# Risks of antidepressants and street drugs



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

To all concerned,

I was reading some studies today and I thought I should bring some of them to light in the forum since so many people here are on antidepressants. In Italy last year, a study was conducted which concluded that the use of amphetamines, cocaine, or ecstasy could damage a person's DNA. In other words, they were at an increased risk of cancer. I've known this for a while. What I didn't know was that a Canadian study done in 2002 showed a direct link between increased breast cancer and the use of Paxil and Tricyclic medications, especially Anafranil. Prozac and Zoloft were shown to have no ill effects. In effect, these substances damage one's DNA in a similair fashion to street drugs.

Also, anyone on antipsychotics who is experiencing low blood sugar, please realize that it is more than likely from your medication. A bipolar friend of mine is having severe problems with hypoglycemia because of Geodone and Zyprexa. Her psychiatrist seems to think that she has Type 2 diabetes...I'm astounded by his ignorance. In closing, I dont mean to alarm anyone here, but I've meant to post some things to this effect for a while. You dont necessarily need to discontinue Paxil or Anafranil if you are on it, but taking an antioxidant wouldnt hurt either ( like vitamin C or E). In the end, its just best to be informed.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2004)

so your saying me taking Paxil is damaging my DNA???


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Homeskooled,
Do you have the titles, authors, journals for these studies? Are there abstracts on PubMed, etc.?

Thanks,
It's always something!
D :shock:


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

A while back I read an article in the New York times that claimed that the new anti-psychotics can possibly cause diabetes.

Joe


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Dreamer, 
Here is the info I have on the two studies. The Italian study was published in 2003 by Giorgio Bronzetti of the biochemistry department of the CNR, the Italian equivalent of the NIH. The second study done on antidepressants in Canada was done in 2002 and was published in the British Journal of Cancer, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, American Journal of Epidemioligy. I also did a google search and found that the site Prozac Truth has several other studies relating to this topic. To be honest, I dont know what to think of this site's integrity, since it almost seems to me to be a front for selling glutathione. For that matter, I dont even know what the efficacy or uses of glutathione are. Let me know what you think.

The articles and papers they quote are: (1) Journal Clinical Epidemiology 1995 Nov;48(11) : 1407-12
(2) American Journal Epidemiology 1999 Oct 15;150 (8) :861-8
(3) Eur J. Surg Oncol 2001 Jun;27 (4) : 429-31
(4) Am J Epidemiology 2000 May 15;151 (10) ;951-7

As for diabetes, I beleive there are references in the PDR about atypical antipsychotics inducing diabetes, and I know that there are several class action lawsuits against the makers of Geodone and Seroquel for people with permanent pancreatic damage.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Soulbro, 
In response to your question, yes, I'm saying it COULD be damaging your DNA. I dont know how absolute this study was. It seems to be from a peer reviewed source. Its probably not the healthiest substance in the world to be ingesting, but then again, neither is red meat. Maybe Zoloft is a better alternative, or taking an antioxidant. I dont know what to think. I would think the FDA would have looked into these foreign studies by now, but sometimes, they are far behind the rest of the world.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2004)

Homeskooled, are all trizyclics associated with DNA damage?

Does it have to do with dosage?

Was the study about breast cancer only or all types of cancer?


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2004)

This is not good, I have enough shit to worry about, i don't need to be worrying that A MEDICINE THATS SUPPOSE TO HELP ME CAN POSSIBLY BE DAMAGING TO MY DNA AND EVEN CANCEROUS??????????!!!!! :shock:

Im trying to get myself healthy ( mentally) and i don't need to be worrying about future physical problems because of Paxil.

So more clarification on this matter would be appreciated.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Thanks HS,
Also SoulBro, I will look into this further, and have an appointment at the University of Michigan Neuropsych Department in November and will ask about this.

One thing. I have been on one med or another since 1974... yes, Nineteen seventy-four. I started with Imipramine (an old tricyclic). I'm currently on Celexa, Lamictal, Klonpin, and Notriptyline (another tricyclic).

I have a history of breast cancer -- my mother had it (was fine) and my Aunt had it (my mother's sister) and passed away from it in 1974.

I've got to tell you, I agree we have plenty to be concerned about re: ANY medication we take. I'm not thrilled to hear about Vioxx, etc.

For me, my combination is what keeps me from being completely non-functioning. And I feel to a great extent my life has been taken away from me by DP/DR. Again, for me, the BENEFIT outweighs the RISK for me. I have made this choice.

I see as I get older, I may not be able to tolerate all the meds I'm on. I'm troulbed by this, but I will be dealing with a readjustment of meds this Fall.

Don't drive yourself crazy about this. For me, and I speak only for myself, I wouldn't be here if it weren't for my meds combo, and at this late date I am afraid of changing it. For me, bad DP/DR is unbearable, and my chronic DP/DR enrages me, but these are the cards I was dealt.

And we can't jump to conclusions. Tricyclics and SRIs have been around for some time. I would think there would be more research into this (as there was into Vioxx, and a number of other meds recently).

I don't like the pharmaceutical companies, am pissed at psychiatrists, but I'd say, first focus on your present state -- getting better.

And if you're informed, you can decide.

I appreciate Homeskooled's research. Time will tell.

Also the term "changing one's DNA" -- that sounds rather dramatic. I think what Homeskooked means is that cancer cells mutate, and perhaps some psych drugs cause mutations in some people vs. others.

We have cancer cells in our bodies all the time. They come and go. Cells change and grow and our body destroys any "aberrant" cells -- this is very simple. I wouldn't worry about this now. We have no control over it. The choice is, if you wish to go Rx drug free, you can make an informed decision.

Take Care,
D
We really don't know the long-term effects of a lot of medications. For everyone, meds for arthritis pain, to heart medication, to migraine meds, etc., etc. can cause serious side effects. Again it is risk/benefit. Not a pleasant choice, but the one we have right now.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

P.S.

Forgot to say, I read recently that antioxident supplements may help reduce the chance of cancer. However, *eating a diet high in fruits and vegetables -- complex carbs may be more beneficial. That is the truly "natural" way of getting antioxidants into our bodies.*

A healthy diet ... as healthy as possible, can never hurt, and can only help in the long run.

We also know the obvious -- that Rec drugs are obviously destructive, or have the potential to be so. The chance of that as far as I'm concerned is just as troubling, yet many here *(and I make NO judgement)* seem comfortable experimenting with these drugs. In the short run, and perhaps the long run, I'd say we know more about the certain danger of drugs such as Ecstasy for instance.

All we can do is stay as healthy as possible. Diet, exercise, quit smoking and experimenting with rec drugs.


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2004)

this post is really making me want to get off Meds


----------



## lone wolf (Aug 10, 2004)

I agree with SoulBrotha. Indeed every detailed information about meds damaging the person who is taking them makes me nervous. I stopped smoking cigarrettes for health risks, but I can't stop my meds that easily, at least while I'm studying, as I have to stay mentally healthy for uni. So I am going to take Zyprexa and Remeron for at least next two years' time, no matter what people say about brain damage and other health risks.

Actually, if these meds were too dangerous why anybody would be prescribing them to people in the first case? I hope five years' on Zyprexa ("the drug that causes brain damage and blah blah") and Remeron (I don't know yet its dangers, but there must be some too, if I guess right) won't cause future problems to my health. Indeed without those two meds I probably wouldn't be alive anymore - or would be permanently on the mental ward in the mildest case - so who cares if there are some risks.

I'm pretty sure not everyone taking antipsychotics will end up being brain damaged, nor everyone will develop cancer, even those who are smoking cigarrettes constantly. So I try to stay calm, while taking my daily meds... I have decided to stop my medication slowly after I have finished my studies, but meanwhile I need to be able to function. So I will take the meds, no matter what. :shock:


----------



## lone wolf (Aug 10, 2004)

Dreamer said:


> For me, my combination is what keeps me from being completely non-functioning. And I feel to a great extent my life has been taken away from me by DP/DR. Again, for me, the BENEFIT outweighs the RISK for me. I have made this choice.


Oh, Dreamer, you said The Thing it already while I was writing my previous post. I agree 100 %. Indeed reading your post made me feel not that nervous, as I see the question of risk vs. benefit too. Sometimes I just can't stand all the debate on the health risks caused by psychiatric meds, as I need to take my med combo for being able to function in this world at the moment.


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2004)

Dreamer, how old are you?


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

I lost both my mental and physical health from psychiatric drugs. After coming off of them I had seizures, high blood pressure, blurry vision, and a ton of psychiatric problems . All of these problems are now gone but its taken 2 full years to recover. In my 20's I used my share of recreational substances and when I quit, I had only a slight rise in anxiety and no physical health problems. If I ever decide to take a drug again I think Ill stick with the recreational variety..lol

Joe


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

I recently read an article about ecstasy which listed some of the other ingredients sometimes put in ecstasy. We know MDMA, or "molly" is the pure form of ecstasy. I knew sometimes ecstasy manufacturers put bits of heroin, speed, ketamine, and miscellaneous stimulants. However, some of the less clean ecstasy can be a lot like methamphetamine, and can contain stuff like battery acid and floor cleaner. To think I used to take this stuff blows my mind.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

I said:


> Dreamer, how old are you?


Lord have mercy I will be 46 on 12/2!!!!

If anything, I am testament to the fact that the experimenting with meds over the years hasn't damaged my brain yet. *EDIT: Note I have NEVER taken a rec drug in my life, except a bit of alcohol. Not even one toke of a joint.*

I also get yearly liver function tests/actually full blook workups with my full physical. I get an EKG to be sure there is no heart damage. I have been doing fine. I also get very few side effects.

In the 1980s I briefly tried 2 anti-psychotics (Stellazine and something else). They made my DP/DR go through the roof. That, along with the fact that I'm most leery of neuroleptics, keeps me from looking into that option. I hope in time... perhaps not in my lifetime but for you younger folk here, there will be a drug or certain treatment for DP/DR.

Anyway, despite DP/DR, depression and anxiety (insidious in childhood) then chronic from late high-school onwards ... I have a BA and an MA, I have been able to work on and off, and am getting back into my mental health advocacy. I hope to speak about DP, and the misunderstandings about it, to a NAMI General Meeting at some point. Perhaps I can get Dr. Simeon to do the same at the next NAMI convention.

http://www.nami.org

At any rate, in 1975 when I was first put in Imipramine, I was 15 years old. I was alone/afraid, my mother was abusive and not supporting, my father wasn't there for me. I had no choices. Over the years I've learned as I've experienced the changes in the psychiatric system. There was no internet when I was 15 and my mother, a shrink, made me "keep my problems secret, even my parents' divorce." It's taken me a long time to have faith in my own decisions.

Have faith in yours.
And good for all who quit smoking, eat healthy, exercise (so hard for me). We control what we can control. What else can we do.

Best,
D


----------



## lone wolf (Aug 10, 2004)

dakotajo said:


> If I ever decide to take a drug again I think Ill stick with the recreational variety..lol


LOL Joe! :lol: Oh, I just have to admit I am one of those who use MDMA (Ecstasy), though just once a year. But I am much more worried about taking Zyprexa and Remeron than Ecstasy, as those first two drugs I have to take daily - compared to my MDMA use I guess it has much more impact to my health. I am not that worried about getting cancer by taking Ecstasy only once a year...


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

gimpy34 said:


> I recently read an article about ecstasy which listed some of the other ingredients sometimes put in ecstasy. We know MDMA, or "molly" is the pure form of ecstasy. I knew sometimes ecstasy manufacturers put bits of heroin, speed, ketamine, and miscellaneous stimulants. However, some of the less clean ecstasy can be a lot like methamphetamine, and *can contain stuff like battery acid and floor cleaner.* To think I used to take this stuff blows my mind.


Dear Gimpy,
Yup, this was happening back in the 1970s. My mother worked in a psych E.R. She'd be called in at 3am re: some patient that had symptoms all over the map and no one could figure them out. Schizophrenia? Psychotic episode of some kind? Seizures, etc. When they'd do a tox screen on the individual it would come back with street drugs cut with everything from FLOUR to Comet Cleanser.

The one good thing I can say is prescribed meds ARE screened by the FDA. At minimum, you know what you're getting. Again, the rest is out of one's control. And we all react differently.

Individuals with severely disabling IBS and arthritis want certain banned drugs BACK on the market. Without them, they can't function. And hopsitals are sort of dangerous places .. you can get a horrible infection just going in to have a broken leg taken care of.

I'm coming to some sense of peace knowing *There are many things I CAN control, and many things I CAN'T control and I'll drive myself over the edge if I focus on the negative, which I do all the time anyway.*

Best,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Ninnu said:


> dakotajo said:
> 
> 
> > If I ever decide to take a drug again I think Ill stick with the recreational variety..lol
> ...


See, this astounds me. I suppose I wouldn't be worried about cancer from taking MDMA once a year, but I'd be terrified it would put me in an intolerable DP state. We know so many people here whose DP onset happened sometimes from chronic rec drug use, or other times from a one time use. The statistics of that, just from this board, seem to be rather high for those of predisposed to DP.

I just don't understand the willingness to take THAT risk. But again, that is a risk/benefit as is taking any other drug.

Again, no judgement. But I wouldn't touch a rec drug if you paid me a BILLION dollars. No lie.


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Dreamer, 
Did you get a chance to look those studies up on Pubmed? What do you think? I would never take a rec drug since they arent made with a therapeutic purpose in mind, but I have to wonder - are these engineered drugs any safer in reality? If someone took them while not experiencing any symptoms of mental illness, would they, like many people who are smoking marijuana for the first time, walk away with feelings of unreality, flushed faces, sweaty palms, and paranoia? And would it linger with them after it was out of their systems? My guess is that, unfortunately, it would. Both MDMA and SSRIs increase the available serotonin, and the above symptoms are common for the first several weeks a person is on an SSRI. On the other hand, if one has the symptoms of a serotonin deficiency, taking one of these substances would correct it, allowing them to feel normal. Thats why its important to diagnose a disease accurately and medicate it sparingly. One of my professors said that the line between a therapy and a poison is a very thin one, and I think thats a phrase both patients and doctors could use to remember.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

In my opinion, knowing that a drug has been "tested" and stamped, "ok" by our ridiculous fda makes it no more safe. Think about how many drugs were once marketed as safe and in time they found out just the opposite. I found this out the hard way.

Joe


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

Prescription Drugs Kill More Floridians Than Illegal Drugs

For the first time in history in the State of Florida, more people died from overdoses of prescription drugs than from illegal drugs. This statistic reported in the June 8, 2002 St. Petersburg Times came from a report of the 24 medical examiners in Florida for the year 2001. The article noted that there were 939 cases where lethal levels of prescription painkillers such as OxyContin, methadone and Vicodin, or benzodiazepine drugs such as Xanax or Valium were found. The 939 cases in 2001 more than tripled the 284 cases in 2000.

Jim McDonough the Florida drug czar said the rise in prescription drug deaths shows a need for better monitoring of prescription narcotics. However this idea was rejected this year by the Florida Legislature. McDonough, director of the governor's Office of Drug Control, said the abuse of oxycodone, the main ingredient in OxyContin and numerous other painkillers, continues to be worrisome. He commented, "It's a drug abuse that came out of no place. There was an epidemic growth."

The article reported that Florida deaths related to oxycodone and its chemical cousin, hydrocodone, rose 45 percent in 2001 compared with 2000. They did note that after doctors and the public became aware of the growing death toll, those deaths dropped 14 percent during the last six months of 2001. The total number of prescription related drug overdose deaths in Florida for 2001 was 939 compared to 714 deaths due to illegal drugs in the same time frame.


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

Prescription Drugs Kill More Than Street Drugs
In April the Journal of American Medicine reported that properly prescribed legal drugs killed 106,000 Americans each year, due to toxic reactions. That's more that *twenty times* the number of Americans killed by illegal drugs, estimated at 5,212. 
"Will politicians declare a War on Medicine?" asked Libertarian Party National Chair Steve Dasbach. "Of course not. So why are we spending $17 billion on the War on Drugs and restricting civil liberties to try and solve a problem that's one-fifth as dangerous as modern medicine?

"The health consequences of illegal drugs are vastly overstated by politicians -- apparently to justify the costly government program they call the War on Drugs."


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

Malpractice-for-Profit:
Legal Drugs that Kill

By Thomas J. Moore 
WASHINGTON

(Thomas Moore is a senior fellow in health policy at the George Washington University Medical Center, and is the author of "Prescription for Disaster: The Hidden Dangers in Your Medicine Cabinet.")

Imagine a war on crime in which nobody knew how many murders occurred, or a Federal Aviation Administration that was unaware of how many airplanes had crashed. Suppose we were so casual about fatal automobile accidents that it was not even necessary to report one. That is how we monitor the risks of prescription drugs, though they account for more deaths each year than all murders, auto accidents and airplane crashes combined. It is estimated that more than 100,000 people die every year from the adverse effects of prescription drugs, and 1 million are injured so severely they require hospitalization. Many of these deaths and serious injuries could be prevented with better programs and policies to limit the dangers involved.

Many people take pills confident the Food and Drug Administration has ensured that only safe drugs reach consumers. While the FDA has a generally competent and dedicated staff, this is not what happens. The FDA's job is to make sure each new drug is tested thoroughly enough to identify its risks, and provide substantial evidence that it has medical benefits. This means approved drugs usually have their benefits celebrated in the growing flood of direct-to-consumer advertising. But they also have major risks that are inadequately monitored, often ignored by doctors and seldom understood by consumers. The leading painkillers frequently cause perforated ulcers, requiring emergency surgery and resulting in 70,000 hospitalizations a year. Digoxin, a best-selling heart drug, caused more than 200,000 hospitalizations over a seven-year period. Even the awesome power of antibiotics carries risks that must be managed. They can create conditions in which intractable intestinal infections flourish or trigger a life-threatening allergic reaction. Millions more are afflicted with moderate side effects, including rashes, insomnia, nausea, hair loss, depression and sexual dysfunction. Drugs are inherently risky, and from the FDA to the consumer's medicine cabinet, we're doing a poor job minimizing those dangers.

The problem begins at the FDA, and the priorities imposed by limited budget and congressional mandates. For years, the chief complaint was that the FDA was too slow to approve new drugs. When given additional funds collected from drug companies, the FDA responded impressively. With a 40% increase in the drug-review staff since 1993, the FDA now approves new drugs as fast or faster than in Europe. Unfortunately, the narrow focus on new drugs has made worse the already inadequate safety monitoring of drugs being taken by millions of consumers. The FDA has more than 1,500 full-time employees with duties mainly related to evaluating new drugs. However, a full-time staff of just 54 is responsible for monitoring the safety of the 5,000 prescription and over-the-counter drugs already on the market. There are more full-time federal employees in the U.S. Naval Academy laundry (a total of 107), than assigned to monitor the risks of drugs taken by millions of consumers.

To detect drug-related injuries and deaths, the FDA relies mainly on a voluntary system so widely ignored by health professionals that 99% of all adverse effects are never reported. As a result, the FDA cannot say whether deaths and serious injuries from drugs are increasing or reliably identify which drugs require greater vigilance in their use. As the diet-drug debacle with fen-phen proved, without better monitoring, people may continue to be harmed for decades before the danger is identified. We have even more serious problems in the doctor's office than at the FDA. The medical journals are filled with research that documents in horrifying detail an error-plagued system. For example, studies show that one in five elderly are prescribed at least one drug that is inappropriate or dangerous in an older population. Another revealed that 21% of all prescriptions for antibiotics were inappropriately given to combat the common cold, a virus against which these drugs are risky and ineffective. Government surveys show that more than two of three doctors fail to tell patients anything about the risks of the drug they just prescribed, despite a legal and ethical obligation to do so.

Of equal concern are the alarming number of simple medication errors in hospitals, pharmacies and doctors' offices. Common mistakes include confusing the drug name, getting the dose wrong or ignoring the results of a diagnostic test or a plainly documented drug allergy. Reported deaths from medication errors, now more than 7,000 a year, have nearly tripled in a decade's time. Yet, many fatal medication blunders undoubtedly are never reported on death certificates. While the nation's hospitals are now paying more attention to the drug-safety breakdown, the doctor's office remains dangerously error prone. Without new tools and a better system, even the most conscientious of doctors is likely to make an unacceptable number of errors. In such a poorly managed, inherently dangerous system, consumers must pay far more attention to risks and benefits of the drugs they take. Can they recognize the adverse effects of the drugs they're taking, especially the subtle ones like fatigue or mild depression? Is this one of the drugs where a small overdose is dangerous? Do consumers know when they take one of the many drugs with alarming withdrawal effects if discontinued suddenly? These are just a few of the many questions that must be answered to use drugs wisely.

While individuals can do much to reduce their risks, an effective solution requires action by a concerned nation that usually does not neglect important safety issues. For example, we spend $3 billion annually to install air bags in new automobiles, hoping to save about 300 lives a year. Responding to the fatal crash of a TWA airliner near New York, in which terrorism was not involved, the federal government launched a massive counter-terrorism effort with 200 new employees at the FAA and another 1,300 at the FBI. Yet, with 1 million severely harmed each year by prescription drugs, the FDA monitoring program has a budget of about $7 million. You don't have to be an expert to grasp how many lives we could save, and injuries we might prevent, with even a modest investment in drug safety.

SOURCE: Reprinted from the 5 April, 1998, issue of the Los Angeles Times, Orange County Edition. Reprinted in the public service of the national interest of the American people.


----------



## lone wolf (Aug 10, 2004)

Dreamer said:


> We know so many people here whose DP onset happened sometimes from chronic rec drug use, or other times from a one time use. The statistics of that, just from this board, seem to be rather high for those of predisposed to DP.
> 
> I just don't understand the willingness to take THAT risk. But again, that is a risk/benefit as is taking any other drug.


Yes, I know that some people have got DP by taking Ecstasy, you're right in this - but I also know (from the old board) that there was one person who became DP-free bc of MDMA therapy study. I started suffering from DP/DR fifteen years ago, without any drug use - not even alcohol or cigarrettes - and it was many years later I started experimenting with MDMA and LSD.

I became interested in Ecstasy, because I was aware it has been used for therapeutic purposes - so my current use of MDMA once a summer is for self-therapy. I have found I can get useful insights while on MDMA, and I use the drug as a way to know more about some questions I have in my mind. For example two summers ago I wanted to know how I could make my life more worth living without any chemicals, and I found I should start playing on violin again. Without the Ecstasy trip I'm pretty sure that idea would never have come to my mind, let alone the answers for the other questions I asked myself last summer. So I will take the risk annually, as it is worth taking bc of the benefit.

I wouldn't recommend MDMA use for self-therapeutic purposes to anybody else though, as I am aware the effects of the drug may be different for different people. So it is possible that somebody may get untolerable DP bc of Ecstasy use, and I don't want to be the one who recommends taking that risk.


----------

