5-HTP?

[gcalex]

That is not exactly a persuasive refutation, a simple back of the hand dismissal.  I would be interested in more detail as to why you think his studies lack merit.

[Irishmanwrites]

I'll happily do that if you give your own opinion, not simply quote his.

You might also confirm why your fear-mongering on a website where you know the people reading are only too ready to read another conspiracy theory against their doctors prescription.

[gcalex]

I am not fear mongering, simply expressing an opinion,  not giving advice or suggesting anyone do anything.  It's OK for you to express opinions that supplements don't work, not to mention downplaying the nightmare of benzo withdrawal by such unsubstantiated statements as the "vast majority" of people have no withdrawal problems, but it is not OK for me to express an opinion, explaining what my basis is, that drugs may not be as efficacious as represented (except by placebo effect, which by the way is very powerful).  That seems inconsistent.  As to what my opinion is, I don't pretend to have the omniscience to know the truth, I can only say that I have found books and articles questioning whether ADs really are superior to placebo persuasive -- but I have an open mind.  And yes, I understand very well the nature of placebo controlled double blind trials.  It's a matter of analysis of the data, as well as investigations of what happens when active placebos as opposed to inert ones are used.

[Irishmanwrites]

A reference to this character is fear-mongering. Your reference can only make people visit links and have grains of worry develop. Thankfully it doesn't take too much digging to see that for every man like Irving, there are plenty who discredit him.

I stand by my statement regarding benzo withdrawal. Why? Because it's true. The vast majority I refer to, not everyone. Again you are more likely to find those who had of believe they had withdrawal online.

I also stand by my comment that you remind me of some other posters.

The important point here though is your acknowledgement that you do not know anything about Irving, rather you've read something on the Internet.

I suggest to anyone reading that they run with their doctor ahead of someone who read something about someone on the Internet!

[gcalex]

Again, not very persuasive, but presumably you can't offer a specific critique because you haven't actually read his book.  Also, what is your evidence concerning benzo withdrawal, for example, other than the tautology "it's true"?  And by the way I read Prof. Kirsch's BOOK, not just an article on the internet.  I recommend it to you -- it would be interesting to have a more informed discussion about it than you are able to have now.

It can be very comforting to take the "my doctor knows best" approach.  And it may well be the right thing to do for most people.  Sometimes, though, it isn't.  For example, there are quite a few drugs that were approved but then withdrawn on the basis of post-marketing experience, sometimes with disastrous results.  How much did the doctors who prescribed them understand about them?  I don't know.  I do not purport to advise anyone, but if I were to do so, I would simply say, make informed decisions.

[Irishmanwrites]

OK. You've read the book, but can't actually give a detailed opinion. It may be the type of book that isn't worth a second read, but if you are to support this man or make reference to him you'll need to do better.

It's not a persuasive argument to simply mention a name and mention a book and leave it that. You need to display an understanding of the individual you refer to.

You'll need to consider your point regarding meds being taken off the Market too. We are taking about SSRIs primarily. Lexapro, Lustral, Parox, Prozac and Cipramil have all been on the Market for a long time . They are the front and first line treatments when suffering is too much and a person decides to go down the tried and trusted med route. Note the words tried and trusted.

Finally, I talk, discuss and argue with my doctor. My "big picture" point is that "doctor knows better than posters here"

[Irishmanwrites]

Just to add Irving has not actually even studied medicine. No medical degree here.

My advice is trust your medical doctor or psychiatrist over this gentleman who nobody has thus far convinced me to take seriously.

[gcalex]

I could certainly elaborate on the nature of his studies and the bases for his conclusions, but if you or anyone else is interested I would suggest you read it for yourself and not take my word for it.  To repeat, the short version is that he made a Freedom of Information Act request for all studies submitted to the FDA for various AD drugs, including those on which the companies did not rely in their New Drug Applications, and analyzed the data and reached certain conclusions regarding efficacy as compared to placebo.  His conclusion was that except in cases of very severe depression, there was no difference between drugs and placebo, and that the small difference in the very severe cases was likely due to the "unblinding" phenomenon -- participants get side effects and so realize they are on the active drug, not the placebo, which enhances the placebo effect.  He also discusses the placebo effect and its history at length.  There are a number of other authors who have similar viewpoints, and obviously there are a number of authors who disagree.  I am not a scientist, so I can only try to understand the material and make an informed judgment to the best of my limited abilities.  But I prefer not to reach conclusions while refusing even to consider, or read, other points of view.

Thank you for the clarification by the way, I did not mean to imply that AD drugs had been withdrawn, the point was more general.  The topic of AD safety seems off point here so I won't go there. 

[gcalex]

As to your last point, consider the books and articles of Joanna Moncrief, MD, who collaborated with Dr. Kirsch. 

[gcalex]

One last thing, among his other academic affiliations, Prof. Kirsch is a professor at Harvard Medical School.  So I think you may want to focus on the content of what he has to say, not his credentials.

[Irishmanwrites]

I am glad I was able to give a clarification on ADs. I am glad you didn't give us a rant on their danger either.

One really has to question why'd you've joined to come on and spout this. It's potentially a sad reflection of where you are in life.

By the way, you have still shown absolutely no understanding of the man you to refer to. I asked for an understanding and you gave me a paperback book inside cover description.

By further way, will we expose you as a previous poster now or later?

[gcalex]

You have a very interesting way of changing the subject when you can't respond on the merits.  It's clever but transparent.  I am still waiting for you to present any facts, as opposed to your own say-so.  As to Prof. Kirsch:  understanding of the man?  I have no idea what you are looking for here, quite honestly.  I read his book, and other books, and did my best to understand them.  What further "understanding of the man" do I need to demonstrate?  Are you suggesting he has bad motives?  If so say so and why you think so, add some facts to the discussion by all means.  By the way you have yet to explain the basis for your apparent disagreement with his studies, and perhaps you can't because you haven't read it?  Or again do we just take your say so as gospel truth?

And sorry to disappoint you, I am in fact a new poster.  I found the forum the other day, and as a couple of posts interested me, I responded.  That's it, no ulterior motives, sorry your conspiracy theory is just not true.  And while my initial intent was just to add my opinion to the thread, since you have attacked me for doing so, I feel obliged to respond.  And go ahead, have the last word, you seem to have the last word on each of the last three pages of posts on this subforum, so I wouldn't want to deprive you of that opportunity here.

[Crimson Serenity]

We're dealing with an illness/disorder/situation that isn't perfectly measurable. Some people experience depression and anxiety more severely than others; some experience it in different ways. Medication saves the lives of some, while it might not be the right choice for other individuals (perhaps the cause of their issue isn't the same for those for whom the medication works). Depression and anxiety are tricksy beasts -- they don't come in neat packages easily studied. The size and shape and ferocity of the monster, and his origins, is as individual as those they attack!

While I may disagree with some of the viewpoints expressed in certain areas, I'm not sure it necessarily needs to be the hot-button issue it has become. I think it's best not to say "Don't take medication" or "Take medication" in response to a poster here, but people also need to realize that this is the internet, and opinions are like bottoms, everyone has one. People are influenced by all sorts of external forces, too. Take everything you read here with a skeptic's eye and a grain of salt and be vigilant about looking after yourself using more legitimate means than the subjective experiences of a collective of non-expert, anonymous internet posters.

[gcalex]

I think that's very well put, and to be clear, my intent was simply to present what I thought was interesting information to be considered, not to tell anyone here what to do or what not to do as I would never presume.  But at the same time one should not attack new information simply because it doesn't accord with one's view of the world, one should have an open mind and respond (if at all) on the merits, not by attacking the person presenting the information. 

[sixpack]

We're dealing with an illness/disorder/situation that isn't perfectly measurable. Some people experience depression and anxiety more severely than others; some experience it in different ways. Medication saves the lives of some, while it might not be the right choice for other individuals (perhaps the cause of their issue isn't the same for those for whom the medication works). Depression and anxiety are tricksy beasts -- they don't come in neat packages easily studied. The size and shape and ferocity of the monster, and his origins, is as individual as those they attack!

While I may disagree with some of the viewpoints expressed in certain areas, I'm not sure it necessarily needs to be the hot-button issue it has become. I think it's best not to say "Don't take medication" or "Take medication" in response to a poster here, but people also need to realize that this is the internet, and opinions are like bottoms, everyone has one. People are influenced by all sorts of external forces, too. Take everything you read here with a skeptic's eye and a grain of salt and be vigilant about looking after yourself using more legitimate means than the subjective experiences of a collective of non-expert, anonymous internet posters.

EXACTLY

I'm getting a bit perturbed with some of the  'if you don't accept meds (or question other methods--ie more natural ones) you have ulterior motives' and the 'if you accept meds you are going to be unduly harmed.'  There are different ways to skin the beast.  Let peeps do what they think is right for them--without fear mongering on either side.  Informed decisions make the best ones.  If that means you get the idea to read a book about an alternative method, do that. 

[Irishmanwrites]

I disagree with quite simply everything you have said G Calex. Let's be very clear here. If you had an opinion and came on and used it, fine and good. If you come on here and make reference to a man who has spat out the most extraordinarily wrong claim since the earth was flat, you'll have to expect a rebuttal. You've nothing original to say.

I'm aware of Irving and read some of his work and the work of some of the other commentators.
I think it's all tosh.

I will add a few points for Crimson and Sixpack.

Crimson: I certainly have never simply used the words "Take Medication" . What I do is when someone is unsure and has a prescription, I suggest they honour that prescription with a trial.

Sixpack: There is a continuous run of posters with different input and ideas. That's very welcome. What is lacking on this website is an understanding of the damage that could potentially be caused if someone listened to a few of the posters who drop links to the likes of the non medic we are discussing before.

I am always going to point out that one should speak to their medic and mutually come to a decision. See my signature pl for verification of my thoughts on the anonymous faceless here.

[gcalex]

Raising the level of your rhetoric and making it even more ad hominem does nothing to support your argument.  As I said, i am open-minded, and would be interested in non ad hominem, non conclusory, specific criticisms of his methodology or conclusions.  If you are not up to the challenge, I suggest agreeing to disagree.

[Irishmanwrites]

My posts, in particular, say all that I need to say to you.

A proper debate - yes. You doing a copy and paste job from the infamous Irving, no thanks. When you can fight your own battles, come and talk. In the meantime, I'd suggest less sensational references and more empathy for those who post here.

[sixpack]

Sixpack: There is a continuous run of posters with different input and ideas. That's very welcome. What is lacking on this website is an understanding of the damage that could potentially be caused if someone listened to a few of the posters who drop links to the likes of the non medic we are discussing before.

I am always going to point out that one should speak to their medic and mutually come to a decision. See my signature pl for verification of my thoughts on the anonymous faceless here.

 

it cuts both ways irishmanwrites.  I see a lot of posts around here that skewer other views if they are not completely med pro or say maybe meds aren't THE most wonderful things or say maybe try a naturapath (personally not my cup of tea but it if others want to try that is up to them.)  Someone should be able to point out other alternatives without motives being questioned. 

Looking back on gcalex posts I see a person mentioning someones else's book that hints that SSRIs may not be as effective as we believe.  He found it  "persausive" and maybe some of the information may be of interest to others. He mentioned numerous times--in different ways--that he was no scientist or if the conclusions of the people he mentioned were correct but that he found it interesting reading.  he never once said meds were bad just maybe placebo may play a bigger role than one might think.  He mentioned the book(s) as a possiblity to look at things a bit differently.  His posts were not fear mongering. 

[Irishmanwrites]

I don't think meds are the most wonderful things, so if that's a snipe at me, you can take it back Sixpack.

All I have done here (much to the disdain of some) is defend medication to the end of trying it when it has been prescribed. I have never suggested getting ones hands on meds in any other circumstances. Likewise I don't promise the sun, moon or stars with them. My defence and my views are simplified too often here. I have a genuine fear some folk will be led to disastrous decisions from what they read here / online.

I have re-looked at the posts of G Calex with fresh eyes and quite honestly, there's an agenda. I see it. I hope others can too.

[anxiousshawn]

Well. I posted this thread to see if anyone had experience with 5HTP, not the validity of the science or lack thereof behind it; it's practically turned into a pissing match instead. Awesome. This has done wonders for my social anxiety. 

[heatherqb]

Shawn,
Please don't be dissuaded.  I spoke to your original post with my experience with 5 htp.  I am naturally inclined so that's where my advice tends to stem from.  I used to get angry and frustrated when a post that came from my heart was followed with someone negating everything I had just said.  People will be people and since this is an open forum, people can write whatever they want and hide behind their screen name.  I sincerely hope this doesn't affect your social anxiety.  I will always answer with empathy and to the best of my knowledge and hope the original poster has enough to sense to realize the donkeys from the intelligent ones.  Much love to you and I wish you the best!

[Irishmanwrites]

I too will always answer with honesty and empathy. Plenty will not agree, but plenty will. I stand by everything I have said in this thread. Keep your eyes and mind open.