Talk:Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor/Archive 2
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|Archive 1||Archive 2||Archive 3|
- 1 Macro-effects again
- 2 Macro-effects
- 3 Addition
- 4 Lack of quality
- 5 bias
- 6 St John's Wort = MAOI?
- 7 A studie that maybe is relevant in this discussion
- 8 criticism statement not supported by cited source
- 9 Suggested Link
- 10 Mixing With MDMA
- 11 St. John's Wort
- 12 Connection with dark chocolate?
- 13 Lawsuits
- 14 Serotonin: Vasoconstrictor or vasodilator?
- 15 Aniscoria (The Side Effect Indicating Real Imbalance)
- 16 NPOV: Cardiovascular side effects
- 17 Pharmacodynamics
- 18 SSRI poop-out?
I agree with this paragraph--good coverage of criticism and bad side-effects, but couldn't find anything about what good it does. This would be very pertinent to me and many others, I suspect. Tellme47 04:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Tellme47
This article is pretty bad. Tons of focus on the side-effects, the criticism, the lawsuits, almost none on the actual effects of the drug. Not at a moluecular-biological level; I mean, cognitive effects--how does it make people feel? How does it treat social anxiety disorder, are people suddenly more outgoing? Most medication pages I've seen have included such information; it's highly pertient and, presumably, is sought by many Wikipedia-users.--126.96.36.199 07:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The side effects are pretty bad. What happens on a molecular level has been addressed, but currently remains a hotly debated point of contention. "Social Anxiety Disorder" is a baseless, invented illness devised by ad men, designed to help deceptively market Paroxetine. There is no basis traceable to the physiology on a cellular level. There is no offending viral cause. The reasons people don't want to go outside, or into social situations, vary from person to person, literally by the hour. There just isn't a pill for it. The entire concept of this "disorder" as "a treatable illness" is something I can hardly believe so many people have fallen for. (If I must cite a source, it would have to be a combination of The Collected Works of Aldous Huxley, and any given television commercial for "Restless Leg Syndrome". 188.8.131.52 07:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've tryed every SSRI / SNRI on the market to date on varying degrees of dosage for near 10 years for mild anxiety, Heres what i've found: SSRI's / SNRI's work by normalizing emotions. The higher the dose the more the overall emotion is regulated this is good for major problems such as losing a loved one but overall SSRI' / SNRIS will not do anything more than lower quality of life by making everything feel like a chore. Please read this and believe me a lower dose is good in some cases the larger the problem the larger the dose but DON'T stay on that same level try to taper this is not speculation I've tryed paxil, celexa, venafaxline, zoloft and many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 6 March 2007
Generalizing your own individual experience to the overall profile of a drug's efficacy in large populations is not particularly useful to the discussion. Large doses do, in fact, benefit many patients over long-term usage, despite your own experiences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 8 June 2007
I must disagree sharply with the latter; this person's individual experience is a tributary to the overall profile you speak of; determining the profile of a drug's efficacy in large populations (especially with that kind of insensitivity to individuals) is so far right of the main idea of having the discussion we're having in the first place, it could orbit the earth. And since we have such a proponent of large doses of SSRI's, I'll take note the latter contributor does not appear to indicate (as the former does) having had the mal-benefit of experiencing SSRI "treatment" for themselves. NewBostonTeaParty 06:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not useful to this discussion, as this is meant to be an encyclopedia and not a catalogue of individual experiences. Does the fact that eating eggs causes my ears to ring (for God-knows-what-reason) merit an entry on the eggs page? If you think so (as a tributary to the overall profile of egg ingestion), than I hope you'd agree that a large collection of testimonials from those who ingest eggs without adverse events would be needed to provide a more accurate representation of the effects of eating eggs on the population in general. Since that would be ridiculous, it should be clear that individual experiences have no place here. They do have a place in a clinical catalog of drug effects, and in the individual doctor-patient relationship, but this is neither. Your tirades are completely out of place in an encyclopedia. Go ahead and add a 'vasoconstriction' section, but try and make it factual and not a diatribe about vasoconstriction-as-plague. Or at least for consistency's sake, prop up your soapbox on the caffeine page, the antihistamine page, etc. And as someone who appears to fancy himself/herself a critical thinker, have you considered all of the scientific aspects of your argument? Is 5-HT a vasoconstrictor via direct peripheral action on blood vessels? Would a molecule that compartmentalizes preferentially into CNS versus periphery have the same liabilities in terms of this supposed adverse effect? What are the brain/plasma exposure ratios of these SSRI's that you are convinced are so harmful? That would be a much more informative discussion in this context than the banal over-simplification you are relying on to preach your agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 13 December 2007
Rarely have I ever heard anyone debase themselves - and what they support - so eloquently. To start with, this is a discussion page within an online encyclopedia, where things like this can be debated - which is supposed to be healthy. These very matters are currently being fought over, behind many closed doors - and out in the open. Each of our own personal experiences contributes to our opinions; any reader of this page has the personal experience of reading valid or misinformation - which would you prefer? My, "tirades" are seen here not as part of an agenda to oversimplify, or worse, misinform, but to counter sponsored misinformation posted here; before I called (probably you) on it, people were happily posting that serotonin is a vasodialator - that the drugs are so helpful to so many people - which is the polar opposite of the truth. This needed (and unfortunately, continually needs) correcting, so I made the points - some of which you (now?) concede. Now: it seems to me that before anyone were to, "consider ALL the scientific aspects of their argument", they would consider the BASIC SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF THEIR ARGUMENT - which was (your?) industry's - and FDA's - first and (to people other than yourselves) FATAL mistake, in considering even the concept of serotonin (and other) reuptake inhibitors. The questions you use as examples are good questions (and at least two are basic), but here's a question for you - shouldn't these questions have been answered WAY BEFORE market approval? I (and many others, I'm sure) feel very strongly they should have been. Were they?Were I to provide my opinions as answers to these questions, I agree it would make for, "informative discussion", but you see, I am not merely, "convinced" the drugs are extremely harmful, I know it for a fact; what I'm "relying on" can be called, "banal" and, "oversimple" by you, but this "banal oversimplicity" consists of my personal experience, 8 years of research, and the offensive, truthful evidence I continue to see almost daily, which misinformers and wholesalers like you have grown so accustomed to doublespeaking over everyone's heads, with the help of your standing in my government. Critical thinking about these matters is not limited to biology and pharmacology. Even to answer some of the questions you've raised, you'd probably have to violate the biology of more than a few research subjects. Which we've seen happen, with the help of FDA clearing the General Population as a "Research Subject". Now Industry is on the cusp, legally, of using FDA approval as a shield against liability; The US 3rd circuit court of appeals just passed off an asenine ruling shielding GSX and Pfizer from liability for Paxil and Zoloft induced suicide - while the irrefutable proof of it celebrates what - it's 20th birthday? Please. The only, "agenda" I have ever had is, to tell the truth about what people like you are doing. It's criminal, and you have found a way to be above the law, while yet another school, church, home or office gets shot up, and more people die. Eggs don't make that happen. You sir (or Ma'am) are a fraud, working for the fraudulent, and as Phil Hartman (playing Frank Sinatra) said to Sting (playing Billy Idol), I say to you: "I've got chunks of guys like you in my STOOL." And I do, so take your PSYCHOpharmacology, your DSM, and your ill-gotten funding, and find something better to do for the world than misinform people into being ill-gotten research subjects for really, really, REALLY BAD IDEAS. No thanks. Get out. NewBostonTeaParty (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Lack of quality
This article needs a good re-write. Too much is poorly written, uncited, speculative, and in some cases, clearly biased. Proper citation of scientific studies is essential; currently, it is sorely lacking. There is an enormous wealth of scientific information and research on SSRIs, and this article fails to take advantage of that body of knowledge. A good re-write is hereby requested, requested only of those people who have the capacity to cite diligently, back up claims, and write a non-biased, factual article. --Muugokszhiion 05:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- I second that. Many of the sections under "Mode of Action" have pharmacological descriptions that can ONLY result from scientific experimentation, and yet none of the relevant studies are cited. I'm not arguing with the content, as much of it seems to be supported by the literature, but without proper citations, Wikipedia will be nothing more than people typing random things. I personally feel that it's better NOT to have the information printed in the article than to have uncited information printed. EradicateReality 18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, the user "Shibidee" has gone off and started his own "Post SSRI Sexual Dysfunction" page. I don't know if anyone wants to do anything about it or not... --AJ
- For the record, I started the page on Post SSRI Sexual Dysfunction not Shibidee ;-) James R. Skinner
Have people just given up on editing this page or what?
"We cannot have archaic and edit too..." NewBostonTeaParty 04:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that reading this article sent a chill down my spine. I have taken Zoloft for 2 years, and it has helped my depression tremendously. However, reading this article, you'd think they were cyanide pills. There is literally zero discussion of the positive effects of SSRIs! How can this happen??
Serotonin is a vasoconstrictor. One of the more plausible (and highly logical, by comparison)theories suggests the increase in serotoninn starves the neurophysical mechanisms for CONSCIENCE of the oxygen required to allow proper function. This action, coupled with the wildly variable increase in neurotransmission from person to person, is also responsible for many bizzare side effects/health problems. And for starters? That's how. There you go. NewBostonTeaParty 04:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I am quite disappointed by the quality of this article also; it reads like an alternative medicine sales website, with no regard for wikipedia's neutrality. I came here to learn a few things about SSRI's, but it looks like I might have to find another source. (I would take it on, except I can not confidently say that I would do it any justice). Ratznium 09:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
What if you had to take it on? And since when does, "Neutrality" mean defining by way of including the incorrect? NewBostonTeaParty 05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I sense a big bias against SSRIs, especially by the large number of edits by User:22.214.171.124. He wrongfully removed pertinent information and added his own POV to it. tsk... tsk... tsk... 05:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong - but aren't you the one that just removed the Robbie Williams reference from the Seroxat page? I have to ask why did you do that? It's simple matter of fact that he's checked himself into rehab... is the reference to "seroxat addiction" that you don't like? One might argue that the bias is with you rather than 126.96.36.199.
- Please sign your comments. Use ~~~~. I removed it simply because it had no source. (WP:BLP). I see you've re-added it, but even so I don't think it belong. I don't think we should add every famous person troubles with drugs on the drug's page. On the person's article, fine. By looking at your edits, I can see you spreading your agenda around, like in Panorama (TV series). The show has been around for some 50 years and the bit you added is somehow extra special? Removed. 188.8.131.52 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello- is there any way to substantiate this "Also, SSRIs may protect against neurotoxicity caused by other compounds (for instance MDMA and Fenfluramine)." It appears to be reckless and unfounded. As a physician, I can think of no mechanism that would explain this, and while I might be wrong, I think some scientific grounds must be provided before dangerously suggesting that SSRI compunds might help protect from some vague threat of MDMA induced brain damage. What kind of damage? How would it protect you? Is there any scicnce here at all?
We were told by our attending psychiatrist that the suicide risk increase was due to the fact that SSRIs improve energy levels before affecting mood. This creates a situation where a depressive patient, previously suffering from anhedonism (right term?), now has the motivation and energy to attempt suicide. I have heard this multiple times during my education. If this concept is present and I missed it, please forgive me. If it is not, and someone else knows of this theory/claim, could it be researched and added? Quite a common thought when talking about SSRIs. --Morgan Taylor, MS4, Oklahoma University College of Medicine, 405-255-3524, firstname.lastname@example.org.
I just read through thr article and made quite a few changes - not only is a lot of it biased, there were many innacuracies too. Also in side effects it would be nice to have rough percentages of people that suffer - at the moment many are listed but most are infrequent, whereas others (nausea, sexual dysfuntion are very common. There is also a general amateurishness about a lot of the article, instead of referencing individuals, it would be nice to see a lot more clinical evidence, of which double blinded RCTs are the gold standard. There was also a comment about the rest of the world copying the FDA, which is wrong on so many levels. Ant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This article seems seriously biased against SSRIs, and against antidepressants in general. The overall impression one gets from reading this article is that SSRIs are extremely controversial, dangerous drugs that cause more damage than they fix, or, at least, that this is in some way a mainstream point of view. I'm pretty sure this isn't the prevailing opinion in the psychiatric community. Actually, I'm positive. Please edit this article to better reflect widely-accepted medical opinion, someone? 220.127.116.11 02:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The overall impression of opposition to SSRI's becoming a mainstream point of view is correct. NewBostonTeaParty 04:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It is? Evidence?
Virginia Tech. Columbine. Yates. Pittman. Kinkel. The studies I list at the bottom of this page, and many others. The post-Christmas Day shootings in Boston. The murder suicides that pop up almost daily in every newspaper in the country. This list continues ad infinitum, ad nauseum, and fortunately, people are starting to realize what's been causing the exponential increase in violence in this country over the last few decades; it's the drugs - even if you don't believe it. User:NewBostonTeaParty|NewBostonTeaParty]] (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
St John's Wort = MAOI?
I have tagged this claim. It is not mentioned in the wikipedia articles for either St John's Wort or MAOI. A quick google search suggests that this is doubtful as a result of new studies that seem to disprove this. Fortnern 22:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There have been incidents of Serotonin Syndrome when taking St John's Wort while taking an SSRI, and it looks like St John's was the culprit. I don't have a reference for this info, but it's probably good since my gf is a psychiatrist and I read her journals. Rlcuda 13:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- weak MAOI activity
- extract exerts MAOI . . .
- At the moment the sources are not clear, perhaps this needs to be made clearer in the article. Dan Beale 12:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The serotonin syndrome is a side effect of serotonin reuptake inhibitors, St. Johns or not, so how is St. John supposed to be any, "culprit" -? Oh right - nevermind. (shakes head) NewBostonTeaParty 04:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Serotonin syndrome isn't a side-effect of normal usage of SSRIs. As you probably know there should be a careful wash-out and wash-in period if someone changes between an SSRI and an MAOI. Some people seem to think that St John's Wort is herbal and thus completely safe, but that's not true. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
A studie that maybe is relevant in this discussion
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/archive/1549-1676/2/12/pdf/10.1371_journal.pmed.0020392-S.pdf Jaccmon 21:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree with alot of what's in that, but again: First we had total non-acknowledgement by establishment. Then (and ongoingly now) we have all these documents that compare invalid claims and non-acknowledgement to what the truth actually is, only to leave the reader (time and time again) with a question, in the style of a Ric Romero local news preview or something, rather than a definitive conclusion which serves those seeking information they can depend on to be accurate. These days, there should be NO QUESTION serotonin is a vasoconstrictor. There should be NO QUESTION that because of this, SSRI theory is exposed as an extremely harmful fraud. There should be NO QUESTION. Sanjay Gupta co-authored a 1980 med journal article warning of Prozac's effects, yet in 2002, when it surfaces there is a profound breast cancer risk with Paxil (likely due to the compound it's synthesized from), he's standing up on CNN, saying, "If you're taking the drug, it is important you stay on your medication." With, of course, no mention of tapering off, if you decide you don't want to take the risk. Even if the mal-effects of SSRI's were removed from this equation, "Dr. Gupta" has caused his viewers (via a major media outlet) to hold two sharply contrasting ideas in mind, about a single thing of much importance to the viewer - which is harmful enough in and of itself. Re-introduce the mal-effects of the SSRI drug on the mind weighing these sharply contrasting ideas, and your remainder is likely a very distraught individual. This is what I mean by, "Orwellian". This is the calculated misuse of the language, to grotesquely corrupt ends, and should this continue? We will lose more and more Phil Hartmans, and we will have more and more Cho Sueng Huis. Mark my words.NewBostonTeaParty 22:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
criticism statement not supported by cited source
The source cited for the statement Several studies have been published demonstrating that SSRIs do not significantly outperform placebos at reducing depressive symptoms. These articles confirm..., is a single study - a meta-analysis, not "Several studies", and is identified as a "controversial one" in the editor's note accompanying it. so i don't think it supports the "Several" and "These articles" statement and i intend to change the text accordingly. Doldrums 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I feel that this link would contribute positively to the information contained in this article. It took me countless hours to research, compile, and write, not to mention months of living through the problem, so I prefer to retain the intellectual property rights over this page, and would like it referenced when cited.
Also, I must confess that I'm pretty peeved that I have to go through some bureaucratic song-and-dance to get this link on this article. Had Gaff actually read the page I think that he would have seen the uniqueness, conciseness, and originality of the content. Sure, I own the copyright to it, so I want to profit from it. BUT that doesn't mean that the website is commercial or spam, or void of highly useful and uniquely compiled information. Textbooks aren't free either.
18.104.22.168 13:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs reliable, verifiable information. Here's a quote from the first paragraph of the website:
and very likely to cause sexual dysfunction in men who do not have premature ejaculation. The drug manufacturers report that less than 10% of patients taking SSRI's will have sexual problems, but in my discussions with others and from my own personal experience the actual percentage is 70% plus.
This shows the problem of using that website. Wikipedia cannot use something that is true but not sourced. Wikipedia certainly can't use something that isn't true and isn't sourced. Dan Beale 12:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Mixing With MDMA
is mixing an SSRI with MDMA (ecstasy) dangerous or wil it hange the experience
Presuming this is a question, it appears the answer was setting in, in mid-sentence; has anyone checked to see if that guy is okay? I would imagine such a mixture is extremely dangerous, and in terms of neurochemistry, probably not unlike tossing a bucket of gasoline onto a circuit breaker; highly NOT recommended. (See, "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun") NewBostonTeaParty 03:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
St. John's Wort
is it a Selective SRI? i wasn't able to find a source saying it was, while  (page 326) says the action of SJW extract involves "reuptake inhibition of serotonin, noradrenaline and dopamine" - doesn't appear to be selective. Doldrums 12:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I understood St John's Wort to be a mild MAOI, thus the warnings to avoid taking it with an SSRI. I'll have a look for links now. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, the data isn't clear. There seems to be weak MAOI like activity in vitro. Not sure about in humans. Certainly it's worth mention SJW here, as some people may want to combine SJW with a med, and that's probably a bad idea.
- St. John's Wort: A Systematic Review of Adverse Effects and Drug Interactions for the Consultation Psychiatrist
- It has been made a prescription-only drug in the Irish Republic because of anxieties about its possible similarity to MAOI antidepressants
- I'm sure there are better research than I've found. Certainly Google Schoolars gives better information than Google Web searching. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- The main problem with CJW is not that is is a MAOI (which it is not) but that it it accelerates the metabolism of a great many drugs. This happens because it increases production of cytochrome enzymes by acting as an agonist of pregnaneX receptors. Because of the increased metabolism, SJW may actually decrease the action of antidepressants, antibiotics, contraceptives and just about any other drug metabolized through the cytochromes it induces. As for the mechanism of the SJW antidepressive action, I remember reading a long time ago that the active principle of CJW hyperforin is a non-selective monoamine uptake inhibitor (see the SJW article in WP). I seem to remember that it acts not through the monoamine tranporters (like many other antidepressants) but through inhibition of some Na ion channels. SJW and venlafaxine should be struck out from the listPaul gene 13:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Venlafaxine isn't in the list of SSRIs, it's in the list of "other anti depressants". The SNRIs (and the NASAs etc etc) are closer to the SSRIs than they are to the tri-cyclics or the MAOIs, thus listing here isn't too bad. So long as they're not listed as SSRIs and the distinction of them not being SSRIs is made clear. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Connection with dark chocolate?
A friend of mine was saying that dark chocolate helps fight depression due to selective serotonin uptake inhibition. She didn't know what that meant, though, but she was all for it. I found some such indication in an article about oxalates at something called reciprocalnet.org. There's no sniff of such in this Wikipedia article, though. Are there any experts monitoring this discussion page who can comment knowledgeably? If the idea is out there but controversial, a mention of such would be appropriate in the article. Kkken 07:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's nonsense. Cacycle 02:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Paxil and Seroxat suits are covered in Paroxetine. While the Prozac affair is not detailed in Fluoxetine, it lists Eli Lilly Controversy, which covers this in great detail, in the See Also section. the SSRI article is not the place to give detailed accounts of lawsuits, controversies, etc. involving individual drugs, especially those that have nothing to do with the drug being an SSRI. those are best discussed in the relevant drug's article. controversies which touch upon SSRIs as a class are, of course, in order. Doldrums 07:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The entire legal system and the Constitution are being - and have been - subverted, to a degree that long ago satisfied grounds for war - that's right - and speaking of war, anyone prudent looking into these issues, will be easily able to see: The same folks programming our acceptance of SSRIs (Republican and Democrat alike), and the policies which support them, are (in large part) the same folks responsible for the Iraq war currently being reported on by the major media. Fancy that. NewBostonTeaParty (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Serotonin: Vasoconstrictor or vasodilator?
I believe this needs to be clarified in the article. In its current state (00:01, 18 October 2007) it looks like it has been vandalized but is also partially correct...
I'll ask wiki admin to please forgive my outburst (and my method, if I'm still doing this incorrectly); I am the aforementioned "vandal" of the SSRI page on 10/18, and have since taken the time to register and get a username (NewBostonTeaParty) - specifically to address the issue of serotonin definition as, "vasoconstrictor". The assertions serotonin "causes vasodialation in healthy people", (as well as a number of other related assertions which subsequently fall like dominoes) are typical, but have been cleanly debunked, although the subject is so far over the heads of most people (and evidently, many doctors), there is yet to be a collective acknowledgement of this fact, or the seriousness of it’s implications. My chief source for this information is (after sifting halls of other medical documents that didn't provide an answer) The Merriam Webster Online's definition of serotonin; while it is defined as a neurotransmitter, it is also defined (in the same entry) as "a powerful vasoconstrictor". Other sources I've found indicate at least one form of serotonin being used in the 1940's, by local injection, to curtail pregnancy-related bleeding. This is most emphatically NOT a substance people need to cause their brains and bodies (and conscience neuromechanisms - which thrive on oxygen carried by vessels) to stockpile, by way of taking a drug designed to cause such action. Furthermore, with serotonin as a vasoconstrictor having been omitted from the popular definition/catchphrase, a mass deception (on a scale never seen before in the U.S.) has taken place, and many people have been harmed - most not understanding how or why; when people began calling regulators and industry (and the courts) to task on this as a marketing issue in the past, regulators and industry (and the courts) have elected to simply change the, "wording", continue to hope the issue remains tidily under the rug, and no fortunes are lost. Serotonin is, in fact, a vasoconstrictor - and that, my friends at Wiki, puts the "tea" (serotonin reuptake inhibitors) soundly into the harbor with a splash that ought to be most embarrassing to every aspect of the mental health and healthcare industries, and the agencies that regulate them. I take issue with the current re-edit of the page, because it leaves the question open, saying, "These people agree, and these people disagree", giving the reader a menu, by which to choose between information and disinformation. It is my hope someone there will make a responsible call to define - not by a technique I recognize as Orwellian - but by truth, and what is true. A LOT of people have been seriously harmed, and currently, these SSRI drugs are the only FDA approved treatment for PTSD, and legions of our veterans are taking them. I take that seriously. This issue of serotonin definition exposes just how much of a mistake that FDA approval has been, while still other documents show there were severe risks FDA knew about early on. Therein lie other very serious doubts and questions. For badly needed change to occur, it is essential this issue be defined, and it's implications understood. I recognize this, and in vandalizing the venerable Wiki, I was simply doing a job I am bound by conscience to do, and MAKE PEOPLE AWARE. The investment portfolios and research grants can fall where they may. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewBostonTeaParty (talk • contribs) 15:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Addendum/Examples of Early Indicators:
Paroxetine Induced Psychotic Mania, Christensen, U-FL/Gainesville, JAPA, 1993. Severe Psychiatric Symptoms Associated with Paroxetine Withdrawl, Bethesda, MD,The Lancet, 1993. NewBostonTeaParty 04:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... - It seems I've found this in what you've posted - please read:
"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation."
"Unverifiable speculation" has become policy (which drives other bad policies), and (uh,) this has been (and still is) causing alot of health problems, random violence and death, so you might have me nailed on the "advocacy" citation, but I believe that's all... Well taken. NewBostonTeaParty 05:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- ZOMG!!! ATP is a vasoconstrictor too!!! Let's make sure to educate people about the dangers of oxidative phosphorylation. Skinwalker 23:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I love you. NewBostonTeaParty 05:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Aniscoria (The Side Effect Indicating Real Imbalance)
Anyone? NewBostonTeaParty 05:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Aniscoria (which someone has deleted from the list of SSRI side effects), is the condition of having one pupil become larger than the other. That is how the condition is defined; nothing more, and nothing less. The catch is, this condition is merely an indication of a deeper imbalance, within the systems that make up involuntary eye regulation by the brain... which (on SSRI's) is being "selectively" starved of oxygen, because serotonin is a powerful vasoconstrictor... so let's see... here's two... and here's another two....H m m m .... I believe we have four. NewBostonTeaParty 22:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
NPOV: Cardiovascular side effects
I have absolutely no expertise in this area, but the article makes SSRIs sound extremely dangerous for the heart. In contrast, the given reference starts with saying:
- Given the huge number of patients exposed to SSRIs, there are extremely few reported cases of associated cardiac arrhythmias, and even in these cases there is difficulty defining a causative relationship.
I know that WP is not censored, but considering that SSRIs are prescribed for disorders that involve excessive worrying, I think it's irresponsible to play up such a rare side effect.
- Good pickup. That paragraph definitely needed some work. I've moved things around, to make them more in line with the actual sources which repeatedly emphasize the rarity of cardiovascular side effects. I've also axed a lot of the speculative stuff (which was not supported by the cited source) on heart attacks. I removed the tag - hopefully that's OK. Let me know what you think. MastCell Talk 00:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, the PRECISE mechanism of action of SSRIs, taking into account all the feedback mechanisms, is something which is not fully understood. Therefore, it would seem especially desirable to cite the numerous statements of fact in the pharmacodynamics section. As it stands, there are ZERO citations. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping to find some information here on the SSRI "poop-out" phenomenon. AKA "Prozac poop-out" If there is any information on this, please could it be added to the article?
- If we can find reliable sources it seems to be a useful set of information to be added. A quick Google search found this webpage. It's not suitable for reference in the article, but it gives some useful search terms. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)