with the Lex. But speaking of dreaming, are you having vivid dreams that feel real with the Lex? I'm having some really zany dreams, which is not like me, but they aren't unpleasant. Just vivid.
>
> The emotional numbing, do you mean as if you were taking a mood-stabilizer? If you've never taken one, it pretty much puts you in one mood -- which was necessary for me when I had a tyrant of a supervisor at the time this depression started and I needed to not harm her -- for legal and ethical reasons -- before I could change jobs. I didn't get extremely anything, which I usually do.
>
> And I understand your point about normal -- I actually was feeling "normal" for most of my 20s and into my early-30s, so I have this vague memory of what it felt like, which is how I know I'm not it. Then again, even that idea changes over time. The closest I ever came to putting a finger on it was when I started Zoloft the first time, my first SSRI. I was driving down the road and someone attempted to turn left from the right lane, and I was in the left lane, so they almost creamed me. I blew on my horn, pointed my finger at them, then went on, and 3 blocks later I realized that I wasn't still shaking and screaming about it, in fact, I was over it, and I thought, "so this is what it's like to be a normal person." So, as long as I'm not a raving maniac, I figure I, and the rest of the world, am lucky.
>
> I'm not completely only on the Lexapro yet -- my doctor increased my Effexor to a slower taper because I was becoming an anxiety-ridden screaming maniac late last week. So I don't know what life will be like when I am only on the Lex.
>
> Thanks again for the info and support where the depersonalization is concerned -- since you've experienced it, you know why I don't want to mess with it for a minute. Defeats the purpose of getting my life back from the depression and anxiety!
>
Posted by ayuda on November 24, 2002, at 21:35:41
In reply to Re: Fiery Rhetoric » ayuda, posted by Squiggles on November 24, 2002, at 21:08:39
> Yes, I agree with what you say; i am not
> sure what a significant result in a trial
> test is, but for myself, i am pretty sure
> that i am now getting hyponatremia as a result
> of sodium excretion from chronic lithium use;
> that is just a hunch from reading and matching
> my symptoms which are recent - constant thirst,
> fevers, head sensations, orthostatic hypotension,
> peripheral neuropathy, and salt, salt, salt,
> all over my body - where is it coming from?
> Not to mention the d word ( yuch, every morning );
>
> So, i am experimenting and lowering my lithium
> every week by a small amount as i have asked
> to have it lowered but i got the reply (3x) that
> i am in the safe range (0.50 to 1.2). And that
> range is taken once a year and was shown to me;
> I wanted to say but but but, the level may change,
> but i am so shy.
>
> You see my point. Very frustrating as i am
> not a doctor and yet i am sure something is
> going wrong.
>
> Squiggles
>I had a very good medical doctor once tell me that when a doctor says something is within the "normal" range, tell them, NOT for me. It was in the context of a medical condition, for which a doctor told me I was experiencing something normal. Well, it was not something I had ever experienced before, and it was something I should have had a long history of if it was "normal." And the better doctor I went to said, if you are telling me it's not normal for you, then it's not normal for you, and we need to find out what's going on.
I went into seratonin shock on 50 mgs of Zoloft a couple of years ago -- a VERY low dose of Zoloft, but I worked with a psychiatric nurse who noticed it for 2 days running and made me call my doctor, who promptly switched me to Celexa the next day. People will tell you that 50mg of Zoloft doesn't cause seratonin shock -- it did for me.
As for the courage, here's a possible backdoor way to it. Do you go to a shrink or an MD? If it's a shrink, try going to an MD with your symptoms, pretending to think it's a physical ailment, and list all the meds you are on, and see if they have a problem with your meds. Ask them if it could be your meds, tell them your history. Even getting a "maybe" is info to go back to your shrink and exaggerate -- tell them your physician is concerned with your physical symptoms because they can find nothing that would cause it except the medication, and that they want you off the medication to regain your health. Those doctors never cross-reference info (stupid of them), so that may help you get the care you need.
Posted by Squiggles on November 24, 2002, at 21:41:47
In reply to Re: Fiery Rhetoric, posted by ayuda on November 24, 2002, at 21:35:41
Thank you kindly,
I will think about it -- i have often thought
the best thing for me to do is to move to another
city - drastic as that sounds i think that
if you offend one doctor, you offend others too.I do not wish to offend, only get a little more
attention - i have had such a hard time and as
a female i believe i am perceived as a whiner with
nothing really wrong with me.Thank you for listening and your advice.
good night.
Squiggles
Posted by ayuda on November 24, 2002, at 21:46:29
In reply to Re: Side-effects - best data » ayuda, posted by Donna Louise on November 24, 2002, at 21:32:48
That's exactly what I had started experiencing with the Effexor -- I could not shake the dream world while I was awake. That happened when I went up to 225 mg. I had to keep telling myself while I was awake that I was awake -- but then again, I told myself that in my dreams, too. Kind of kept me on my toes in both worlds!
I'm lucky that I don't much care about any sexual side-effects -- I lost hope in men many years ago, and with the weight gain from the Effexor, I wouldn't want to put anyone through the trauma of seeing me naked anyhow. From Dr. Dave's info, it looks like Lex has an increased incidence of sexual s/e's from Celexa. Of course, our doctors don't particularly care if we're having satisfying sex lives or not -- only the Pfizer people care :)
> I also know what you mean about the dreams. It was really bad with the paxil. Sometimes I felt like the dream world was more real than than the waking world. I felt like I floated in and out of a dream state all day. That felt like what I call disassociation. I also had it on Effexor. I still am having vivid dreams with the Lexapro but they are not following me into waking life as with the paxil and effexor. I have heard that vivid dreams are a result to something the SRI does to REM sleep. Not sure what it is exactly. By the way, I was on the paxil and effexor at the same time and went off them both while starting the lexapro, doing both over a period of 2 weeks I think it was, and I had very little withdrawal symptoms. I have detoxed from paxil before, without simultaneously starting another SRI and thought I was going to die.
> I do not take a mood stablizer, I am just a run of the mill depressive/anxiety type. When I say emotional numbing, I am talking about what may very well feel like what a mood stablizer does, I don't know. I just don't feel as sensitive or reactive. I am thinking that is what a mood stablizer must do, as I type this. hmmm.
> Also, to let you know, I also took Celexa for a few months and d/c'd it due to an extreme amount of tension in the neck and shoulders. I am sure there is a word for this...anyway, I do not have that on the lex. So I am a pretty satisfied customer, if I could just get the sex thing settled...
>
> Donna Louise
Posted by pharmrep on November 25, 2002, at 2:00:19
In reply to Side-effects - best data » pharmrep, posted by dr. dave on November 24, 2002, at 4:38:06
> Dear Pharmrep,
>
> Good to see you back! The idea that Lexapro has fewer side-effects than Celexa seems to be floating around again. I presented the most recent and accurate data on this a while back and invited your comments. I may have missed them so forgive me if I am needlessly repeating myself, but it would be good to be clear about your views on this.
>
> > The relative side-effects of Lexapro and Celexa are as follows
> >
> >
> > Side effect..........................Lexapro..............Celexa
> >
> > Headache............................15.8%..............19.9%
> > Nausea................................15.0%..............17.2%
> > Ejaculation disorder..............9.3%(of men)...8.8%
> > Insomnia..............................9.2%................8.6%
> > Diarrhoea.............................8.0%...............10.8%
> > Somnolence.........................6.9%................4.7%
> > Mouth dry............................6.2%...............8.1%
> > Upper resp tract infection.....6.2%...............3.9%
> > Dizziness..............................6.0%...............5.6%
> > Flu-like symptoms................5.0%...............6.1%
> > Rhinitis.................................4.9%...............5.6%
> > Sinusitis................................4.3%...............5.1%
> >
> >
> > 'Overall, the type and frequency of TEAEs (treatment-emergent adverse events) reported with escitalopram and citalopram were very similar, and are in line with AEs reported for citalopram previously. For the TEAEs listed (above) there were no statistically significant differences for incidences of these events between the escitalopram and citalopram treatment groups.'
> >
> >
> > This is the official information from Lundbeck about relative side-effects. I wonder if you still stand by the comments that Lexapro has fewer side-effects than Celexa, and that Celexa causes somnolence while Lexapro does not?
> >
> >
>***** I'm not sure i agree with all those %'s...i need to get my package inserts for both and will post (ie...Celexa nausea was 21%, not 17, and I know somnolence for celexa was 18%, not 4...but I will post what the U.S. P.I's state)...as for Lundbeck...the European studies and #'s are done separately from the U.S....I dont think they should be much different, it depends on the parameters of the study.
Posted by pharmrep on November 25, 2002, at 2:18:28
In reply to Re: PoppyCock! » Squiggles, posted by Mr.Scott on November 24, 2002, at 17:50:36
I love poppycock...you know, that caramel coated popcorn stuff. (sorry, couldn't resist it)
Posted by pharmrep on November 25, 2002, at 2:27:13
In reply to Fiery Rhetoric, posted by Mr.Scott on November 24, 2002, at 14:35:27
> Some pharmreps are interested only in commissions generated from scripts written for their drug. They are tenaciously persistent sociopaths disguised as helpers (yet are actually minions). They are line items in a marketing budget and human advertising vehicles sent from evil and self-serving corporate entities.
>
> Look at all they provide with extreme caution and generality. The doctors conducting the studies are 'generally' without conscience.
>
> You will do best to be your own doctor in many ways. How many of you are so passionate about your jobs that you would be comfortable letting people entrust their lives to you. Do you think these wise scholars are any different?
>
> Don't let them (MD's and large corporations) make you fat, impotent, and sedated and then send you the bill. They are your employees. Make them do their job of making you feel better (numb and too full of side-effects to care doesn't count). If they can't do their jobs fire them and move on. Ultimately your destiny is in your hands. Do not relinquish it to the self-serving.*** I agree that there are plenty of bad apples with impure intentions out there (but I hope "pharmrep" wasnt being aimed at me.)
Posted by dr. dave on November 25, 2002, at 3:10:50
In reply to Re: %'s/see bottom » dr. dave, posted by pharmrep on November 25, 2002, at 2:00:19
> > Dear Pharmrep,
> >
> > Good to see you back! The idea that Lexapro has fewer side-effects than Celexa seems to be floating around again. I presented the most recent and accurate data on this a while back and invited your comments. I may have missed them so forgive me if I am needlessly repeating myself, but it would be good to be clear about your views on this.
> >
> > > The relative side-effects of Lexapro and Celexa are as follows
> > >
> > >
> > > Side effect..........................Lexapro..............Celexa
> > >
> > > Headache............................15.8%..............19.9%
> > > Nausea................................15.0%..............17.2%
> > > Ejaculation disorder..............9.3%(of men)...8.8%
> > > Insomnia..............................9.2%................8.6%
> > > Diarrhoea.............................8.0%...............10.8%
> > > Somnolence.........................6.9%................4.7%
> > > Mouth dry............................6.2%...............8.1%
> > > Upper resp tract infection.....6.2%...............3.9%
> > > Dizziness..............................6.0%...............5.6%
> > > Flu-like symptoms................5.0%...............6.1%
> > > Rhinitis.................................4.9%...............5.6%
> > > Sinusitis................................4.3%...............5.1%
> > >
> > >
> > > 'Overall, the type and frequency of TEAEs (treatment-emergent adverse events) reported with escitalopram and citalopram were very similar, and are in line with AEs reported for citalopram previously. For the TEAEs listed (above) there were no statistically significant differences for incidences of these events between the escitalopram and citalopram treatment groups.'
> > >
> > >
> > > This is the official information from Lundbeck about relative side-effects. I wonder if you still stand by the comments that Lexapro has fewer side-effects than Celexa, and that Celexa causes somnolence while Lexapro does not?
> > >
> > >
> >***** I'm not sure i agree with all those %'s...i need to get my package inserts for both and will post (ie...Celexa nausea was 21%, not 17, and I know somnolence for celexa was 18%, not 4...but I will post what the U.S. P.I's state)...as for Lundbeck...the European studies and #'s are done separately from the U.S....I dont think they should be much different, it depends on the parameters of the study.
>
=====================================================================
You can't really compare package inserts (is that what P.I.s are?) as they are measuring incidences of side-effects in different populations. The best way to get an accurate comparison is to compare incidences in the same population, as I have described above.If you want to disregard non-US studies, you will have to disregard the Gorman paper as it includes non-US data.
Whether you personally agree with the percentages is arguably not the issue - the issue is what is the most accurate scientific data. I don't mean to offend by that, but it is really important that we rely on scientific data rather than personal opinions.
As an employee of Forest, I assume you will have access to full safety data - could you let us see it?
Posted by pharmrep on November 25, 2002, at 3:49:47
In reply to Re: %'s/see bottom » pharmrep, posted by dr. dave on November 25, 2002, at 3:10:50
> > > Dear Pharmrep,
> > >
> > > Good to see you back! The idea that Lexapro has fewer side-effects than Celexa seems to be floating around again. I presented the most recent and accurate data on this a while back and invited your comments. I may have missed them so forgive me if I am needlessly repeating myself, but it would be good to be clear about your views on this.
> > >
> > > > The relative side-effects of Lexapro and Celexa are as follows
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Side effect..........................Lexapro..............Celexa
> > > >
> > > > Headache............................15.8%..............19.9%
> > > > Nausea................................15.0%..............17.2%
> > > > Ejaculation disorder..............9.3%(of men)...8.8%
> > > > Insomnia..............................9.2%................8.6%
> > > > Diarrhoea.............................8.0%...............10.8%
> > > > Somnolence.........................6.9%................4.7%
> > > > Mouth dry............................6.2%...............8.1%
> > > > Upper resp tract infection.....6.2%...............3.9%
> > > > Dizziness..............................6.0%...............5.6%
> > > > Flu-like symptoms................5.0%...............6.1%
> > > > Rhinitis.................................4.9%...............5.6%
> > > > Sinusitis................................4.3%...............5.1%
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 'Overall, the type and frequency of TEAEs (treatment-emergent adverse events) reported with escitalopram and citalopram were very similar, and are in line with AEs reported for citalopram previously. For the TEAEs listed (above) there were no statistically significant differences for incidences of these events between the escitalopram and citalopram treatment groups.'
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is the official information from Lundbeck about relative side-effects. I wonder if you still stand by the comments that Lexapro has fewer side-effects than Celexa, and that Celexa causes somnolence while Lexapro does not?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >***** I'm not sure i agree with all those %'s...i need to get my package inserts for both and will post (ie...Celexa nausea was 21%, not 17, and I know somnolence for celexa was 18%, not 4...but I will post what the U.S. P.I's state)...as for Lundbeck...the European studies and #'s are done separately from the U.S....I dont think they should be much different, it depends on the parameters of the study.
> >
> =====================================================================
>
>
> You can't really compare package inserts (is that what P.I.s are?) as they are measuring incidences of side-effects in different populations. The best way to get an accurate comparison is to compare incidences in the same population, as I have described above.
>
> Whether you personally agree with the percentages is arguably not the issue - the issue is what is the most accurate scientific data. I don't mean to offend by that, but it is really important that we rely on scientific data rather than personal opinions.
>
> As an employee of Forest, I assume you will have access to full safety data - could you let us see it?************* Where did those %'s come from...(they look like P.I. #'s) If they are from a study...can you cite it?...otherwise it looks like it is your opinion...which is why I gave mine.
What "full safety" data are you talking about? I doubt I am privy to any material you aren't able to get.
Posted by JLM on November 25, 2002, at 5:18:12
In reply to Re: %'s/see bottom » dr. dave, posted by pharmrep on November 25, 2002, at 3:49:47
> > > > Dear Pharmrep,
> > > >
> > > > Good to see you back! The idea that Lexapro has fewer side-effects than Celexa seems to be floating around again. I presented the most recent and accurate data on this a while back and invited your comments. I may have missed them so forgive me if I am needlessly repeating myself, but it would be good to be clear about your views on this.
> > > >
> > > > > The relative side-effects of Lexapro and Celexa are as follows
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Side effect..........................Lexapro..............Celexa
> > > > >
> > > > > Headache............................15.8%..............19.9%
> > > > > Nausea................................15.0%..............17.2%
> > > > > Ejaculation disorder..............9.3%(of men)...8.8%
> > > > > Insomnia..............................9.2%................8.6%
> > > > > Diarrhoea.............................8.0%...............10.8%
> > > > > Somnolence.........................6.9%................4.7%
> > > > > Mouth dry............................6.2%...............8.1%
> > > > > Upper resp tract infection.....6.2%...............3.9%
> > > > > Dizziness..............................6.0%...............5.6%
> > > > > Flu-like symptoms................5.0%...............6.1%
> > > > > Rhinitis.................................4.9%...............5.6%
> > > > > Sinusitis................................4.3%...............5.1%
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Overall, the type and frequency of TEAEs (treatment-emergent adverse events) reported with escitalopram and citalopram were very similar, and are in line with AEs reported for citalopram previously. For the TEAEs listed (above) there were no statistically significant differences for incidences of these events between the escitalopram and citalopram treatment groups.'
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the official information from Lundbeck about relative side-effects. I wonder if you still stand by the comments that Lexapro has fewer side-effects than Celexa, and that Celexa causes somnolence while Lexapro does not?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >***** I'm not sure i agree with all those %'s...i need to get my package inserts for both and will post (ie...Celexa nausea was 21%, not 17, and I know somnolence for celexa was 18%, not 4...but I will post what the U.S. P.I's state)...as for Lundbeck...the European studies and #'s are done separately from the U.S....I dont think they should be much different, it depends on the parameters of the study.
> > >
> > =====================================================================
> >
> >
> > You can't really compare package inserts (is that what P.I.s are?) as they are measuring incidences of side-effects in different populations. The best way to get an accurate comparison is to compare incidences in the same population, as I have described above.
> >
> > Whether you personally agree with the percentages is arguably not the issue - the issue is what is the most accurate scientific data. I don't mean to offend by that, but it is really important that we rely on scientific data rather than personal opinions.
> >
> > As an employee of Forest, I assume you will have access to full safety data - could you let us see it?
>
> ************* Where did those %'s come from...(they look like P.I. #'s) If they are from a study...can you cite it?...otherwise it looks like it is your opinion...which is why I gave mine.
> What "full safety" data are you talking about? I doubt I am privy to any material you aren't able to get.
I think by 'full safety data' Dr. Dave means ALL the data on the incidence of SE's taken as a whole, and not just the data disseminated to the public in the PI's. This would include data from published and more importantly UNPUBLISHED studies. That way we can see if there is any 'publication bias' wink wink...
Posted by dr dave on November 25, 2002, at 5:49:32
In reply to Re: %'s/see bottom » dr. dave, posted by pharmrep on November 25, 2002, at 3:49:47
> > > > Dear Pharmrep,
> > > >
> > > > Good to see you back! The idea that Lexapro has fewer side-effects than Celexa seems to be floating around again. I presented the most recent and accurate data on this a while back and invited your comments. I may have missed them so forgive me if I am needlessly repeating myself, but it would be good to be clear about your views on this.
> > > >
> > > > > The relative side-effects of Lexapro and Celexa are as follows
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Side effect..........................Lexapro..............Celexa
> > > > >
> > > > > Headache............................15.8%..............19.9%
> > > > > Nausea................................15.0%..............17.2%
> > > > > Ejaculation disorder..............9.3%(of men)...8.8%
> > > > > Insomnia..............................9.2%................8.6%
> > > > > Diarrhoea.............................8.0%...............10.8%
> > > > > Somnolence.........................6.9%................4.7%
> > > > > Mouth dry............................6.2%...............8.1%
> > > > > Upper resp tract infection.....6.2%...............3.9%
> > > > > Dizziness..............................6.0%...............5.6%
> > > > > Flu-like symptoms................5.0%...............6.1%
> > > > > Rhinitis.................................4.9%...............5.6%
> > > > > Sinusitis................................4.3%...............5.1%
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Overall, the type and frequency of TEAEs (treatment-emergent adverse events) reported with escitalopram and citalopram were very similar, and are in line with AEs reported for citalopram previously. For the TEAEs listed (above) there were no statistically significant differences for incidences of these events between the escitalopram and citalopram treatment groups.'
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the official information from Lundbeck about relative side-effects. I wonder if you still stand by the comments that Lexapro has fewer side-effects than Celexa, and that Celexa causes somnolence while Lexapro does not?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >***** I'm not sure i agree with all those %'s...i need to get my package inserts for both and will post (ie...Celexa nausea was 21%, not 17, and I know somnolence for celexa was 18%, not 4...but I will post what the U.S. P.I's state)...as for Lundbeck...the European studies and #'s are done separately from the U.S....I dont think they should be much different, it depends on the parameters of the study.
> > >
> > =====================================================================
> >
> >
> > You can't really compare package inserts (is that what P.I.s are?) as they are measuring incidences of side-effects in different populations. The best way to get an accurate comparison is to compare incidences in the same population, as I have described above.
> >
> > Whether you personally agree with the percentages is arguably not the issue - the issue is what is the most accurate scientific data. I don't mean to offend by that, but it is really important that we rely on scientific data rather than personal opinions.
> >
> > As an employee of Forest, I assume you will have access to full safety data - could you let us see it?
>
> ************* Where did those %'s come from...(they look like P.I. #'s) If they are from a study...can you cite it?...otherwise it looks like it is your opinion...which is why I gave mine.
> What "full safety" data are you talking about? I doubt I am privy to any material you aren't able to get.================================================================
In the UK a drug company has to present data on the incidence of side-effects in clinical trials. This is sometimes referred to as 'safety data'. What I am asking for is the data that is available comparing side-effects from Lexapro and Celexa in direct comparisons. Some of these have been done outside the US and therefore seem, for some reason I don't fully understand, not to count. But some studies directly comparing the two have been done in the US, by Forest, and we should be able to see the results of these trials. If you cannot provide this information that Forest holds, could you explain why it is being withheld?
The data is from the Gorman meta-analysis, the source is Lundbeck. Check with them if you want to be sure.
Posted by new user2 on November 25, 2002, at 6:31:54
In reply to Anyone switched to Lexapro? « ggrrl, posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2002, at 7:52:48
I have been taking Lexapro for 1 week. I get these INTENSE feelings that I am on fire. Not a hot flash,, but actual burning pain all over my body, especially my neck and head. Does anyone else experience this? Please help!
Posted by ayuda on November 25, 2002, at 7:20:49
In reply to Anyone feeling hot?, posted by new user2 on November 25, 2002, at 6:31:54
> I have been taking Lexapro for 1 week. I get these INTENSE feelings that I am on fire. Not a hot flash,, but actual burning pain all over my body, especially my neck and head. Does anyone else experience this? Please help!
No, I haven't experienced anything like that. You should call your doctor and at least speak with them over the phone -- it may be an allergic reaction or something that none of the rest of us are going to encounter.
If you aren't comfortable calling your doctor, call your pharmacist and ask them if this is a side effect or allergic reaction to the drug -- I've called pharmacists in the middle of the night and found that they know A LOT more than my doctor about the drugs my doctor put me on. They can tell you quickly if that is something harmless that could be expected from the med or if you should call a doctor about it.
Posted by pharmrep on November 25, 2002, at 9:01:28
In reply to Re: %'s/see bottom » pharmrep, posted by JLM on November 25, 2002, at 5:18:12
>
> I think by 'full safety data' Dr. Dave means ALL the data on the incidence of SE's taken as a whole, and not just the data disseminated to the public in the PI's. This would include data from published and more importantly UNPUBLISHED studies. That way we can see if there is any 'publication bias' wink wink...
>
*** I have seen your posts before on unpublished studies...I know of no secret hidden studies...everything is on the table.
Posted by sjb on November 25, 2002, at 9:17:43
In reply to Fiery Rhetoric, posted by Mr.Scott on November 24, 2002, at 14:35:27
Amen, bro. I'm so sick of the psychiatric profession now. They have no idea what all these drugs are doing to us, it's just pull out the script for something "new" or up the dose. NO MAS!!!!
Posted by Squiggles on November 25, 2002, at 9:22:53
In reply to Re: Fiery Rhetoric, posted by sjb on November 25, 2002, at 9:17:43
I feel that some gratitude is owed to
Dr. Bob for tolerating all this anti-psychiatry
talk - i believe he IS a psychiatrist, right?
He is very kind or blind, or possibly
attending a conference, not to delete some
of these posts.Squiggles
Posted by sjb on November 25, 2002, at 9:27:10
In reply to Re: Fiery Rhetoric » Squiggles, posted by Geezer on November 24, 2002, at 17:26:55
Posted by Alan on November 25, 2002, at 10:21:20
In reply to Re: Fiery Rhetoric » sjb, posted by Squiggles on November 25, 2002, at 9:22:53
> I feel that some gratitude is owed to
> Dr. Bob for tolerating all this anti-psychiatry
> talk - i believe he IS a psychiatrist, right?
> He is very kind or blind, or possibly
> attending a conference, not to delete some
> of these posts.
>
> Squiggles
================================================
Yes he is kind. But anti-psychiatry? I would have to disagree. I do agree that just saying "psychiatry sucks" without relating any personal experience as to why it sucks isn't very useful.But part of our education about medicines that we put into or bodies, diagnosis, etc, include the political and economic aspects of psychiatry, *especially* when we have someone from the pharmecutical industry visiting this bboard.
Part of getting answers to one's questions is to debate and also to tell of the bad as well as the good experiences with the profession. Where else are we all going to get the information that we need to make informed choices?
As long as there are no ad hominens and personal put downs, I think there is nothing but good to come from debate and strong but respectful rhetoric concerning the claims being made by representatives of the industry.
I'm sure that the Dr. is well aware of this. After all, the idea of this cyber board is to relate information and experiences isn't it?
Posted by Squiggles on November 25, 2002, at 10:37:09
In reply to Re: Fiery Rhetoric » Squiggles, posted by Alan on November 25, 2002, at 10:21:20
There's a representative from the pharmaceutical
companies here? And he is taking notes?
Who is he, let me at him..... grrrrrrrrrrrr!Squiggles
Posted by Alan on November 25, 2002, at 10:37:10
In reply to Re: Fiery Rhetoric, posted by sjb on November 25, 2002, at 9:17:43
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/22/business/22DRUG.html?pagewanted=print&position=top
This seems especially pertinent vis-a-vis this discussion.
Alan
Posted by pharmrep on November 25, 2002, at 10:43:34
In reply to Re: Fiery Rhetoric » Squiggles, posted by Alan on November 25, 2002, at 10:21:20
================================================
> Yes he is kind. But anti-psychiatry? I would have to disagree. I do agree that just saying "psychiatry sucks" without relating any personal experience as to why it sucks isn't very useful.
>
> But part of our education about medicines that we put into or bodies, diagnosis, etc, include the political and economic aspects of psychiatry, *especially* when we have someone from the pharmecutical industry visiting this bboard.
>
> Part of getting answers to one's questions is to debate and also to tell of the bad as well as the good experiences with the profession. Where else are we all going to get the information that we need to make informed choices?
>
> As long as there are no ad hominens and personal put downs, I think there is nothing but good to come from debate and strong but respectful rhetoric concerning the claims being made by representatives of the industry.
>
> I'm sure that the Dr. is well aware of this. After all, the idea of this cyber board is to relate information and experiences isn't it?
>*** I feel we have a balanced representation here...there are doctors, existing patients, potential new ones, a drug rep, and others...as long as people know that many sides are represented here and sort them all with a grain of salt...it is good info. nice post alan
Posted by Geezer on November 25, 2002, at 10:51:27
In reply to Re: Fiery Rhetoric » Geezer, posted by Squiggles on November 24, 2002, at 21:28:03
> How often in your opinion? And how can
> i bring that up without offending or
> jeopardizing an otherwise good relationship
> with my doctor?
>
> tx for paying attention to me;
>
> SquigglesHi Squiggles,
I am reaching far back in my very unreliable memory for this one. I took Lithium for 5 years in the early 80s (I was not DXed Bipolar at that time, it was just the popular treatment of the day), it seems to me blood tests for Lithium levels were every 6 to 8 weeks. The critical times were during the summer months when dehydration was a possibility. I would post this question to the board.....surely there are many people taking Lithium that could suggest a proper testing interval. I recall that I did run .8 to 1.2 levels. I am at a loss for suggestions to make this "kindly" to your GP (I know it is important to maintain a positive relationship). I keep a very respectful relationship with my Internal Medicine doc., .......it's only in psychiatry that I am totally alone after 30 years of trying.
I wish you the very best,
Geezer
Posted by ayuda on November 25, 2002, at 11:50:33
In reply to Re: Fiery Rhetoric » Squiggles, posted by Alan on November 25, 2002, at 10:21:20
> > I feel that some gratitude is owed to
> > Dr. Bob for tolerating all this anti-psychiatry
> > talk - i believe he IS a psychiatrist, right?
> > He is very kind or blind, or possibly
> > attending a conference, not to delete some
> > of these posts.
> >
> > Squiggles
> ================================================
> Yes he is kind. But anti-psychiatry? I would have to disagree. I do agree that just saying "psychiatry sucks" without relating any personal experience as to why it sucks isn't very useful.
>
> But part of our education about medicines that we put into or bodies, diagnosis, etc, include the political and economic aspects of psychiatry, *especially* when we have someone from the pharmecutical industry visiting this bboard.
>
> Part of getting answers to one's questions is to debate and also to tell of the bad as well as the good experiences with the profession. Where else are we all going to get the information that we need to make informed choices?
>
> As long as there are no ad hominens and personal put downs, I think there is nothing but good to come from debate and strong but respectful rhetoric concerning the claims being made by representatives of the industry.
>
> I'm sure that the Dr. is well aware of this. After all, the idea of this cyber board is to relate information and experiences isn't it?
>NO science is an "exact" science -- and especially not psychiatry. I once read where a scientist said that if the human brain was simple enough for us to understand it, we would be too "simpleminded" to understand it!
Psychiatrists are not God! They are human, just like the rest of us - they received an education in a particular field that is a very difficult field to get a handle on. The advances in psychiatric diagnoses and medicine over the past 20 years are amazing! But they aren't finished yet, either.
Yes, many of us are guinea pigs, but look at Santiago's post to see what it was like in the 1980s, and you should thank your lucky stars that at least they have SSRIs that are *trying* to alleviate our problems. 30 years ago and before that, we would all be alcoholics or drug addicts, trying to self-medicate our depression.
We can't expect psychiatrists to be something they are not -- they are not all-knowledgeable about the human psyche, they are students of it. All doctors (and I don't just mean MDs or shrinks)remain students their entire lives -- that's the reality of learning in general.
Some people go into the medical fields because they are good at science and they want to make a lot of money. But MOST go into medicine because they feel they have something to contribute. Many do not -- they are less competent than they think they are. And yes, some of us suffer because of that. But you can't pin anything on an entire group of people just because of any sample -- that's discrimination.
I'm sure that Dr. Bob knows that we are all frustrated -- I bet he is too! I bet that he would love nothing more than to find the "miracle cure" for depression/anxiety/bipolar, etc. People who are waiting around for that miracle, though, have no clue as to how science works.
And I am guessing that NONE of us was forced to go for treatment for our problems. We sought out help. Yes, ill people should seek out help, but should also be aware that help might not always be perfect. And it involves trial and error. People who have cancer often have to try several different types of chemo-therapy until they find the one that will put them in remission. Until they find it, they get sicker and the cancer keeps spreading and they have s/e's that make ours look like a walk in the park -- but that's the state of cancer medication today.
I am an advocate of being fair -- which means being reasonable, giving credit where credit is due and giving *constructive* criticism. One of the roles we play on this site is to pass around ideas that help Dr. Bob and others in his profession to become better doctors and learn more about how these meds affect real people with real lives. Give them some credit for giving us this forum and caring what our input is.
As for pharm reps, they are also not all sleazebags. My roommate's dad is a Pfizer rep, and he is a pretty cool guy. This is a capitalist free-market economy in the US -- that's the reality of it. And their job is necessary. Not necessary in a communist country. Not necessary in a fascist country. But necessary here. Gotta take the good -- democracy -- with the bad -- capitalism at its worst.
Posted by Alan on November 25, 2002, at 12:06:58
In reply to Re: wow...amen to alan on this , posted by pharmrep on November 25, 2002, at 10:43:34
> ================================================
> > Yes he is kind. But anti-psychiatry? I would have to disagree. I do agree that just saying "psychiatry sucks" without relating any personal experience as to why it sucks isn't very useful.
> >
> > But part of our education about medicines that we put into or bodies, diagnosis, etc, include the political and economic aspects of psychiatry, *especially* when we have someone from the pharmecutical industry visiting this bboard.
> >
> > Part of getting answers to one's questions is to debate and also to tell of the bad as well as the good experiences with the profession. Where else are we all going to get the information that we need to make informed choices?
> >
> > As long as there are no ad hominens and personal put downs, I think there is nothing but good to come from debate and strong but respectful rhetoric concerning the claims being made by representatives of the industry.
> >
> > I'm sure that the Dr. is well aware of this. After all, the idea of this cyber board is to relate information and experiences isn't it?
> >
>
> *** I feel we have a balanced representation here...there are doctors, existing patients, potential new ones, a drug rep, and others...as long as people know that many sides are represented here and sort them all with a grain of salt...it is good info. nice post alan
=============================================
In the fashion of which you speak, I will similarly receive your agreement and affirmation with a grain of salt....; )
Alan
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.