What do you think of Paxil? How can i stop taking this terrible drug?

[Bamspeedy]

Xannik: staving off an orgasm is pretty well a blessing when you're younger. Nobody wants a five second wonder.

There are different types of sexual dysfunction. Besides the 'premature' problem, there can also be the problem of being 'soft', which the lady certainly won't like either.

Edit: Sure, of all the posts, this one has to be the first on a new page, when normally for any other post, I get the last one on the page .

 

[Brighteye]

there is no scientific reason to claim anything like that. While chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy is not curing or helping everyone there is a host of proven positive effects of those treatments (take testicular cancer which is cured in most cases nowadays and was lethal in all cases 50 years ago, or take a lot of leukemias where survival is increased a lot due to treatment), there still are too many instances where chemotherapy/radiotherapy does not help but to claim it is ineffective is nonsense.

Found it. I misremembered the article: it's about chemotherapy only.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15630849&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

 

[ori]

Found it. I misremembered the article: it's about chemotherapy only.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15630849&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

It really was a pain to track down the article you cited, but here it is. Now for the article itself:

They only look at 5-year survival and regard chemotherapy as effective only if it increases 5-year survival in adults. My favourite is their looking for "brain" malignancies where they dismiss the results, because no 5-year survival rate increase could be detected. Now this is not surprising, given that in glioblastoma and astrocytoma grade 3 (the most common brain malignancies in adults) mean survival was below 1 year for glioblastoma and 2-3 years for astrocytoma ten years ago and now is at about 2 years and 3-4 years respectively. Patients still do not reach 5 year survival, but have on average gained more then a year, due to : radiochemotherapy (thus this increase is dismissed because a) it is below the 5-year range and b) because it is not chemotherapy alone.
The same holds true for pancreas carcinoma, also dismissed here, since almost all patients die before year 5, but still adjuvant chemotherapy (combined with surgery) has increased survival by a couple of months on average. Leukemias are dismissed for being complex in this study.
Thus the areas where chemotherapy alone (non-solid malignancies) has the best results are dismissed in this study.
Also the study explicitly does not look at combined results of modern treatment (radiochemotherapy or newer treatments using immunological or genetic approaches).
And another also : they did not look at effects of chemotherapy in palliative and non-curative situations, thus ignoring the majority of cases were chemotherapy is used stand-alone.
Now I do not dispute that chemotherapy is not a good choice in every circumstance or for every cancer. In fact for most solid cancers chemotherapy alone is seldom used nowadays, when aiming for a cure. In most of those cases chemotherapy is either started prior to surgery (neo-adjuvant - another case they did not look at) or combined with radiation. And of course there are still a lot of cases where chemotherapy has no net positive effect or is even increasing suffering due to its side effects and the fact that part of the remaining life is wasted in a hospital ward. Still I stand to my point that chemotherapy and radiotherapy in general have enough scientific standing to dismiss the claim made by you earlier:

that chemotherapy and radiotherapy are so near to ineffective that they cause more harm than good.

 

[tossi]

I suggest switching to Homeopathy. I do not know how it works, but it works fine with me. I think the trick is that I simply don't poision myself with drugs.

 

[Brighteye]

...there's a growing body of doctors who do think that chemotherapy and radiotherapy are so near to ineffective that they cause more harm than good.

Is it really that hard to quote me properly?

It really was a pain to track down the article you cited, but here it is. Now for the article itself:

They only look at 5-year survival ...And of course there are still a lot of cases where chemotherapy has no net positive effect or is even increasing suffering due to its side effects and the fact that part of the remaining life is wasted in a hospital ward. Still I stand to my point that chemotherapy and radiotherapy in general have enough scientific standing to dismiss the claim made by you earlier:
Thus the areas where chemotherapy alone (non-solid malignancies) has the best results are dismissed in this study.
Also the study explicitly does not look at combined results of modern treatment (radiochemotherapy or newer treatments using immunological or genetic approaches).
And another also : they did not look at effects of chemotherapy in palliative and non-curative situations, thus ignoring the majority of cases were chemotherapy is used stand-alone.

I don't know much about where you'd give chemotherapy, combine it with radiotherapy or give it palliatively, but given your admission that it increases suffering with side effects, I'd imagine that palliative care had little use for it.
Of course my previous statement was wrong; as I said, I misremembered the thrust of the article.
There's still a few doctors (apparently) who are suspicious of chemotherapy as a whole, whether or not this article addresses the whole issue. This was the one I got a look at. If I wanted to make the statement my own, I'd do some more reading about it, and then not credit the opinion to others whom I have heard discussing the issue.

 

[ori]

I did not want to quote improperly, sorry for that impression, I just abridged it, with no ill intend...

(...)
I don't know much about where you'd give chemotherapy, combine it with radiotherapy or give it palliatively, but given your admission that it increases suffering with side effects, I'd imagine that palliative care had little use for it.
(...)

Actually palliative chemotherapy has huge applications, since fast growing parts of the tumor while not usually causing death can cause severe symptoms, like shortness of breath or pain and chemotherapy can in these cases alleviate those symptoms without affecting life expectancy.
Now with regards to suffering induced by chemotherapy: chemotherapy can (and often does) have severe side effects and can cause death. Therefore it is not admissible to use it just because a patient has cancer. The risks involved in chemotherapy have to be weighed against the potential benefits both in terms of gained life expectancy and quality of life, there are a lot of cases were this leads to the justified use of chemotherapy +/- other treatment, and there are a lot of instances were chemotherapy should not be used. Of course this does not mean that it is not in all of these cases since both the patient (and his family) and many doctors (and nurses) often cannot cope with the idea of "best supportive care" and not tackling the tumor itself when it best supportive care would be the best treatment.

 

[Brighteye]

Do patients demand chemotherapy then, against recommendations? Doesn't this cost a lot of money?

 

[Tykinruoka]

Your doctor/psychiatrist knows best, ask him/her. I've used a drug called Cipramil (citalopram) for 6 years and there hasn't been side effects of any kind.

 

[Goonie]

Been a short day then? I dont accept people can be depressed in such a way that drugs cure them, you merely mask the symptoms.

Also, way to many teens seem to think they are depressed etc, get over it. A hell of a lot people have it worse and get on with it, whats so wrong with your life?

You do not understand how the brain and it's complex chemical balances work.

 

[LucyDuke]

I suggest switching to Homeopathy. I do not know how it works, but it works fine with me. I think the trick is that I simply don't poision myself with drugs.

You should learn how it works. The trick is that you simply think it works. The active ingredient is the labeling.

 

[ori]

Do patients demand chemotherapy then, against recommendations? Doesn't this cost a lot of money?

Actually it is often a process in which both patients and doctors meet at some sort of chemotherapy. This is because a lot of doctors still understand "I cannot cure this patient" as "I can do nothing for this patient", thus they will go out of their way to do "something" even if there is little or no hope for it to succeed. At the same time patients whom you tell that they will die from their disease often will not be content with the offer of pain relief and relief of other potential symptoms, especially if they are not yet feeling any, or severe symptoms. They will often ask, implore, even demand for "something" to be done. Thus they meet at "something" and this often is a futile therapy. And yes it is expensive (though how much depends on the regime used).
This is of course not what should be done, but in reality you cannot say chemotherapy will definitely not cure this patient, and both doctors and patients sometimes cling to chances of 1% if they are desperate.

 

[Neomega]

I have been involved in a flame war or two about kids on anti-depressants.

I think depression is mental, not physical. many times, life changes will solve a problem a pill never can, and, depression, sadness, grief, etc... is a way your mind is telling you you need to change the way you are living.


very well balanced documentary here on the issue:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/medicating/watch/

 

[Bill3000]

I think depression is mental, not physical.

And mental processes are nothing more than biochemical processes, which are ultimately physical.

 

[Neomega]

And mental processes are nothing more than biochemical processes, which are ultimately physical.

Yes, but depression medications can decrease sex drive, or increase weight, or give night sweats... or a whole host of side effects, including encourage suicidal tendencies...which do not help the situation


And I believe in free will... which is another topic.

 

[Kozmos]

Anti-depressives are simply a bandage to stop the bleeding, one which you must constantly renew. Stopping the bleeding is far more efficient and healthier.

 

[Narz]

Well said Cleric, you are wise beyond your years

 

[Kozmos]

That is God or Lord to you mere mortal peon. Alternatively, you may address me as Kozmos, the King of the Universe.

 

[Syterion]

I love how you people think you can alter your brain chemistry by thinking hard enough. I don't know how effective a placebo is for depression, but the fact that things like Prozac are on the market means they were proven better than placebos and therefore DO TO YOUR BRAIN WHAT YOU CANNOT.

Same thing with homeopathy. If you believe that reducing the amount of a drug in water makes it more powerful (which is stupid in and of itself), then only that belief will make you better. I guarantee a placebo will be just as effective.

 

[Neomega]

I love how you people think you can alter your brain chemistry by thinking hard enough. I don't know how effective a placebo is for depression, but the fact that things like Prozac are on the market means they were proven better than placebos and therefore DO TO YOUR BRAIN WHAT YOU CANNOT.

Same thing with homeopathy. If you believe that reducing the amount of a drug in water makes it more powerful (which is stupid in and of itself), then only that belief will make you better. I guarantee a placebo will be just as effective.

People hooked on cocaine will claim to be happier also... especially if it is free.

 

[Shylock]

See a doctor they'd know. Tell them achieving an orgasm is of prime importance, so no orgasm inhibitors.

I'm beginning to figure out why he is so depressed.