my doctor wont prescribe paxil anymore

[julieannboo]

to new patients.

yay!

i went for my 6th month prescription renewal and he admitted how hard it is to get off of this junk so thats why he doesnt prescribe it to new people anymore.

it a start.

[LCrawford67]

The doctor who helped me with my tapering, stopped prescribing Paxil about 2005. He stopped not only because of w/d, but because of the weight gain it caused and the subsequent health issues associated with the weight.

[julieannboo]

it is good that some doctors take some notice of their patients then.

[tchrldy]

That is wonderful news! My dream is to influence my GP to stop rx'g paxil one day! Well done !!!

[Gracings]

Wonderful to hear! i hope to bring my doc up to speed when I go in next week. Hopefully he will recognize what your doctor is recognizing.

[miriza]

Little by little we will change things...

[andy013]

Next step is to stop all SSRIs and make therapy the primary treatment.

[markca]

My doctor said he prescribes citilopram ? now (spelling?) rather than paxil because the side effects are less. (i should have said then why did u let me sit on paxil for 10 yrs and not advise me of this..)
I said so that means you are admitting paxil has side effects. Unfortunately i was too slow in my thinking and should have zoomed straight in and asked 'tell me about your understandng of those side effects'.
He probably thinks its a little bit of this and a little bit of that.! ..clueless thats what they are just clueless.

[Bilo76]

Is getting of paxil harder compared to other ssris?

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Bilo76

Is getting of paxil harder compared to other ssris?

Nope,they're all pretty much the same. Paxil is just the one that gets the attention. We have members on pretty much every ssri on the market, and they all have a withdrawal scenario.

[deroxat2010]

http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/58092-DH.htm

[deroxat2010]

Dependence on Paroxetine (Paxil/Seroxat)
Statement by David Healy MD FRCPsych
I have been asked to confirm and comment on evidence relating to withdrawal reactions suggestive of physical dependence on paroxetine, observed in studies on healthy volunteers, carried out in the 1980s by SmithKline Beecham.
In the course of a recently settled legal action (Tobin v SmithKline, Wyoming, 2001), I acted as an expert witness for the Plaintiffs. As part of the discovery process I had sought and was granted access to SmithKline’s Beecham’s healthy volunteer archive at Harlow. My concern had been to scrutinise those records for details of possible agitation and suicidality in healthy volunteers taking paroxetine. These were present, but at least as striking was evidence from these studies about dependence on paroxetine. A detailed expert report was prepared for the plaintiffs’ lawyers in this case, which includes details of studies undertaken by SmithKline Beecham that fully substantiate concerns I communicated to the UK Medicines Control Agency in letters of 7th and 19th June 2001, the essence of which was also accurately reported in The Guardian newspaper (11 June 2001)
I regret that I am under a confidentiality order in regard to this material and am not able to disclose it to this appeal. However, I can confirm, and am prepared to testify to the substance of the points raised in the following exchange (in my testimony in Tobin v SmithKline) between Mr Charles Preuss, the attorney for SmithKline, and myself.
Healy: Yes, but there's a withdrawal syndrome from Paxil, including agitation, abnormal dreams and nightmares that comes through in spades in these healthy volunteer studies.
Preuss: You're saying Paxil is still active for three months?
Healy: In up to 80 percent of the volunteers on this drug for only two weeks produces withdrawal syndromes in these healthy volunteers. I'm saying in my clinical experience I've seen people on this drug for short periods of time and I've seen them have troubles three months later, yes.
My concerns about paroxetine extend far beyond the results of these studies on healthy volunteers. In the 1990s, after its release on to the market as an antidepressant, SmithKline Beecham put paroxetine into clinical trials – exemplified by the study reported by Montgomery & Dunbar, 1993 - that involved a randomised discontinuation design. The difficulties experienced by patients on randomisation to placebo were then interpreted by SmithKline Beecham as evidence of new illness episodes, and the company has subsequently responded to enquiries about the risk of withdrawal reactions and physical dependency, typically by stating that any such problems experienced by patients are simply a recrudescence of their original nervous problem. Basic pharmacological principles, epidemiological studies on depression, as well the evidence from their own healthy volunteer studies strongly suggest that such an interpretation of these data was and is quite unjustified.
Against this background SmithKline Beecham launched paroxetine in the UK with disclaimers on the datasheet to the effect that, as with any drug acting on the brain, some care needs to be taken on discontinuation. The data available to SmithKline before launch indicated problems occurring at a significantly greater rate and to a markedly more severe degree than any psychiatrist at the time would have had reason to expect either from an antidepressant or from such warnings.
Post-marketing surveillance surveys and other studies undertaken since have indicated much greater withdrawal problems with paroxetine than with the previous generation of tricyclic, MAOI and non-tricyclic or non-MAOI antidepressant drugs. A randomised controlled trial undertaken with funding provided by Eli Lilly (Rosenbaum et al, 199, indicated rates of problems on discontinuation of paroxetine in over 30% of patients with many patients having multiple symptoms, including many novel and disturbing symptoms.
For Dr Wheadon and the company therefore to characterise paroxetine withdrawal reactions as very rare, transient, mild and/or virtually impossible to detect and distinguish from underlying psychiatric illness is simply an untenable position. It follows that I have real concerns about SmithKline promoting paroxetine for the prophylaxis of depressive disorders and other psychiatric illness, on the basis of data that are more sensibly and credibly explained in terms of physical dependence and withdrawal symptoms.
David Healy MD FRCPsych.

[scotty]

Ummm, we know this. It's an old report of now well known information by Dr. Healy back in 2003. I'm not sure what you're looking for.

[markca]

deroxat2010 thanks for posting that
om(adjective)goodness...will there ever be an end to the humiliation and infuriation i feel as i continue to discover the truth .
I hang on every word by Healey ...i havent seen this report before...
can someone give me the link to the full article ...im going to take acopy and give it to my doctor.
I can see i've still got a while to go before getting my pp diploma.

I just dont understand if that was known back in 2003 ....why in heavens name is the med world ignorant of this. I for one have a doctor whose never heard of Dr Healey. and a pdoc who only 2 months ago told me 'your a person who is sensitive to drugs'.!
I feel like i want to throw something against the wall.............so much for 'having a duty of care'.

[miriza]

There is this recent paper by Dr. Healy:
http://www.scientifica.com/2012/965908/

[markca]

thanks miriza ,printed it ....the humiliation just continues.....
do you know the link for the one deroxat2010 gave..

[markca]

I found it. Here it is
http://www.seroxatusergroup.org.uk/D...aroxetineHealy[1].doc

i think i might do a journal entry and put this links in it for the future refernce.
How come there are no Healey reports in the published withdrawal studies on pp? maybe there are but im just not finding them.

[Songbird]

Phew! I was worried this thread was going to be about you having problems getting your prescription for tapering!

I don't think it makes any difference if a doc decides not to prescribe Paxil, but then continues to prescribe other ADs instead (Lexapro, Celexa, Zoloft, Effexor, Cymbalta or whatever). As Scotty said, they're all much of a muchness. What they need to be doing is prescribing less and a lot more carefully, and coming up with other, gentler treatment options first, saving ADs for severe cases that don't respond to other options.

[IMISSME]

Originally Posted by markca

deroxat2010 thanks for posting that
om(adjective)goodness...will there ever be an end to the humiliation and infuriation i feel as i continue to discover the truth .
I hang on every word by Healey ...i havent seen this report before...
can someone give me the link to the full article ...im going to take acopy and give it to my doctor.
I can see i've still got a while to go before getting my pp diploma.

I just dont understand if that was known back in 2003 ....why in heavens name is the med world ignorant of this. I for one have a doctor whose never heard of Dr Healey. and a pdoc who only 2 months ago told me 'your a person who is sensitive to drugs'.!
I feel like i want to throw something against the wall.............so much for 'having a duty of care'.

I had a therapist tell me the same thing, that I was sensitive to meds. Gee, I don't think I was sensitive prior to paxil.

[mapleleafgirl25]

lots of doctors here wont prescribe it anymore either...what a freaking relief!!

[markca]

Originally Posted by IMISSME

I had a therapist tell me the same thing, that I was sensitive to meds. Gee, I don't think I was sensitive prior to paxil.

To be told i am a person who is sensitive to drugs is to label me ,evaluate me, limit me, belittle me, dismiss me, to imply that i am a rare breed. What i am is a law abiding tax paying God-fearing citizen from struggle street, who simply refuses to be reinstated, up dosed, polydrugged, or alternatively drugged in order to hide the obscene crimes being perpetrated by the medical profession. For that reason and that reason alone perhaps I am a rare breed.

[miriza]

Although it is true that some of us are/were sensitive to drugs (and/or become sensitive due to the drugs themselves) doctors use the 'you are sensitive' label to rid themselves of responsibility in our adverse and/or withdrawal reactions...by saying this, they try to put the blame on us and imply that we are the rare exception...

[kingCobra]

Originally Posted by andy013

Next step is to stop all SSRIs and make therapy the primary treatment.

Agreed! This stuff does more harm than good.

[markca]

Originally Posted by miriza

Although it is true that some of us are/were sensitive to drugs (and/or become sensitive due to the drugs themselves) doctors use the 'you are sensitive' label to rid themselves of responsibility in our adverse and/or withdrawal reactions...by saying this, they try to put the blame on us and imply that we are the rare exception...

miriza , i think there is a huge cover up going on as doctors duck for cover regarding this drug. For if they were to tell the truth then they may open themselves up to a trip to court. So they just play dumb and ignorant
I cannot believe my doctor doesnt know any of this negative stuff about paxil...my (adjective) God. ..thats his job to know this stuff. Its not acceptable for me to be knowing more than him.
Something is just not adding up.

[markca]

Originally Posted by miriza

There is this recent paper by Dr. Healy:
http://www.scientifica.com/2012/965908/

Printed it out but still havent read it im too scared!!