![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 25 to 49 of 64. Go back in thread:
Posted by laima on January 15, 2007, at 16:27:14
In reply to Stims vs conventional ADs, no crashing, AD theory » laima, posted by psychobot5000 on January 15, 2007, at 15:12:56
Thanks for all of the interesting information.Yes, I think most of us are aware that the DSM changes from edition to edition, with new disorders , such as "internet addiction" being added, and some, such as "homosexual" being removed. There were some articles in the New York Times late last fall about the malleability of the existing disorders, too. As for that seratonin emphasis, I can't help but wonder if the emphasis wasn't invented or exaggerated by the marketers of SSRIs- I mean, if only it were that simple for all of us.
As for the assertion that stimulants only treat symptoms not causes, I'd have to protest. I don't mean it's not at all true, I actually think the same claim could be made for many antidepressents. And if a stimulant prompts a lethargic person to get up, socialize, and get involved with activities and life in general, leading to a sense of satisfaction and engagement- whose to say that it is "only treatingt symptoms"? I think it's fuzzy.
Posted by linkadge on January 15, 2007, at 17:43:12
In reply to Re: Stims vs conventional ADs, no crashing, AD theory » psychobot5000, posted by laima on January 15, 2007, at 16:27:14
The serotonin theory is very weak.
There are only a limited number of studies showing that serotonin breakdown products are lower in depression. Studies involving serotonin depletion are conflicting and do not fully support a serotonin hypothesis.
Let us even suppose that metabolite levels of serotonin are low in depression. That could be an indicator of a lot of things. It is interesting to note that SSRI's and MAOI's actually lower the levels of serotonin breakdown products by inhibiting the metabolism of serotonin. So, SSRI's or MAOI's are not fixing any of the observable differences in depressives.
YOu take a paitent with low levels of serotonin breakdown products, put them on an SSRI, and now their serotonin breakdown products are even lower.
What on earth does that say?
It says nothing about what is wrong, nor does it even say that the drugs correct anything.
For all we know the low metabolite levels are a result of undermetabolism of serotonin. Ie metabolism pathways are already sluggish.
Its really just a bunch of B.S. to make the layman thing its all technical, and that the drugs are space age, and that psychiatry is so advanced.
Linkadge
Posted by SLS on January 15, 2007, at 19:37:49
In reply to Re: Depressives' sensitivity to stimulants!, posted by linkadge on January 15, 2007, at 13:20:44
Doctors don't use amphetamine monotherapy to treat MDD and BD because it doesn't work. It tends not to bring one to remission and keep them there for more than a week or two. It is not the best kept secret in psychiatry that it does. It is not some long-lost piece of knowledge that the most dedicated of researchers have neglected to revisit.
> Well it seems SLS, that you have had some of the most open, understanding, and experiementive doctors available.
I trained them well. :-)
I am priveledged to have worked with some of the best. I've learned quite a bit from various perspectives. However, I have never generalized to an entire profession a set of characteristics, good or bad, in ways that I have seen here. Making such a polarized generalization that is all inclusive is not a reflection of reality. There are too many good doctors out there.
> I think they just get tired of hearing people complain, esp. since they know most of their drugs are placebos.
How apropos.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on January 15, 2007, at 19:44:18
In reply to Re: Depressives' sensitivity to stimulants!, posted by linkadge on January 15, 2007, at 13:20:44
> > I think they just get tired of hearing people complain, esp. since they know most of their drugs are placebos.
>
> How apropos.
Sorry for the sarcastic remark.:-(
- Scott
Posted by psychobot5000 on January 15, 2007, at 19:56:14
In reply to Re: Stims vs conventional ADs, no crashing, AD theory, posted by linkadge on January 15, 2007, at 17:43:12
Posted by psychobot5000 on January 15, 2007, at 20:10:50
In reply to Re: Depressives' sensitivity to stimulants! » linkadge, posted by SLS on January 15, 2007, at 19:37:49
> Doctors don't use amphetamine monotherapy to treat MDD and BD because it doesn't work. It tends not to bring one to remission and keep them there for more than a week or two. It is not the best kept secret in psychiatry that it does. It is not some long-lost piece of knowledge that the most dedicated of researchers have neglected to revisit.
>It is known that -some- people lose the mood benefit of stims with tolerance, and that in others it causes depression. Many patients find amphetamine monotherapy inadequate. But I've never seen any evidence indicating, (as many docs and writers manage to suggest) that therefore -everyone- loses the mood-elevating effect of stimulants with time. I think this is a conflation of theories of stimulant abusability (ie, response to downregulation after the initial dose) with a phenomenon experienced in a portion of patients. Many patients in this community seem to find stimulants very useful in the long term, after all--and we tend to be very treatment resistant.
I have read case-reports of people who use them successfully for the long term, even as monotherapy. Many docs will confidently state that amphetamine monotherapy doesn't work in the long term, but I find that these same docs are:
1) Young--fresh out of school, and with relatively limited clinical experience, also freshly indoctrinated with serotonin theory.
2) Refuse to write for stimulants in the first place--thus making it unlikely that they have much experience with their use in depression.
In any case, those of us in this community are not good benchmarks for AD efficacy, I'd say, since we tend to be resistant to everything. In fairness, I note that you were specifically condemning amphetamine -monotherapy-, which seems reasonable. But then...what medication is adequate as monotherapy?Best,
P-bot
Posted by SLS on January 15, 2007, at 20:15:12
In reply to Re: Depressives' sensitivity to stimulants! » linkadge, posted by SLS on January 15, 2007, at 19:44:18
There are some studies that demonstrate an association between an acute antidepressant response to amphetamine (but not methylphenidate) and a positive response to antidepressant (tricyclic) treatment.
Note that these mental giants were too dumb to consider using amphetamine chronically to see if it were useful as a long-term treatment. Perhaps it never entered their minds. It's funny, though. I didn't detect a trace of stupidity when I spoke to Dennis Murphy several years ago regarding selegiline and propargyl derivatives. Maybe he's just dumb when it comes to stimulants. Or maybe he's smart there too.
I don't have a problem with using amphetamine. I am not terribly concerned with abuse. I certainly believe that it has an important place as an augmentor of standard antidepressants. I might want to add Adderall to my regime if I get stuck. However, as monotherapy to treat MDD or BD, I question its efficacy beyond the acute response.
- Scott
----------------------------------------------Am J Psychiatry. 1978 Oct;135(10):1179-84. Related Articles, Links
Prediction of imipramine antidepressant response by a one-day dextro-amphetamine trial.
van Kammen DP, Murphy DL.
This study provides additional evidence that there is a moderate association between the acute activation, euphoria, and antidepressant responses to dextro-amphetamine and the antidepressant response to imipramine during a four-week trial. Comparison of the responses of 13 patients to dextro-amphetamine on two different days during a double blind trial indicated that differences in dextro-amphetamine response are consistent, replicable characteristics of individual depressed patients. The variables of sex, diagnosis, diurnal mood variation, platelet MAO activity, and MMPI scale scores were of minimal assistance in revealing factors that might be associated with activation or antidepressant responses to dextro-amphetamine in this small patient group. The authors suggest the need for larger-scale studies in this area.
Publication Types:
* Clinical Trial
* Controlled Clinical Trial
PMID: 358845 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Display Show
-------------------------------------------------
1: J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1988 Jun;8(3):177-83. Links
Comment in:
J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1989 Dec;9(6):453-4.Amphetamine, but not methylphenidate, predicts antidepressant efficacy.
* Little KY.
Department of Psychiatry, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington 40536-0080.
Several researchers have explored the possibility that acute stimulant response may predict eventual improvement after specific antidepressants. This review analyzes the relationship between stimulant response and nonspecific antidepressant response. In five studies, amphetamine responders were found to eventually improve after antidepressant treatment in 85% of the cases, while nonresponders improved in 43% of the cases. In contrast, acute methylphenidate responders and nonresponders eventually improved on antidepressants at equivalent rates. Amphetamine sensitivity appears to be a trait (possibly pharmacodynamic) that is independent of depressive illness but predictive of tricyclic responsiveness. Other evidence has suggested that amphetamine and methylphenidate cause similar behavioral and symptomatic effects through distinct mechanisms of potential clinical relevance. The most effective method for administering an amphetamine challenge and its appropriate clinical use remain unclear.
PMID: 3288653 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Posted by linkadge on January 15, 2007, at 20:26:48
In reply to Re: Depressives' sensitivity to stimulants! » linkadge, posted by SLS on January 15, 2007, at 19:37:49
>Doctors don't use amphetamine monotherapy to >treat MDD and BD because it doesn't work.
I'm not so sure about that. Again, if it didn't work, or if conventional antidepressants worked better, you wouldn't see the ratings for certain stimulants superior to antidepressants on pages like www.remedyfind.com (recently changed to something new)
>It tends not to bring one to remission and keep >them there for more than a week or two.
When they were promoted for depression in the past, they must have been effective for more than a week. Some people develop tollerance to their effects for ADHD, some do not. I would suspect that some people can attain an antidepressant effect that lasts longer than for others.
>It is not the best kept secret in psychiatry >that it does. It is not some long-lost piece of >knowledge that the most dedicated of researchers >have neglected to revisit.
Well, in some ways it is being revisited. Psychostimulant augmentation is alluded to in many places, not officially promoted though, just as opiates are not officially promoted for depression. That doesn't mean there isn't a resurgance of interest in their theraputic potential.
When I took ritalin SR, it was a much better antidepressant than any SSRI. While some tollerance developed within a few months I still felt more fuctional, and more like myself than on SSRI's. It was virtually side effect free.
It also helped certain symptoms much more than others. In particular, social withdrawl, anhednonia, apathy, interest, energy etc.
I think that some are interested in stimulants for depression because many antidepressants do precious little to help these symtpoms if not make them worse.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on January 15, 2007, at 21:02:40
In reply to Re: Depressives' sensitivity to stimulants!, posted by SLS on January 15, 2007, at 20:15:12
>Note that these mental giants were too dumb to >consider using amphetamine chronically to see if >it were useful as a long-term treatment. Perhaps >it never entered their minds.
But its not about just that. There are many more factors involved in the decision against the widspread use of amphetamines for depression. In order for a drug to be approved, it needs to be effective in a substantial proportion of patients, and generally be without abusability.
Consider amineptine. Arguably a very effective antideprssant, with remarkably few side effects. Especially effective in certain populations unresponsive to other treatments. Why was it taken off the market? Purely because of abuse *potential*. Did every patient who took it abuse it? Of course not.
Is that fair for the patient who would may have achieved long term remission with it? No. Its that psychiatry doesn't care about the exceptional patients. They only care about the all in one wonder drug fix-all.
Are we saying that investigators were too dumb to look at amineptine further? No, its just that they stopped when they encountered abuse potential.It was not removed for lack of efficacy. I don't even think it was removed because of any evidence of lack of long term efficacy.
If a potential antidepressant is shown to posess some abuse potential in mice, it is generally not investiaged further. Its just a no-no area. They have to make an overal rule.
It is interesting to note that amphetamine administration increases PEA concentrations, but that methylphenidate does not. I believe that long term amphetamine adminstration still affects PEA concentrations.
The activity of amphetamine also resembles the activity of PEA more than methyphenidate does. PEA concetrations are low in certain forms of depressive disorder, but not all.
http://www.neurotransmitter.net/adhdpea.html
Stimulants, urinary catecholamines, and indoleamines in hyperactivity. A comparison of methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine.
Children with attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity were given either methylphenidate hydrochloride or dextroamphetamine sulfate to compare the effects on urinary excretion of catecholamines, indoleamines, and phenylethylamine (PEA). Methylphenidate's effects were distinctly different from those of dextroamphetamine. After methylphenidate administration, both norepinephrine (NE) and normetanephrine (NMN) concentrations were significantly elevated, and there was a 22% increase in excretion of 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol (MHPG). In contrast, after dextroamphetamine treatment, MHPG excretion was significantly reduced and NE and NMN values were unchanged. Excretion of dopamine and metabolites was unchanged by either drug. Urinary PEA excretion was not significantly changed after methylphenidate treatment, but increased 1,600% in response to dextroamphetamine. Methylphenidate treatment did not significantly alter serotonin or 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid excretion. Effects of dextroamphetamine were not tested." [Abstract]
Linkadge
Posted by SLS on January 15, 2007, at 21:06:12
In reply to Re: long-term stimulant AD use » SLS, posted by psychobot5000 on January 15, 2007, at 20:10:50
> > Doctors don't use amphetamine monotherapy to treat MDD and BD because it doesn't work. It tends not to bring one to remission and keep them there for more than a week or two. It is not the best kept secret in psychiatry that it does. It is not some long-lost piece of knowledge that the most dedicated of researchers have neglected to revisit.
> Many patients in this community seem to find stimulants very useful in the long term, after all
I certainly don't profess to read every post (I wish I could), but I don't recall anyone ever saying that they attained remission on stimulant monotherapy. But then again, I don't think I've seen anyone try it. I see lots of people using Adderall in combination with other drugs, though.
> --and we tend to be very treatment resistant.
Yes. Point well taken. That's why it is difficult to debate the efficacy of drugs based upon the historical experiences of people on Psycho-Babble. Antidepressants work. You might not know it from reading the posts on PB, but they do. I base my opinion on the whole as I have come to know it, and not on the relatively small community of treatment-resistant cases that we have here. I would rather take hope from the whole than hopelessness from the minority. Sometimes the difference between the two is the luck of choosing the right drugs in the sequence of trial and error, rather than a lack in the existence of an effective treatment.
My only motivation at this point for proposing the inferiority of amphetamine as monotherapy in MDD and BD is to save people time and possible frustration and discouragement. However, I wouldn't want to have someone skip over a possibly effective treatment based upon something that I had to say. So...
I don't think this is worth debating any further. Anything more would probably just be an academic exercise. I would not discourage anyone from trying amphetamine monotherapy if that is what has been decided as being the next step. Trial and error, right? There are plenty of questions one could ask about what are the parameters of a fair trial of amphetamine. How much? How long? I have my own ideas, but I'll let the experts chime in first.
- Scott
Posted by Phillipa on January 15, 2007, at 21:06:49
In reply to Re: Depressives' sensitivity to stimulants!, posted by linkadge on January 15, 2007, at 20:26:48
RemedyFind is undergoing being bought out tried to register there both yesterday and today and they must be having problems or the deal isn't complete yet. If anyone finds out how to do it please let me know Thanks Phillipa
Posted by laima on January 15, 2007, at 23:05:22
In reply to Re: long-term stimulant AD use » SLS, posted by psychobot5000 on January 15, 2007, at 20:10:50
Indeed, there are many positive reports about using stimulants for depression on remedyfind. My own doctor says that many people use stimulants successfully for years- the theory is that they flush out at night, allowing the brain to recoup (unlike most conventional antidepressents). He was talking about ADD patients though. Even if the mood boost itself fades, I figure having concentration and wakefulness under control could do wonders for morale.> It is known that -some- people lose the mood benefit of stims with tolerance, and that in others it causes depression. Many patients find amphetamine monotherapy inadequate. But I've never seen any evidence indicating, (as many docs and writers manage to suggest) that therefore -everyone- loses the mood-elevating effect of stimulants with time. I think this is a conflation of theories of stimulant abusability (ie, response to downregulation after the initial dose) with a phenomenon experienced in a portion of patients. Many patients in this community seem to find stimulants very useful in the long term, after all--and we tend to be very treatment resistant.
>
> I have read case-reports of people who use them successfully for the long term, even as monotherapy. Many docs will confidently state that amphetamine monotherapy doesn't work in the long term, but I find that these same docs are:
>
> 1) Young--fresh out of school, and with relatively limited clinical experience, also freshly indoctrinated with serotonin theory.
>
> 2) Refuse to write for stimulants in the first place--thus making it unlikely that they have much experience with their use in depression.
>
Posted by blueberry1 on January 16, 2007, at 6:37:09
In reply to Re: Depressives' sensitivity to stimulants!, posted by SLS on January 15, 2007, at 20:15:12
I believe stimulants can and do work just like antidepressants for longterm therapy in some people...no more and no less than any other medication. The anecdotal hint of that is at remedyfind.
In some people stimulants probably fix the symptoms and not the cause. Same with antidepressants. In some people stimulants fix the actual cause. Same in some people with antidepressants. All depends on the individual cause and genetics.
While we usually like to think that antidepressants somehow correct an inherently wrong malfunction in the brain and reset it, stimulants can too. Granted many people do get an acute response that later fades. But then, that seems to happen real frequently with antidepressants too. There are people that like their stimulants as depression monotherapy for longterm. Some of them show up at remedyfind under the categories Provigil, Adderall, Dexedrine, and Desoxyn. They have all tried zillions of antidepressants. And there are a few lucky ones that get by nicely on their antidepressant for the longterm. I don't see any difference.
Posted by linkadge on January 16, 2007, at 11:53:55
In reply to Re: Depressives' sensitivity to stimulants!, posted by blueberry1 on January 16, 2007, at 6:37:09
There could be a lot of comorbidity too between depression and ADHD. One of the notable halmark differences in the brains of depressed people is hypometabolism of the left prefrontal cortex, the exact area that stimulants work to boost neural activity.
Depression is a bad cycle too. Negative mood affects concentration, poor concentration can result in the patient going into a deeper hole.
One suprising thing that ritalin did (for the duration that I took it) was improve sleep.
Even after the mood effects had somewhat faded, I was still sleeping better. Some people with ADHD notice this too, that sleep disturbances can decrease with stimulant treatment. So, I don't know whats up with that.Sometimes depression too is a rut, and if you can just get a little momentum to change certain things in ones life, then mood improvement may come more easily.
Linakdge
Posted by psychobot5000 on January 16, 2007, at 14:01:18
In reply to Re: long-term stimulant AD use » psychobot5000, posted by SLS on January 15, 2007, at 21:06:12
Posted by kelv on January 17, 2007, at 4:55:26
In reply to Re: Depressives' sensitivity to stimulants!, posted by blueberry1 on January 16, 2007, at 6:37:09
> I believe stimulants can and do work just like antidepressants for longterm therapy in some people.
"IN SOME PEOPLE"-yes, but us humans are all euphoria addicts, and a bottle of Dexedrine in ones possession often produces a more, more, more, pattern of use, i have too often read of where ones Monthly supply goes in days-i know of one such individual whos 480 Dex 5mg script goes in a couple days binging, but again here i am talking of folks 'chasing a high' not widespread responsible use.
Canadian Gov't inquery into non-medical use of Amphetamines-1972.
91. Early hopes that amphetamines would prove to be an effective general treatment for severe depression were soon disappointed. Amphetamines often produce dependency when taken for longer than two or three weeks. Although these drugs are powerful stimulants and increase a depressed person's activity, they may also make him more anxious and agitated, deprive him of sleep, and may fail to elevate his mood or to reverse the fundamental depressive process. In some individuals, these drugs have been effective in relieving mild depression and chronic fatigue, however.
Posted by laima on January 17, 2007, at 9:01:18
In reply to Re: AMPHETAMINE-DEPRESSION STUDIES NOT ALWAYS CORR, posted by kelv on January 17, 2007, at 4:55:26
Why dismiss positive reports because negative ones also exist?> > I believe stimulants can and do work just like antidepressants for longterm therapy in some people.
>
> "IN SOME PEOPLE"-yes, but us humans are all euphoria addicts, and a bottle of Dexedrine in ones possession often produces a more, more, more, pattern of use, i have too often read of where ones Monthly supply goes in days-i know of one such individual whos 480 Dex 5mg script goes in a couple days binging, but again here i am talking of folks 'chasing a high' not widespread responsible use.
>
> Canadian Gov't inquery into non-medical use of Amphetamines-1972.
>
> 91. Early hopes that amphetamines would prove to be an effective general treatment for severe depression were soon disappointed. Amphetamines often produce dependency when taken for longer than two or three weeks. Although these drugs are powerful stimulants and increase a depressed person's activity, they may also make him more anxious and agitated, deprive him of sleep, and may fail to elevate his mood or to reverse the fundamental depressive process. In some individuals, these drugs have been effective in relieving mild depression and chronic fatigue, however.
>
>
>
>
Posted by psychobot5000 on January 17, 2007, at 10:48:21
In reply to Re: AMPHETAMINE-DEPRESSION STUDIES NOT ALWAYS CORR » kelv, posted by laima on January 17, 2007, at 9:01:18
Posted by linkadge on January 17, 2007, at 16:33:47
In reply to Re: AMPHETAMINE-DEPRESSION STUDIES NOT ALWAYS CORR » kelv, posted by laima on January 17, 2007, at 9:01:18
>yes, but us humans are all euphoria addicts, and >a bottle of Dexedrine in ones possession often >produces a more, more, more, pattern of use
Not necessarily. There is a tremendous amount of research these days into the neural basis of addiction. It has long been known that two individuals exposed to the same amount of drug vary widely in their respone, and further desire
to abuse it.For instance, one avenue of research shows that animals with higher levels of GDNF are less likely to abuse drugs. Whether or not they still get high is uncertain. Drugs like ibogaine are thought to work in part at least, by bostling levels of GDNF.
The activation of addiction genes intermediate early genes (ie cFOS, delta FosB) also varies from person to person. So one person might take a drug and crave it for months due to heavy activation of addiction genes, while another person does not.
Some people say marajuanna is addictive. Could have suprised me. I smoked a little and that was ok, but more than htat just made me feel weird.
>i have too often read of where ones Monthly >supply goes in days-i know of one such >individual whos 480 Dex 5mg script goes in a >couple days binging, but again here i am talking >of folks 'chasing a high' not widespread >responsible use.
I know people like that too. I don't really blame people for that response.
>Early hopes that amphetamines would prove to be >an effective general treatment for severe >depression were soon disappointed. Amphetamines >often produce dependency when taken for longer >than two or three weeks.
But yet they do not always produce dependance in those who use them for ADHD?
>Although these drugs are powerful stimulants and >increase a depressed person's activity, they may >also make him more anxious and agitated,
So can wellbutrin for some, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good drug for some.
>deprive him of sleep,
Welcome to my life on SSRI's
>and may fail to elevate his mood or to reverse >the fundamental depressive process.And we all know how effective SSRI's are at reverseing the fundimental depressive process.
>In some individuals, these drugs have been >effective in relieving mild depression and >chronic fatigue, however
Interesting sidenote.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on January 17, 2007, at 16:36:04
In reply to Why dismiss positive because neg exists? Exactly. (nm) » laima, posted by psychobot5000 on January 17, 2007, at 10:48:21
Not everybody's response to stimulants is that of excessive psychomotor activation and agitation.
For some depressives, stimulants calm them down, just like those with ADHD.
Again, when you activate the left prefrontal cortex, a brain circut is able to shut off overactive limbic circutry.
Thats why the right amount for the right person can actually reduce anxiety.
Linkadge
Posted by kelv on January 17, 2007, at 17:18:50
In reply to Re: AMPHETAMINE-DEPRESSION STUDIES NOT ALWAYS CORR, posted by linkadge on January 17, 2007, at 16:33:47
> >yes, but us humans are all euphoria addicts, and >a bottle of Dexedrine in ones possession often >produces a more, more, more, pattern of use
>
> Not necessarily. There is a tremendous amount of research these days into the neural basis of addiction. It has long been known that two individuals exposed to the same amount of drug vary widely in their respone, and further desire
> to abuse it.
>
> For instance, one avenue of research shows that animals with higher levels of GDNF are less likely to abuse drugs. Whether or not they still get high is uncertain. Drugs like ibogaine are thought to work in part at least, by bostling levels of GDNF.
>
> The activation of addiction genes intermediate early genes (ie cFOS, delta FosB) also varies from person to person. So one person might take a drug and crave it for months due to heavy activation of addiction genes, while another person does not.
>
> Some people say marajuanna is addictive. Could have suprised me. I smoked a little and that was ok, but more than htat just made me feel weird.
>
> >i have too often read of where ones Monthly >supply goes in days-i know of one such >individual whos 480 Dex 5mg script goes in a >couple days binging, but again here i am talking >of folks 'chasing a high' not widespread >responsible use.
>
> I know people like that too. I don't really blame people for that response.
>
> >Early hopes that amphetamines would prove to be >an effective general treatment for severe >depression were soon disappointed. Amphetamines >often produce dependency when taken for longer >than two or three weeks.
>
> But yet they do not always produce dependance in those who use them for ADHD?
>
> >Although these drugs are powerful stimulants and >increase a depressed person's activity, they may >also make him more anxious and agitated,
>
> So can wellbutrin for some, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good drug for some.
>
> >deprive him of sleep,
>
> Welcome to my life on SSRI's
>
>
> >and may fail to elevate his mood or to reverse >the fundamental depressive process.
>
> And we all know how effective SSRI's are at reverseing the fundimental depressive process.
>
> >In some individuals, these drugs have been >effective in relieving mild depression and >chronic fatigue, however
>
> Interesting sidenote.
>
>
> Linkadge
>
>Hey,
I agree with everything you have said, i was surfing and came across that older study (when Amps were being tightened down on)and thought i'd throw it in for opion and converse.
yes-i have read on Remedyfind that Adderall, Dex, often rate highly in depression scores, and have saved a couple people reported from long term TRD, and while they MAY poop out, 2-3-5 years, althought many continue to use for years successfully, so do SSRIs
--"The activation of addiction genes intermediate early genes (ie cFOS, delta FosB) also varies from person to person. So one person might take a drug and crave it for months due to heavy activation of addiction genes, while another person does not."
Interesting, i think i'v read something on Coke and cFOS activation. I guess thats why we have our own DOC-drug of choice!
Posted by MIke Lynch on January 18, 2007, at 14:34:09
In reply to Re: If ADHD people are trusted, why mood disorder folk, posted by linkadge on January 13, 2007, at 19:33:28
> In fact, there is probably a higher rate of drug abuse in those with ADHD (for whatever reason that is).
>
>
> Linkadge
>
>
I am quite sure that it is just the opposite, those treated with stimulants for adhd are less likely to abuse drugs. I think, of course depressed patients are more likely to abuse drugs, and stimulants are heavely abused - ssri's can't be abused for recreational purpose. Furthermore stimulants can cause depression after they where off
Posted by Phillipa on January 18, 2007, at 19:11:55
In reply to Re: If ADHD people are trusted, why mood disorder, posted by MIke Lynch on January 18, 2007, at 14:34:09
How or why would anyone even want to abuse an SSRI? Love Phillipa
Posted by kelv on January 18, 2007, at 19:55:43
In reply to Re: If ADHD people are trusted, why mood disorder, posted by MIke Lynch on January 18, 2007, at 14:34:09
>
> > In fact, there is probably a higher rate of drug abuse in those with ADHD (for whatever reason that is).
> >
> >
> > Linkadge
> >
> >
> "I am quite sure that it is just the opposite, those treated with stimulants for adhd are less likely to abuse drugs."Adreed MANY who are looking to feel comfortable in their own skin and are hyperactive, have high rates of Alcohol, Pot abuse, given successful stim treatment their drug cravings go down.
"I think, of course depressed patients are more likely to abuse drugs, and stimulants are heavely abused"
Depressed folk often drink, or use any form of self medication to feel better-Dexedrine, say, does that in a short time, and theres considerable 'pull' to continue doseing, to keep feeling good-using the stim as an AD.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2007, at 20:13:28
In reply to Re: Depressives' sensitivity to stimulants!, posted by linkadge on January 15, 2007, at 13:20:44
> they know most of their drugs are placebos.
Please don't exaggerate.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
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.