![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 1 to 21 of 21. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Paul Jay on February 8, 2000, at 9:57:12
I was told by my psychiatrist that "in University circles" stimulants were not generally perscribed for ADHD. I think she meant the university clinic she works in, but I'm not sure for what reason they wouldn't. At the time I thought she meant they were no longer viewed as the best treatment (because of new reasearch?) but now after looking for info on the internet I find no indication of this, and think it's for non-medical reasons, like fear of lawsuits, the doctor's personal preference, etc. But if there is a good reason for this, I'd like to know. Does anyone know of newer findings that could account for this?
Posted by Janice on February 8, 2000, at 21:16:32
In reply to Info on stimulants?, posted by Paul Jay on February 8, 2000, at 9:57:12
Hi Paul Jay,
I am experiencing something similar to you, the hesitancy of doctor in prescribing stimulants. I am beginning if doctors are in some way penalized or flagged for prescribing stimulants?I've just moved to a new province 4 months ago, and I have seen 3 psychiatrists - because the first 2 would not prescribe me Dexedrine. When I asked them why, they said it was because it was addictive.
So this psychiatrist that I'm seeing now does not want to give it to me either. In fact, he would not prescribe me Dexedrine until the family doctor wrote him a letter saying it was his responsibility to prescribe me Dexedrine. The psychiatrist insists that I undergo testing for ADHD (although in the last province I lived in, I had been receiving Dexedrine without any official diagnosis).
From my experiences Paul Jay, if you have ADHD, it is the best treatment, and most definately worth the effort it sometimes seems to take to get it. I am doing things now that I have never done in my life.
You know, I was quite angry listening to these doctors trying to persuade me out of taking Dexedrine. I honestly didn't believe they had my best interest at hand.
So the question is, for me anyway, are doctor's penalized in any way for prescribing stimulants? I also have a feeling this varies from province to province, and state to state. Janice
Posted by Noa on February 9, 2000, at 1:45:07
In reply to Are doctors penalized for prescribing stimulants? , posted by Janice on February 8, 2000, at 21:16:32
I also have a feeling this varies from province to province, and state to state. Janice
Here in the US, it varies from Health Insurance Company to Health Insurance Company. Managed Care companies have all kinds of incentives and disincentives that influence doctors.
BTW, even tho you were referred for testing, there really isn't testing per se for ADHD. Currently, the dx is made based on clinical interview, and observation (using a questionnaire). There are some tests for the attention component, but they are not required for a dx.
Posted by Noa on February 9, 2000, at 1:47:37
In reply to Are doctors penalized for prescribing stimulants? , posted by Janice on February 8, 2000, at 21:16:32
Oh, and....
I was thinking that there might be a fear that among a university population, that addiction and misuse of stimulants would be a problem (student getting scrip from univ. health service, giving it away or selling it to peers, or having it stolen, etc.). I still think the fear shouldn't dictate clinical decisions.
Posted by citiboy on February 9, 2000, at 2:26:16
In reply to Info on stimulants?, posted by Paul Jay on February 8, 2000, at 9:57:12
> I was told by my psychiatrist that "in University circles" stimulants were not generally perscribed for ADHD. I think she meant the university clinic she works in, but I'm not sure for what reason they wouldn't. At the time I thought she meant they were no longer viewed as the best treatment (because of new reasearch?) but now after looking for info on the internet I find no indication of this, and think it's for non-medical reasons, like fear of lawsuits, the doctor's personal preference, etc. But if there is a good reason for this, I'd like to know. Does anyone know of newer findings that could account for this?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You can all thank that Goddamn FDA for restricting the use of stimulants as an adjunct to psychotherapy.
(Thank God that asswipe Kessler isn't in power any more!)
This "thinking" goes back to the 1960s when stimulants were handed out like M&Ms for dieting. I used to
crack up over a so-called "bad side effect" associated with stimulants: "producing a false sense of well-being."
Now isn't that a fine conundrums, if I've ever heard one!
Right now I would do anything for a "sense of well-being," false or otherwise.
I've been down so long, it looks like UP to me!
Wisconsin has totally banned the use of amphetamine, and the FDA has been trying to get rid of this genre of drug entirely.
I wonder just how many narcoleptic NARCs there are out there?citiboy
Posted by JohnL on February 9, 2000, at 3:59:45
In reply to Info on stimulants?, posted by Paul Jay on February 8, 2000, at 9:57:12
In my opinion a doctor's first and foremost responsibility is getting the patient well. And, just my opinion, psychiatric theories of what is better for this or that are after all just theories. All that really matters is what actually works for each particular patient.
There are risks and benefits with all treatments. Most drugs have liver damage risks in the long run. Lithium has kidney risk. TCAs have heart risk. There are rash risks and other strange complications of all imaginable kinds. Suicide risks. Blood disorder risks. On and on and on. With stimulants the primary risk is addiction. But what's worse, an addicted patient who is well for life, or an unaddicted patient who is undertreated with the wrong drug and subtherapeutic for life? If a stimulant works in a particular person, the benefits seem to me to far outweigh the risks.
There are doctors out there who are in love with their work and strive for the career satisfaction that comes from making distressed people completely well. They don't allow theories or red tape to get in the way. All that matters is what works. Personally I would not even consider staying with any doctor who limits the use of the entire universe of psychiatric drugs in attempting to get the patient well. The patient and the doctor together can weigh the risks and benefits of a particular treatment as a team in partnership just fine without having Univerisity type theories influencing treatment options. And quite frankly, when it comes to ADHD, there is no stronger track record in the world than stimulants for treatment. Any newer findings have a long way to go before proving any benefit over established treatments.
Stimulants gently correct NE/dopamine failure. No other drugs can do that. There should be no reason to refuse this treatment to anyone if it works. And if addiction happens to be a concern, there are alternatives in the stimulant class that have fewer or no addiction potentials. Basically I just get real bothered by any doctor who limits treatment options based on personal preference, theory, or red tape. All that matters to me is getting the patient well for a full productive happy life. Medication reactions--good or bad--should guide treatment. Not theories.
One final thought, who pays who anyway? I the customer want the service provider to get me well. If they restrict the options in doing that, then I will seek another service provider who has my wellness as priority number one. JohnL
Posted by Noa on February 9, 2000, at 5:58:56
In reply to Re: Info on stimulants?, posted by JohnL on February 9, 2000, at 3:59:45
And although there may be a risk of addiction, I would venture to guess the number of patients on ritalin who use it addictively is probably low. If it is regulated so that you can only get a months worth at a time, what need is there to restrict it more or ban it? I don't know the rates of abuse of different types of drugs, but I would bet there is more of a problem with painkillers or valium, etc. anyway (not that I am advocating banning them!!)
Posted by Janice on February 9, 2000, at 21:26:28
In reply to Re: Info on stimulants?, posted by Noa on February 9, 2000, at 5:58:56
Hi,
I believe most people on this board are Americans, but what the hell. I'm trying to determine why I've just run into 3 psychiatrists that won't or don't want to prescribe me a stimulant.
Is there a limit to how much stimulants Canadian doctors can prescribed?
Do they get flagged (or anything similar to this) for prescribing stimulants?
It can't be me. I've never experienced anyone's mistrust before. I don't think I could be mistaken for anything but an honest and trustworthy person.
Thanks in advance, if anyone who knows anything about this, is out there. Janice.
I live in Alberta. this could be a provincial thing.
Posted by Cam W. on February 9, 2000, at 22:48:36
In reply to Canada's medical system, posted by Janice on February 9, 2000, at 21:26:28
> Hi,
>
> I believe most people on this board are Americans, but what the hell. I'm trying to determine why I've just run into 3 psychiatrists that won't or don't want to prescribe me a stimulant.
>
> Is there a limit to how much stimulants Canadian doctors can prescribed?
>
> Do they get flagged (or anything similar to this) for prescribing stimulants?
>
> It can't be me. I've never experienced anyone's mistrust before. I don't think I could be mistaken for anything but an honest and trustworthy person.
>
> Thanks in advance, if anyone who knows anything about this, is out there. Janice.
>
> I live in Alberta. this could be a provincial thing.Janice - I too live in Alberta. I find that some psychiatrists are liberal with their use of stimulants (depending on diagnosis and particular patient) and others are overly cautious. It would be a breach of ethics for me to say who's who. The question I have for you is: "Why do you think you need a stimulant?" The doctors that say no must have their reasons for doing so (eg inappropriate therapy for your condition, abuse potential, etc.).
Have you asked them why they will not prescribe you a stimulant? Psychiatrists will prescibe stimulates when they think that the drug is the best treatment for a condition. You have to ask them why they won't prescribe stimulants in your case. Sincerely - Cam W.
Posted by Paul Jay on February 10, 2000, at 10:10:28
In reply to Canada's medical system, posted by Janice on February 9, 2000, at 21:26:28
> Is there a limit to how much stimulants Canadian doctors can prescribed?
>
> Do they get flagged (or anything similar to this) for prescribing stimulants?
>As Cam W. said, there are doctors that do and those that don't in Alberta. It's the same where I live. I'd guess that in most parts of North America the only disincentives from the government are the hassle of dealing with controlled substances -- extra forms, monthly perscriptions, uninformed bureaucrats, things like that. But individual groups like my clinic could easily discourage or prohibit their members from perscribing stimulants because of misplaced concern, fear of bad press, etc.
> It can't be me. I've never experienced anyone's mistrust before. I don't think I could be mistaken for anything but an honest and trustworthy person.
>Just bad luck. Don't let a doctor's attitude get to you. I think it would be a good idea to find one with which you can have mutual respect, though.
Posted by Janet from Brazil on February 10, 2000, at 13:24:02
In reply to Re: Info on stimulants?, posted by JohnL on February 9, 2000, at 3:59:45
> In my opinion a doctor's first and foremost responsibility is getting the patient well. And, just my opinion, psychiatric theories of what is better for this or that are after all just theories. All that really matters is what actually works for each particular patient.
>
> There are risks and benefits with all treatments. Most drugs have liver damage risks in the long run. Lithium has kidney risk. TCAs have heart risk. There are rash risks and other strange complications of all imaginable kinds. Suicide risks. Blood disorder risks. On and on and on. With stimulants the primary risk is addiction. But what's worse, an addicted patient who is well for life, or an unaddicted patient who is undertreated with the wrong drug and subtherapeutic for life? If a stimulant works in a particular person, the benefits seem to me to far outweigh the risks.
>
> There are doctors out there who are in love with their work and strive for the career satisfaction that comes from making distressed people completely well. They don't allow theories or red tape to get in the way. All that matters is what works. Personally I would not even consider staying with any doctor who limits the use of the entire universe of psychiatric drugs in attempting to get the patient well. The patient and the doctor together can weigh the risks and benefits of a particular treatment as a team in partnership just fine without having Univerisity type theories influencing treatment options. And quite frankly, when it comes to ADHD, there is no stronger track record in the world than stimulants for treatment. Any newer findings have a long way to go before proving any benefit over established treatments.
>
> Stimulants gently correct NE/dopamine failure. No other drugs can do that. There should be no reason to refuse this treatment to anyone if it works. And if addiction happens to be a concern, there are alternatives in the stimulant class that have fewer or no addiction potentials. Basically I just get real bothered by any doctor who limits treatment options based on personal preference, theory, or red tape. All that matters to me is getting the patient well for a full productive happy life. Medication reactions--good or bad--should guide treatment. Not theories.
>
> One final thought, who pays who anyway? I the customer want the service provider to get me well. If they restrict the options in doing that, then I will seek another service provider who has my wellness as priority number one. JohnLI suffer from chronic tiredness. I have tried all the ADs ( including Reboxetine to no effect. I am currently taking Parnate but it doesn't appear to be working. My Dr. won't prescribe stimulants because of the danger of addiction and of developing a psychosis. What are the names of the stimulants with little or no addictive properties? Thank you Jan
I suffer from chronic tiredness. I have tried all the ADs (including Reboxetine) to no avail.I'm currently taking Parnate but it looks as though it isn't working.My doc. won't prescribe stimulants because of the danger of addiction and of developing a psychosis. What are the names of the stimulants that have little or no addictive effect? Thank you Jan
Posted by Janice on February 10, 2000, at 21:36:22
In reply to Re: Info on stimulants?, posted by Janet from Brazil on February 10, 2000, at 13:24:02
thanks Cam and Paul Jay,
it must have been a coincidence. Actually one said that he would prescribe (I think) Adderall because it was less addictive, but I was already on Dexedrine, which works very well for me. When I asked them why, they just said it was their policy. I thought maybe there was some kind of incentive not to prescribe them.Thank you both for satiating my curiousity, Janice
Janet from Brazil, Actually your posting above jarred that memory for me (about the doctor saying the Adderral is less addictive, or maybe it was something like Cylert). Maybe get your information on this from someone else Janet. Janice.
Posted by JohnL on February 11, 2000, at 2:25:00
In reply to Re: Info on stimulants?, posted by Janet from Brazil on February 10, 2000, at 13:24:02
Sorry Janet things haven't worked better for you. You would think that by now your doctor would 'get it' and realize he's barking up the wrong tree. Antidepressants clearly aren't the answer with you. How much more obvious need it be?
You doctor's attitude toward stimulants is absurd. He would rather have you suffer through endless months and years of useless drugs? He does have some valid concerns, but they are easily managed.
Concerning possible psychosis, that could happen. Or sometimes an initial good reaction destabilizes into irritibility or something later. In those situations, the simple remedy is a very small dose of an antipsychotic. A stimulant will enhance NE/dopamine function. But it may do so too much in certain parts of the brain. We want to affect some parts, but not all. An antipsychotic is basically a dopamine reducer, and will counteract excessive dopamine in parts of the brain where excess is not desired. A stimulant+antipsychotic takes away the psychosis risk. Doses needed are small. No need for concern of special testing or high dosing or anything like that. You can nullify his argument of psychosis.
Concerning addiction, that could happen. But it happens with cigarettes too, and they will likely kill you. Stimulants aren't likely to kill you. They will instead likely do the opposite, allowing you a full productive happy life instead. In my opinion addictive nicotine is much worse than an addictive stimulant. I am a smoker and would much prefer being addicted to a stimulant than nicotine. I don't think your doctor's attitude stands on solid ground.
So what to do? Try like heck to debate, argue, defend, beg and whatever for a short 5 day trial of each of three different stimulants. Five days each. I can't see how he could object to that. From these short trials you can find out definitively whether this is the right direction or not. Ritalin, Adderall, and Cyclert would be three top choices to try. Ritalin I think has the most addiction/abuse potential. Adderall less so. And Cyclert is probably near non-addictive non-abusive.
If the doc refuses, immediately start calling around for one who is comfortable with stimulants. And as a sidenote, don't overlook thyroid function. Hypothyroid disorder could be involved. It just seems to me that at this point it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to continue with the antidepressant class. It has become crucial to move on to a completely different class of drugs. Just my opinion. I hope you will find a doctor willing to cooperate in getting you well. Isn't that what they're supposed to do?
Posted by Janet fom Brazil on February 11, 2000, at 9:42:57
In reply to Re: Info on stimulants? to Janet from Brazil, posted by JohnL on February 11, 2000, at 2:25:00
> Sorry Janet things haven't worked better for you. You would think that by now your doctor would 'get it' and realize he's barking up the wrong tree. Antidepressants clearly aren't the answer with you. How much more obvious need it be?
>
> You doctor's attitude toward stimulants is absurd. He would rather have you suffer through endless months and years of useless drugs? He does have some valid concerns, but they are easily managed.
>
> Concerning possible psychosis, that could happen. Or sometimes an initial good reaction destabilizes into irritibility or something later. In those situations, the simple remedy is a very small dose of an antipsychotic. A stimulant will enhance NE/dopamine function. But it may do so too much in certain parts of the brain. We want to affect some parts, but not all. An antipsychotic is basically a dopamine reducer, and will counteract excessive dopamine in parts of the brain where excess is not desired. A stimulant+antipsychotic takes away the psychosis risk. Doses needed are small. No need for concern of special testing or high dosing or anything like that. You can nullify his argument of psychosis.
>
> Concerning addiction, that could happen. But it happens with cigarettes too, and they will likely kill you. Stimulants aren't likely to kill you. They will instead likely do the opposite, allowing you a full productive happy life instead. In my opinion addictive nicotine is much worse than an addictive stimulant. I am a smoker and would much prefer being addicted to a stimulant than nicotine. I don't think your doctor's attitude stands on solid ground.
>
> So what to do? Try like heck to debate, argue, defend, beg and whatever for a short 5 day trial of each of three different stimulants. Five days each. I can't see how he could object to that. From these short trials you can find out definitively whether this is the right direction or not. Ritalin, Adderall, and Cyclert would be three top choices to try. Ritalin I think has the most addiction/abuse potential. Adderall less so. And Cyclert is probably near non-addictive non-abusive.
>
> If the doc refuses, immediately start calling around for one who is comfortable with stimulants. And as a sidenote, don't overlook thyroid function. Hypothyroid disorder could be involved. It just seems to me that at this point it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to continue with the antidepressant class. It has become crucial to move on to a completely different class of drugs. Just my opinion. I hope you will find a doctor willing to cooperate in getting you well. Isn't that what they're supposed to do?Thank you both for taking the time out to answer my query. I think the problem with my doctor is that he is relatively young and hasn't got the experience or self- confidence to depart from what must be standard med school teachings . However, he is a very intelligent and compassionate doctor and I think if I present him with your arguments he might be willing to experiment. I must say I think that everybody who writes to this board is wonderful, for despite personal problems, you are all willing to share and encourage each other. Bless you all. Jan
Posted by Kim on February 11, 2000, at 22:50:24
In reply to Re: Info on stimulants? to Janet from Brazil, posted by JohnL on February 11, 2000, at 2:25:00
> Sorry Janet things haven't worked better for you. You would think that by now your doctor would 'get it' and realize he's barking up the wrong tree. Antidepressants clearly aren't the answer with you. How much more obvious need it be?
>
> You doctor's attitude toward stimulants is absurd. He would rather have you suffer through endless months and years of useless drugs? He does have some valid concerns, but they are easily managed.
>
> Concerning possible psychosis, that could happen. Or sometimes an initial good reaction destabilizes into irritibility or something later. In those situations, the simple remedy is a very small dose of an antipsychotic. A stimulant will enhance NE/dopamine function. But it may do so too much in certain parts of the brain. We want to affect some parts, but not all. An antipsychotic is basically a dopamine reducer, and will counteract excessive dopamine in parts of the brain where excess is not desired. A stimulant+antipsychotic takes away the psychosis risk. Doses needed are small. No need for concern of special testing or high dosing or anything like that. You can nullify his argument of psychosis.
>
> Concerning addiction, that could happen. But it happens with cigarettes too, and they will likely kill you. Stimulants aren't likely to kill you. They will instead likely do the opposite, allowing you a full productive happy life instead. In my opinion addictive nicotine is much worse than an addictive stimulant. I am a smoker and would much prefer being addicted to a stimulant than nicotine. I don't think your doctor's attitude stands on solid ground.
>
> So what to do? Try like heck to debate, argue, defend, beg and whatever for a short 5 day trial of each of three different stimulants. Five days each. I can't see how he could object to that. From these short trials you can find out definitively whether this is the right direction or not. Ritalin, Adderall, and Cyclert would be three top choices to try. Ritalin I think has the most addiction/abuse potential. Adderall less so. And Cyclert is probably near non-addictive non-abusive.
>
> If the doc refuses, immediately start calling around for one who is comfortable with stimulants. And as a sidenote, don't overlook thyroid function. Hypothyroid disorder could be involved. It just seems to me that at this point it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to continue with the antidepressant class. It has become crucial to move on to a completely different class of drugs. Just my opinion. I hope you will find a doctor willing to cooperate in getting you well. Isn't that what they're supposed to do?Hi Jan,
I am also on Parnate, with major fatigue problems. My pdoc, who was the head of a large, well-known, well-respected clinic in the state I where I used to live, prescribed dexedrine to augment the Parnate. We had tried Ritalin and Cylert before the dexedrine, but they were not useful.When I moved, I was taking 45 mg. of dexedrine per day. My new pdoc (selected by my insurance company--don't get me started) is very uncomfortable with prescribing the dexedrine--he first called my old pdoc and that's the only reason he continued to prescribe the dexedrine (in decreasing doses) at all. He wants me off them because they're "addictive."
SO WHAT if they're addictive? All they do is augment my antidepressant and help me be awake enough to function. What is addictive, anyway? Is someone who has to take blood pressure medication for the rest of their life "addicted" to it? They certainly "need" their medication and would be in bad shape if they stopped it abruptly.
I think the reluctance of doctors to prescribe this medication when it is clearly medically indicated is one more example of the discrimination against "mental" illnesses as opposed to "physical" illnesses.
Kim
Posted by Janet from Brazil on February 12, 2000, at 4:07:04
In reply to Re: Info on stimulants? to Janet from Brazil, posted by Kim on February 11, 2000, at 22:50:24
> > Sorry Janet things haven't worked better for you. You would think that by now your doctor would 'get it' and realize he's barking up the wrong tree. Antidepressants clearly aren't the answer with you. How much more obvious need it be?
> >
> > You doctor's attitude toward stimulants is absurd. He would rather have you suffer through endless months and years of useless drugs? He does have some valid concerns, but they are easily managed.
> >
> > Concerning possible psychosis, that could happen. Or sometimes an initial good reaction destabilizes into irritibility or something later. In those situations, the simple remedy is a very small dose of an antipsychotic. A stimulant will enhance NE/dopamine function. But it may do so too much in certain parts of the brain. We want to affect some parts, but not all. An antipsychotic is basically a dopamine reducer, and will counteract excessive dopamine in parts of the brain where excess is not desired. A stimulant+antipsychotic takes away the psychosis risk. Doses needed are small. No need for concern of special testing or high dosing or anything like that. You can nullify his argument of psychosis.
> >
> > Concerning addiction, that could happen. But it happens with cigarettes too, and they will likely kill you. Stimulants aren't likely to kill you. They will instead likely do the opposite, allowing you a full productive happy life instead. In my opinion addictive nicotine is much worse than an addictive stimulant. I am a smoker and would much prefer being addicted to a stimulant than nicotine. I don't think your doctor's attitude stands on solid ground.
> >
> > So what to do? Try like heck to debate, argue, defend, beg and whatever for a short 5 day trial of each of three different stimulants. Five days each. I can't see how he could object to that. From these short trials you can find out definitively whether this is the right direction or not. Ritalin, Adderall, and Cyclert would be three top choices to try. Ritalin I think has the most addiction/abuse potential. Adderall less so. And Cyclert is probably near non-addictive non-abusive.
> >
> > If the doc refuses, immediately start calling around for one who is comfortable with stimulants. And as a sidenote, don't overlook thyroid function. Hypothyroid disorder could be involved. It just seems to me that at this point it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to continue with the antidepressant class. It has become crucial to move on to a completely different class of drugs. Just my opinion. I hope you will find a doctor willing to cooperate in getting you well. Isn't that what they're supposed to do?
>
> Hi Jan,
> I am also on Parnate, with major fatigue problems. My pdoc, who was the head of a large, well-known, well-respected clinic in the state I where I used to live, prescribed dexedrine to augment the Parnate. We had tried Ritalin and Cylert before the dexedrine, but they were not useful.
>
> When I moved, I was taking 45 mg. of dexedrine per day. My new pdoc (selected by my insurance company--don't get me started) is very uncomfortable with prescribing the dexedrine--he first called my old pdoc and that's the only reason he continued to prescribe the dexedrine (in decreasing doses) at all. He wants me off them because they're "addictive."
>
> SO WHAT if they're addictive? All they do is augment my antidepressant and help me be awake enough to function. What is addictive, anyway? Is someone who has to take blood pressure medication for the rest of their life "addicted" to it? They certainly "need" their medication and would be in bad shape if they stopped it abruptly.
>
> I think the reluctance of doctors to prescribe this medication when it is clearly medically indicated is one more example of the discrimination against "mental" illnesses as opposed to "physical" illnesses.
> KimThank you, Kim. Did your doc. try to augment your Parnate with mood stabiliers first or did he go straight on to stimulants? Did Parnate by itself have some effect? With me it's having no effect whatsoever. Thanks Jan
Posted by Kim on February 13, 2000, at 23:19:44
In reply to Re: Info on stimulants? To Kim, posted by Janet from Brazil on February 12, 2000, at 4:07:04
> Thank you, Kim. Did your doc. try to augment your Parnate with mood stabiliers first or did he go straight on to stimulants? Did Parnate by itself have some effect? With me it's having no effect whatsoever. Thanks Jan
Jan,
We tried lithium with it, but for the second time we've tried lithium it made me way worse. So we went to the dexedrine, since I've been on just about everything else in one combination or another and we knew that the dexedrine helped the overwhelming fatigue I get on almost all ADs. (Even Prozac.)But the Parnate was having an effect on its own before we started adding to it. MAOIs seem to be the only thing that helps me, but they're just not quite enough. I can't see a lot of point in augmenting something that's not working. I know some people are helped by stimulants alone.
Kim
Posted by Janet from Brazil on February 14, 2000, at 9:50:51
In reply to Re: Info on stimulants? To Kim, posted by Kim on February 13, 2000, at 23:19:44
> > Thank you, Kim. Did your doc. try to augment your Parnate with mood stabiliers first or did he go straight on to stimulants? Did Parnate by itself have some effect? With me it's having no effect whatsoever. Thanks Jan
>
> Jan,
> We tried lithium with it, but for the second time we've tried lithium it made me way worse. So we went to the dexedrine, since I've been on just about everything else in one combination or another and we knew that the dexedrine helped the overwhelming fatigue I get on almost all ADs. (Even Prozac.)
>
> But the Parnate was having an effect on its own before we started adding to it. MAOIs seem to be the only thing that helps me, but they're just not quite enough. I can't see a lot of point in augmenting something that's not working. I know some people are helped by stimulants alone.
> KimThanks Kim, Jan
Posted by Billy Bob on March 16, 2000, at 11:35:36
In reply to Info on stimulants?, posted by Paul Jay on February 8, 2000, at 9:57:12
> I was told by my psychiatrist that "in University circles" stimulants were not generally perscribed for ADHD. I think she meant the university clinic she works in, but I'm not sure for what reason they wouldn't. At the time I thought she meant they were no longer viewed as the best treatment (because of new reasearch?) but now after looking for info on the internet I find no indication of this, and think it's for non-medical reasons, like fear of lawsuits, the doctor's personal preference, etc. But if there is a good reason for this, I'd like to know. Does anyone know of newer findings that could account for this?
yeAH AND THIS STUFF IS COOL TO USE I USE TO EVERY DAY I GET HIGH OFF IT ITS COOL
Posted by bob on March 16, 2000, at 18:22:59
In reply to Whatzz up, posted by Billy Bob on March 16, 2000, at 11:35:36
> > I was told by my psychiatrist that "in University circles" stimulants were not generally perscribed for ADHD ... But if there is a good reason for this, I'd like to know. Does anyone know of newer findings that could account for this?
> yeAH AND THIS STUFF IS COOL TO USE I USE TO EVERY DAY I GET HIGH OFF IT ITS COOLI guess that's proof enough that no matter how many studies say that people who truly need stims for ADD/depression tend not to abuse it, there will always be the outliers at the other end of the spectrum.
;^)
bob
Posted by *T@Li* on April 10, 2000, at 7:10:24
In reply to Re: Info on stimulants?, posted by JohnL on February 9, 2000, at 3:59:45
i is doing me bioligy project and i is gettin really bored. it is abouts the uses and misuses of da drugz. i cants finds the uses of da drugz, cos da internet is majorly crap, innit. i is gonna go now.
This is the end of the 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.