[Macguyver]

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 79987.html

Selected Quotes:

Quote:

In 2008, with over $14 billion in sales, antipsychotics became the single top-selling therapeutic class of prescription drugs in the United States, surpassing drugs used to treat high cholesterol and acid reflux.

Quote:

The atypical anti-psychotics were the bright new stars in the pharmaceutical industry's roster of psychotropic drugs - costly, patented medications that made people feel and behave better without any shaking or drooling. Sales grew steadily, until by 2009 Seroquel and Abilify numbered fifth and sixth in annual drug sales, and prescriptions written for the top three atypical antipsychotics totaled more than 20 million. Suddenly, antipsychotics weren't just for psychotics any more.

Quote:

a 2009 study showed that 18 out of 20 of the shrinks who wrote the American Psychiatric Association's most recent clinical guidelines for treating depression, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia had financial ties to drug companies.

Quote:

In a recent article in The New York Review of Books, Angell deconstructs what she calls an apparent "raging epidemic of mental illness" among Americans. The use of psychoactive drugs—including both antidepressants and antipsychotics—has exploded, and if the new drugs are so effective, Angell points out, we should "expect the prevalence of mental illness to be declining, not rising." Instead, "the tally of those who are so disabled by mental disorders that they qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) increased nearly two and a half times between 1987 and 2007 - from one in 184 Americans to one in seventy-six. For children, the rise is even more startling - a thirty-five-fold increase in the same two decades. Mental illness is now the leading cause of disability in children." Under the tutelage of Big Pharma, we are "simply expanding the criteria for mental illness so that nearly everyone has one." Fugh-Berman agrees: In the age of aggressive drug marketing, she says, "Psychiatric diagnoses have expanded to include many perfectly normal people.

Quote:

In 2007, for example, the Department of Juvenile Justice (Florida) bought more than twice as much Seroquel as ibuprofen.

Wow - Legalize weed and take $14B out of the pockets of Big Pharma...

And if you're paranoid that this article is inaccurate because its Al Jizz go see your doctor, they got a pill for that too.

I'm going home to smoke some non-prescription anti-psychotics and have some eggnog.

[andyt]

Macguyver wrote:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/07/20117313948379987.html


Wow - Legalize weed and take $14B out of the pockets of Big Pharma...

If you meant this seriously, what have you been smoking. It's this sort of comment that undermines credibility for legalization. If weed were legalized, we'd likely see even more prescriptions for anti-depressives and anti-psychotics, since weed can cause both. I think people self-medicating with weed for mental illness are kidding themselves and asking for trouble.

But I have no problem with the rest - legal psychotropics are way over-prescribed. They do show that there is a serious problem in our society.

[Macguyver]

Does weed cause depression and psychosis or do depressed and psychotic people self medicate with weed more often than the average person?

SHOW ME THE STUDY

[andyt]

Weed triggers depression and psychosis in people who are already susceptible. But, who knows, if they didn't do weed they might never have had a problem. Very few people, AFAIK, smoke weed a couple of times and flip out - it's the chronic use that does it. And the chronic user may be doing it because s/he already feels something is wrong.

Weed's a drug. It has dangers associated with it's use - especially overuse. As do all other drugs. I think this thing of making it the wonder herb to treat anything and everything is mostly bullshit. I want to legalize it because I think the alternative is worse. Just as with ETOH, most people use it without any problems, and maybe it helps them enjoy life a bit more. I think natural highs are way better, but each to his own.

Find your own study, they're all over the place. Not much that's definitive, IMO. But anybody working with mental illness knows that there are people who get seriously messed up with weed.

[Macguyver]

Oh, so what you are saying is that you know the facts but you have no proof to back it up? If you have facts to present then back them up, or IMHO STFU.

Facts is not facts (bad Jean imitation) just because you claim to be an expert on mental illness (my guess is you have first hand knowledge though).

If I have a "fact" for you you can bet I will either blow you out of the water with evidence or I'll keep my pie hole shut. Or I'll apologize for being an idiot. Which will it be for you, since you already opened your pie hole you've got two options.

[andyt]

No, I have the option of telling you to find your own study - I just looked and they're out there. But I don't really give a shit if you want to remain in your ignorance bubble - guess it makes getting baked easier on the mind.

[Choban]

Macguyver wrote:

Oh, so what you are saying is that you know the facts but you have no proof to back it up? If you have facts to present then back them up, or IMHO STFU.

Facts is not facts (bad Jean imitation) just because you claim to be an expert on mental illness (my guess is you have first hand knowledge though).

If I have a "fact" for you you can bet I will either blow you out of the water with evidence or I'll keep my pie hole shut. Or I'll apologize for being an idiot. Which will it be for you, since you already opened your pie hole you've got two options.

Marijuana use has been shown to trigger and worsen psychosis in young people who are vulnerable to psychosis and may even cause psychotic illnesses in people who would not otherwise suffer from them.

Source- http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/publication ... -psychosis

Occasional smokers were 40 per cent more likely to suffer from psychosis, while dedicated tokers who used marijuana daily or weekly increased their risk by 50 to 200 per cent.

According to the findings, however, the risk of developing psychoses remains low. About five in 1,000 people have schizophrenia.

Scientists think it is biologically possible that marijuana could cause psychoses because it interrupts neurotransmitters, such as the chemical messenger dopamine, which can interfere with the brain's communication systems.

source- http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/200 ... hosis.html

Just 2, there are plenty.

[westmanguy]

This is actually quite interesting...

I've recently had trouble with sleep. Once I'm asleep its fine and I'm in a deep state and can stay that way for 8+ hours, but I have a hell of a time falling asleep. Most nights its an hour+ process (and usually prolonged past that because I get frustrated by the fact I can't fall asleep). Anyways the doctor ended up prescribing me Seroquel (that's a brand name, scientific name is Quetiapine) which is an atypical antipsychotic approved for the treatment of schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder.

The thing was those who have serious mental disorders take 300mg pills. I was prescribed 30mg pills as one of the side effects of this drug is it makes you sleepy. It also was prescribed to me because of my symptoms. I have a mind that is always running and I have trouble to shut my mind down at night and stop thinking and this is supposed to help suppress some of that anxiety. Its worked quasi well. I only had a 2 week trial prescription (finished that a week ago and have been actually sleeping naturally quite well). Its an interesting drug... It doesn't take affect on me (i.e. I don't get drowsy) until 2 hours in. But when it kicks in...boy does it kick in. I almost slept through a final exam back in mid December that i had TWO alarms set for. I have never ever slept through an alarm before that experience. It definitely put me in a deep state of sleep.

So even though its effective, I think I'm going to seek out non-medical means to help relax myself at night enough to fall asleep.

As far as this weed debate, even though I support decriminalization or legalization to kill the ridiculous drug trade and the fact its not worse (in fact much less worse) than alcohol, I am not a fan of it.

For a personality as myself how has mild OCD (never had that confirmed by anyone but I do have many obsessive tendencies) it was not healthy at all and quite addictive. See I'm the type of person who goes 100% into things until I've burnt out that option. I don't take things too moderately. And marijuana actually helped be relax for once, and it is the best sleep aid I have ever had in my life. Thing is, weed kills the REM stage of sleep, and even though you're 'sleeping' per say your not sleeping well. And I would literally binge on food. Every single time. And because I'm a former fat kid who lost 65 lbs. 4 years ago that heeps a bunch of guilt on me the next day. The fact it let me calm down so well made it addictive for me and over this summer I had a 2 and a half week stint on it, and it was hard going cold turkey. I still ocassionally do it (I am living on the West Coast) if I'm offered it in a social setting, but I frankly am not very fond of it all considering what it does.

It totally sapped my productivity and passion as well. All I wanted to do was literally sleep, eat, and watch tv. So legalize it, yes, as its harmless, but I'm not a promoter of this drug at all.

[Choban]

westmanguy wrote:

This is actually quite interesting...

I've recently had trouble with sleep. Once I'm asleep its fine and I'm in a deep state and can stay that way for 8+ hours, but I have a hell of a time falling asleep. Most nights its an hour+ process (and usually prolonged past that because I get frustrated by the fact I can't fall asleep). Anyways the doctor ended up prescribing me Seroquel (that's a brand name, scientific name is Quetiapine) which is an atypical antipsychotic approved for the treatment of schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder.

The thing was those who have serious mental disorders take 300mg pills. I was prescribed 30mg pills as one of the side effects of this drug is it makes you sleepy. It also was prescribed to me because of my symptoms. I have a mind that is always running and I have trouble to shut my mind down at night and stop thinking and this is supposed to help suppress some of that anxiety. Its worked quasi well. I only had a 2 week trial prescription (finished that a week ago and have been actually sleeping naturally quite well). Its an interesting drug... It doesn't take affect on me (i.e. I don't get drowsy) until 2 hours in. But when it kicks in...boy does it kick in. I almost slept through a final exam back in mid December that i had TWO alarms set for. I have never ever slept through an alarm before that experience. It definitely put me in a deep state of sleep.

So even though its effective, I think I'm going to seek out non-medical means to help relax myself at night enough to fall asleep.

As far as this weed debate, even though I support decriminalization or legalization to kill the ridiculous drug trade and the fact its not worse (in fact much less worse) than alcohol, I am not a fan of it.

For a personality as myself how has mild OCD (never had that confirmed by anyone but I do have many obsessive tendencies) it was not healthy at all and quite addictive. See I'm the type of person who goes 100% into things until I've burnt out that option. I don't take things too moderately. And marijuana actually helped be relax for once, and it is the best sleep aid I have ever had in my life. Thing is, weed kills the REM stage of sleep, and even though you're 'sleeping' per say your not sleeping well. And I would literally binge on food. Every single time. And because I'm a former fat kid who lost 65 lbs. 4 years ago that heeps a bunch of guilt on me the next day. The fact it let me calm down so well made it addictive for me and over this summer I had a 2 and a half week stint on it, and it was hard going cold turkey. I still ocassionally do it (I am living on the West Coast) if I'm offered it in a social setting, but I frankly am not very fond of it all considering what it does.

It totally sapped my productivity and passion as well. All I wanted to do was literally sleep, eat, and watch tv. So legalize it, yes, as its harmless, but I'm not a promoter of this drug at all.

Interesting angle, I have a friend who after many many years of daily smoking, up and quit. Since he quit he hasn't been able to fall asleep at night, and when he does fall asleep he doesn't sleep the whole night through. He rebounded and had a joint one night and slept like a log.

Also, I have a family member who has Phsycosis, he was a heavy drug user in his youth (I'm talking everything), since his diagnosis he's layed off everthing but pot and booze. I can tell you that when he drinks he has been known to have "episodes", but they don't happen when he smokes.

I my self smoke occasionally, used to smoke allot more. To each his own is my philosophy on pot use. I do agree to undercut the organized crime aspect that prohibition is not working.

[westmanguy]

Marijuana in my opinion is terrible for sleep. Its obviously a natural sleep sedative. I never fall asleep easier than when I'm high. But if you're an individual, like me and many others, who has sleep issues to begin with it can become quite addictive as a sleep medication.

I had a bout of it last year where I was addicted to it purely as a sleep aid. I'd take it 30 min. before I needed to go to sleep, be out like a light, and wake up the next day shake out of the cloud and be productive. Thing is, its not quality sleep. You stop dreaming when you're high too many days in a row. It kill the REM (Rapid Eye Movement) stage of sleep which is our most deepest stage where we dream. Therefore one doesn't get a quality level of sleep and you may be sleeping 8+ hours, but you're not actually well rested. At least in my experience. I had insomnia for a week coming off it. Which is HELL. Nothing is worse in life than being unable to sleep. Stayed strong though and got through it and I've realize sleep is a discipline you need to learn and its not worth sacrificing for an easy way out. Because when you inevitably have to give up the easy way out you end up in a terrible state for a week plus.

For that main reason I want very little to do with marijuana except for the occasional session every once in awhile if I'm in a social setting where a friend offers it. Again, the drug trade is ridiculous and we need to kill this black market so I'm very much in favour of legalization or decriminalization, but I don't think we should start touting this as an amazing thing everyone should do. Those with mental health problems or sleep issues to begin with can be much worse off if they get on pot.

[xerxes]

I'm the same way Westmanguy. It takes me forever to fall asleep, unless I'm absolutely exhausted that is. Some guys at my work suggested taking Melatonin which you can find in the vitamin aisle. I'm not sure if it's the placebo effect or if it actually works but 1/2 hour after i take it, it's lights out for me.

[xerxes]

But to come back to the original point of this thread, there does seem to be a trend in mental health to prescribe mental health away. The lefty in me suspects it's big pharma's way of pushing expensive drugs on people who don't need them. But it is worth noting that there is a bit of an academic fight brewing over the upcoming publication of the DSM V.

Quote:

Therapists revolt against psychiatry’s bible
Mental health professionals say new diagnoses will lead to overmedication
By Rob Waters


Anyone who’s ever tried to get reimbursed by a health insurance company after seeing a psychiatrist or psychotherapist, or taking a child or teenager to one, has no doubt noticed the incomprehensible numbers that appear on the clinician’s statement, perhaps preceding some slightly less imponderable phrase.

Maybe you are a 296.22 (major depressive disorder, single episode, mild) or a 300.00 (anxiety disorder NOS–not otherwise specified). Hopefully, you are not a 301.83 (borderline personality disorder). Your kid might be a 313.81 (oppositional defiant disorder) or, more likely, a 314.01 (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, predominantly hyperactive-impulsive type).

Since 1952, a tome called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, better known as the DSM, has been reducing to a few digits the psychological malady said to afflict a patient. This bible of mental health treatment, published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), provides a list and description of every mental health condition known to—or invented by—psychiatry, from histrionic personality disorder (301.50) to transvestic fetishism (302.3).

Over the decades, the manual, adapted from a guide for mental diseases developed by Army and Navy psychiatrists, has ballooned. The number of listed disorders tripled to nearly 300. A few have been discredited and dumped along the way. Most famous were battles over the inclusion of homosexuality. Successive iterations of the manual listed homosexuality as a “sociopathic personality disturbance,” then modified that to describe a more limited “sexual orientation disturbance” among people who were “in conflict with” their attraction to people of the same sex. That was later replaced by a disorder called “ego-dystonic homosexuality,” applied to those whose homosexual arousal was a source of distress. That item was dropped in the DSM-III-R, published in 1987.

The great book’s coming edition, the DSM-5, is slated for publication in May 2013. As the task force producing it has posted drafts on its website, an undercurrent of dissatisfaction has exploded into a full-scale revolt by members of U.S. and British psychological and counseling organizations. The chief complaint is that the newest version will lower the criteria needed to diagnose some conditions, creating “subthreshold” disorders, and generally making it easier for healthcare professionals to label a person with a psychiatric disorder and medicate him or her.

The latest rebellion against the DSM-5 began with a salvo from across the Atlantic. In June, a special committee of the British Psychological Society complained in a letter to the APA that “clients and the general public are negatively affected by the continued and continuous medicalisation of their natural and normal responses to their experiences.” The committee criticized the proposed creation of an “attenuated psychosis syndrome”—a sort of poor-man’s psychosis with less severe symptoms—“as an opportunity to stigmatize eccentric people.” They also objected to a proposed reduction in the number of symptoms needed to diagnose adolescents with attention deficit disorder (ADD) because it might increase diagnoses and the use of meds.

Then David Elkins, professor emeritus at Pepperdine University and president of the Society for Humanistic Psychology, a division of the American Psychological Association, formed a committee to discuss similar objections and draft a petition enumerating them. In October, he posted the petition online. “I figured we’d get a couple hundred signatures,’’ Elkins said.

The response stunned him and his colleagues. The petition attracted more than 6,000 signatures in three weeks; as of mid-December it had topped 9,300 signatories and garnered the endorsement of 35 organizations. On Nov. 8, American Counseling Association president Don Locke jumped in with a letter to the APA objecting to the “incomplete or insufficient empirical evidence” underlying the proposed revisions and expressing “uncertainty about the quality and credibility” of the DSM-5.

“This has become a grassroots movement among mental health professionals, who are saying we already have a national problem with overmedication of children and the elderly, and we don’t want to exacerbate that,” says Elkins.

For many critics, Exhibit A is childhood ADD. As the disorder describing fidgety, easily distracted kids morphed from “hyperkinetic reaction of childhood” to the current “attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,” the number of children given the diagnosis exploded, fueling, by one account, a 700 percent increase in the use of Ritalin and other stimulants in the 1990s. Diagnosis requires checking six of nine boxes from a list of symptoms that include “often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly” and “often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat.” Sound familiar, parents?

Two other newly proposed disorders singled out as problematic in the petition are “mild neurocognitive disorder” in the elderly and “disruptive mood dysregulation disorder” in children and adolescents. Both lack a solid basis in research and may fuel the use of powerful antipsychotic medications, which cause weight gain, diabetes and a host of other metabolic problems, the petition says.

“We are gravely concerned that if this is published as is in 2013, it will create false epidemics where hundreds of thousands of children and the elderly who really are normal will be diagnosed with a mental disorder and given powerful psychiatric medications that have dangerous side effects,” Elkins says. “That is not tolerable.”

David Kupfer, the University of Pittsburgh psychiatrist who chairs the task force overseeing the manual’s preparation, says he expects the final number of disorders included in the DSM-5 to be about the same as in the current book. He says he welcomes the criticism and that nothing is final. The task force has been testing proposed new diagnoses in 2,300 patients at seven adult treatment centers and four adolescent centers that are acting as field-test sites, he says.

“There’s a myth that all the decisions have been made, when in fact, all the decisions haven’t been made,” he says. “Just because [things have] been proposed doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll end up in the DSM-5. If they don’t achieve a level of reliability, clinician acceptability, and utility, it’s unlikely they’ll go forward.”

The most surprising critic of the DSM is a one-time pillar of the psychiatric establishment. Allen Frances, professor emeritus at Duke University, chaired the task force that created the DSM-4. Now he’s railing against both the process and proposed content of the new DSM in blogs on the website for Psychology Today that blast the new revision as “untested” and “unscientific.”

Psychiatric diagnoses are loose enough already, Frances told me, and that laxity has led to “epidemics of over-diagnosis in child psychiatry” causing huge numbers of children to be unnecessarily labeled with attention deficit disorder and bipolar disorder and treated with medications.

“DSM has to be a safe, reliable and credible guide to current clinical practice,” he says. “It can’t be an untested program for future research.’’

The user revolt against the DSM-5 has emerged as a major challenge to the document, Frances says, and its future is looking unclear. He and Elkins are proposing that an independent committee of experts review the proposed draft and make recommendations.

The fight over the DSM-5 pits some of the greatest minds and biggest egos in the world of psychiatry, but it’s more than a battle among 301.81s (narcissistic personality disorder). For people seeking help for life’s problems who don’t want to be labeled mentally ill or have their treatment limited to medication, and for clinicians who want to help people without reducing them to a category, the stakes are high.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/27/therapists_revolt_against_psychiatrys_bible/

[Macguyver]

Choban wrote:

Macguyver wrote:

Oh, so what you are saying is that you know the facts but you have no proof to back it up? If you have facts to present then back them up, or IMHO STFU.

Facts is not facts (bad Jean imitation) just because you claim to be an expert on mental illness (my guess is you have first hand knowledge though).

If I have a "fact" for you you can bet I will either blow you out of the water with evidence or I'll keep my pie hole shut. Or I'll apologize for being an idiot. Which will it be for you, since you already opened your pie hole you've got two options.

Marijuana use has been shown to trigger and worsen psychosis in young people who are vulnerable to psychosis and may even cause psychotic illnesses in people who would not otherwise suffer from them.

Source- http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/publication ... -psychosis

Occasional smokers were 40 per cent more likely to suffer from psychosis, while dedicated tokers who used marijuana daily or weekly increased their risk by 50 to 200 per cent.

According to the findings, however, the risk of developing psychoses remains low. About five in 1,000 people have schizophrenia.

Scientists think it is biologically possible that marijuana could cause psychoses because it interrupts neurotransmitters, such as the chemical messenger dopamine, which can interfere with the brain's communication systems.

source- http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/200 ... hosis.html

Just 2, there are plenty.

Like I said:

"Zammit said the research couldn't prove that marijuana use itself increases the risk of psychosis, as there could be something else about marijuana users, "like their tendency to use other drugs or certain personality traits, that could be causing the psychoses.""

You know I think it might, especially in kids, but I want to see a study that says that it either does or it doesn't. If you can;t PROVE that it does cause psychosis then why would you go around stating that it does without proof.

I believe my quest of some actual proof is better than ignorantly believing each shovel of shit tossed my way.

Andy has his proof apparently, yet he is not willing to show it. Sounds like he opened his mouth before he checked his facts.

[raydan]

You're the one that started it, Mac, by making this claim...
"Legalize weed and take $14B out of the pockets of Big Pharma..."

You have to prove that smoking weed will lower the use of antipsychotics.

[Regina]

This whole article has little to do with fact and more to do with an axe to grind with brand pharmaceutical companies and bad doctors.

"Bottom line: Stop Big Pharma and the parasitic shrink community from wantonly pushing these pills across the population."