Posted by ed_uk on January 13, 2005, at 10:13:04
In reply to Re: What is an antidepressant?Any input please?, posted by darkhorse on January 13, 2005, at 8:01:19
Hello!
>What is an antidepressant anyway???
Currently, an antidepressant seems to be any drug which the manufacturer decides to classify as an antidepressant! Drugs can be classified in many ways eg. based on use (antidepressant, antiepileptic), chemical structure (eg. phenylethylamine), pharmacological property (eg. SSRI)..............
I would say that an antidepressant is a drug which can relieve the symptoms of depression without inducing strong euphoria. ADs can sometimes produce a small elevation of mood in people who are not ill but they rarely induce euphoria (it has been said that this is because they are not very good!)
>If any substance that can provide an elevation of mood and a feeling-good attitude and a healthy positive look at life, sociability, motivation... will this be considered a bad thing,and immediatly be labeled "euphoria", "hypomania"..etc.
Yes, some people will consider it to be a bad thing. A lot of people believe that all drug-taking is bad!
*I* think that such a drug could be a very useful treatment for depression. Few drugs seem to possess such properties though.........
SSRIs tend to reduce motivation and numb emotions.
Amphetamines may produce these effects for a while but tolerance usuallly occurs. Increasing the dose too much might lead to paranoia, delusions and hallucinations. Some people develop apathy and numbed emotions after a while. The problem with stimulants is that they are often a little too effective in 'motivating' people to take more of the drug!
I suppose that noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors like desipramine possess many of the properties you suggested. Sadly, for many people they just aren't adequately effecive. Certain of the 'dual' reuptake inhibitors like venlafaxine are too 'skewed' towards serotonin to boost motivation.... imipramine is more 'balanced' in this respect.... I know you like imipramine!!
>Are we stuck with this fixed idea that any substance that is considered an AD MUST affect serotonin/noradernaline?????I think many people probably don't realise how many neurotransmitters there actually are. I think some doctors are still stuck on the idea that everything is to do with serotonin- the neurotransmitter of the 90s. Their minds are still stuck on how good it is to be 'selective for serotonin'- 'selctive' is a word which has been a very effective marketing strategy. Today, big pharma is promoting the benefits of drugs which are not selective for serotonin. Remember imipramine!! Compared with serotonin, noradrenaline doesn't seem to have recieved much attention in recent years.
>Is ALL our "biological" symptoms which varies a lot,and all our agonies are that simple to be solved around 2 simple elements in our brain??
It annoys me when people talk about the brain as if it was like a pot of soup! Oh, if only I could add a bit more serotonin (salt) and a touch of dopamine (pepper) everything would be ok! As you well know, it is not that simple!
>In the 50's and up until the 70's the word "depression" was very rarely encountered (same as OCD),but everybody was anxiuos and had neuorosis.
I've looked at old English textbooks in the library. 'Clinical depression' was said to be a very rare illness, affecting a tiny fraction of the population. In psychiatry, frequency of diagnosis almost always seems to depend on the availability of drug treatments. When ADs were introduced, depression was diagnosed much more commonly.... when the SSRIs were marketed it was diagnosed even more extensively. Basically, psychiatrists will inevitably spend the most time looking for symptoms of disorders which can be treated with drugs. They're less likely to bother considering whether the patient has any symptoms of disorders which don't have drug treatments.
>Did people got better?? was there a real major improvement from the people who lived before the 80's,or are we more miserable??
I think people expect more than they used to. In the past I think people almost expected that there would be periods of extreme unhappiness in their lives- only rarely would this lead to a diagnosis of depression.
>Is it a sin or wrong to have your mood lifted and be happy with a pill?
No, I don't think it is- although many people would disagree. It starts to get problematic when addiction sets in and eventually, a person's entire life can be taken up with obtaining and using a drug. On their own, drugs are never enough to make a person happy in the long term. Euphoriants like methamphetamine can make people feel wonderful in the short term but it doesn't last. ADs can contribute toward happiness but they are never enough on their own. Many other things are needed to make people happy..... friends, family, food! etc.
>Drug companies are doing everything for the money,they keep on "invinting" disorders to fit a pill and magnify this "disorder" to profit,and I think that this example of anxiety/depression,benzos/SSRis are very clear example.
I think drug companies are very good at spotting profitable markets for their products. Panic disorder wasn't so commonly diagnosed until Xanax was introduced. Social anxiety wasn't so commonly diagnosed until the lauch of Paxil as a treatment. I don't think that drug companies invent disorders, but they do spend a lot of time 'educating' doctors and the public about problems which can now be treated with medication. You are right btw, drug companies are all about money. They are businessess, profit is their aim. They do not exist for the benefit of people with mental health problems!
Best Regards,
Ed.
poster:ed_uk
thread:439864
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050113/msgs/441560.html