The longer the depression takes, the harder it is to fix it?

That statement in bold is rather alarming lonely-and-sad???

I would have to check but I believe the automobile is still a leading cause of mortality in my country. The risk is not what bothers me about the motor vehicle and clearly it doesn't bother much of anyone else. I most likely will survive this relatively risky activity. The only thoughts I have on cars is that they are the greatest con job ever pulled off by big business and they dwarf pharmaceutical companies efforts with anti depressants. Therefore you may rest easy lol.

You probably have a point there. I imagine driving in your car is more dangerous than taking psyche meds yet we don't give it a second thought.

zinco,

I kind of believe you that you want to be scientific about this, but so far, I don't think it's really working. You have made a bunch of claims about what Dr. Breggin has said and you claim that these statements are false, but you haven't provided a single reference for any of them. How can you be sure he made all those statements and not know where any of them came from? Even more importantly, how do you know he is wrong?

I still have to track down and read one of his books and talk to people around Boston, but I gather that Dr. Breggin's conclusions are basically that psychoactive drugs in general do more harm than good. Maybe that's true, maybe that's not true. I certainly don't know. However, IF that is true, it is very important for people to know about. That's why I feel obliged to point out that these claims exist. If someone asked me further, I would just suggest reading further and bringing it up with that person's MD.

There are so many people who arrive at this site with the assumption that if you are seriously depressed, the thing to do, of course, is to take an anti-depressant. It's just a question of which one. I am concerned that this may be a BIG mistake and that people may come to this site and get this view reinforced. For instance, if someone arrives at this site and says, essentially,

"I'm seriously depressed. Which anti-depressant should I ask for?"

I think that it is really irresponsible to then discuss the pros and cons of various antidepressants.

- vital

Severe depression is a medical condition and it requires medical attention.

I have major problems with anyone who is not a specific person's M.D. advising people not to or to stop taking their meds. I left another group because there was a person doing exactly that.

What do you hear when some poor sucker that goes shooting up a bunch of people and they say he had mental problems? He went off his meds!!!

There are side effects with medications, often they subside with continued use and usually they are not as severe as the big "S".

I think each of us is an individual and we can't advise someone else based on our experience because we are not the other person's physician.

I personally don't want to be responsible if someone doesn't take medication they really need based on something I say, and then does away with themselves and maybe others.

just sayn,

stephanie

The statements he makes are on his own website and in his books. That is the source. I didn't really say his statements were false, I said I disagree with him. I do think some of his statements are false if you want me to say it. For one "there is no biological/ genetic basis for mental illness". I think that is false. A belief I disagree with is that we should just get rid of all psyche meds. The video and article you point to has no sources or studies listed. If you want to scare every one out of taking them than point them to him. I suggested you point them to Harvard or NIMH who do outline the dangers. Who do you think did the study on long term use of AAP's and brain shrinkage but NIMH. Or at least they funded it I believe.

If someone comes to the psyche med section and asks about a drug I may share my experience with it if I have taken it but I point out that we all metabolize them differently and experience varies widely. Actually I rarely look at those threads because I think it's a useless question asking what I can expect from a med because it varies so much.

If you read all my posts in reply to people you won't see me pushing meds. If someone is already taking them or wants to take them I may discuss it. It happens all the time on this site.

If someone comes here and says they are seriously depressed and has decided to take antidepressants, how in the world is it irresponsible to discuss the pros and cons? That's ridiculous. I would advise that the decision is totally theirs and it should be an educated one.

You just gave steph a thumbs up for saying that no one should advise someone to go off meds. That it should be a physicians decision.

I agree with that but I think the individual has that decision in tandem with their doctor. Their doctor may advise meds and they specifically say they don't want to take meds. Then I say it is their decision in the end. No one can force you to take them. If your doctor advises you to take them and you want to then educate yourself.
Speaking of science the only link I have seen you post is Dr Mark Hyman. Plus a couple like the two above that other people had posted. I answered your questions in the other thread. I pointed out his beliefs I disagree with. I don't like his tactics and his goal to get rid of psyche meds. I am entitled to that opinion. I agree with steph that it is irresponsible to scare some one off their meds.

I have praised Dr. Mark Hyman because the Cleveland Clinic hired him. From what I can tell he doesn't study depression or mental illness though. He is focused on nutrition. The clinical trials he is involved with at the Cleveland Clinic have nothing to do with mental illness.

You point out how he says the following things can cause depression but you provide no scientific evidence to back them up. I am not saying they don't but you post his statements and don't provide anything to back it up. I am sure they do cause it in some cases.

I have addressed those issues and they don't cause my depression. I haven't been tested for heavy metals. I dunno how they even test for it if it is lodged in your brain. I have not taken antibiotics in many years but who hasn't taken them. It says "Took antibiotics" does that mean taking them years ago is causing depression now?

I have taken many supplements and vitamins.
L methylfolate, many people have a gene poly morphism that causes them to not be able to turn folate into l methylfolate and then into monoamines. Took it for six months with no help. Its expensive. To know for sure you need a gene test. Here is the science. One gene polymorphism causes folate to not be formed efficiently, another polymorphism causes folate to not be turned into L Methylfolate.
http://www.cnsspectrums.com/aspx/art...articleid=1267
SamE
L Tryptophan
St. Johns Wort
Fish oil
Vitamin D
Melatonin
Others
If I take something for six months and notice not difference at all then it seems not worth it. I still take fish oil, vitamin D, Melatonin, and B vitamins because they make sense to me for some reason, maybe because there is more evidence.
I drink Odwalla Super Food to partly get what I need. I like it and it is easy.
http://www.odwalla.com/products/smoo...inal-superfood

Someone above said they have addressed these issues and they were not the cause.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Apparently this is one statement he made. I haven't read the book and don't know what page it is on but it is mentioned in a number of places.

I am happy to find the sources for the other beliefs he has I mentioned if you like.

I suggested no such thing. I am pointing out facts. I think he honestly believes it and his goal is not to get rich but to promote his beliefs. It is just a fact that he is hired as an expert witness and involved in law suits.

There is a spectrum on how people view psychiatry with extremes on both ends. Peter Breggin is on one end of the extreme. A psychiatrist who thinks the only useful approach is pumping a patient full of meds and other methods are pointless is on the other end. If the link in that other thread is the first time you have heard his name then maybe you are not familiar with the debate.

I am for a balanced view that includes biology and meds but treats the whole person. bio/psycho/social/emotional/spiritual model.

OK! That's a reference I can find. I will track it down.

I'm curious what you think of the order of things to try that I suggest in #17 of this thread, by the way.

- vital

I can reference the others.

On post 17.
For sure rule out medical issues first.
On the others it would depend on the severity of the symptoms and a persons history. If a person got fired and his wife left him and he had no history and he goes in then I would say don't use meds at all or only as a very last resort. Do all the other non med things.

If someone has family history, years of personal history, and comes in with suicidal plans then I would do all of them at the same time. The main thing would be to get them out of crisis but I thinks everything should be used provided the person is willing to take meds.
Some who is not educated is more likely to just follow doctors orders. However for many people their condition is so serious and they are so miserable that they want meds even though they are well educated on the risks. That has been my case. Quality of life outweighs risk. If it is true AAP's shorten life expectancy, which I don't know is proven, someone may not care if they are working and have vastly improved their life.

With serious bi polar I and schizophrenia I would lean more toward meds up front along with every thing else. Providing the person is willing to take meds. For sure with all other non med means.

One big area of controversy is whether someone in a full blown manic episode who is causing chaos should be forced on meds. One girl just posted on her brother who is diagnosed bi polar I but will not take meds and he is taking a baseball bat to every thing in the house and she fears her safety. Normally he is nothing like that but he is having an episode. He is not taking meds so you can't blame that. What do you do?

It's very much a case by case thing based on history and circumstances.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am going to post in the other thread because we hijacked this one. The other one got way off track but it is more relevant to the discussion.

I think that's good advice too.

I was only thinking of depression with that list. I don't have a clue about what anyone should do for schizophrenia.

When, if ever, should someone be forced to take meds? That's a tough moral and practical situation that I have never had to face. I know a friend of a friend who had to get a restraining order against their own drug addicted child in a situation like that. I don't know the right answer.

- vital

For many people depression is a very serious thing that has a huge impact on their life and ability to function. And for many, not all, it has a genetic/biological basis. I would still say rule out possible medical causes and use a bio/psyche/emotional/spiritual model. The term depression is used very broadly.
It is a very tough issue. I am very moderate politically but when it comes to individual freedoms and privacy I have a mean libertarian streak. So I tend to say never forced.

In the case I was talking about the sister very much wanted to call the police and have him forced to the psyche ward where I am sure they would force meds in that situation. The Mom was for it and then said, oh he is ok, never mind. I am sure denial of the severity.

The thing is once he got out most likely he would just stop taking them again if he didn't want to.

The part that I think is irresponsible is omitting the crucial information that there are alternatives to drug treatment for even severe depression which can work extremely well and which are healthy for you anyway. Every day there are people arriving at this site who clearly have depression and are clearly doing nothing about it except for taking drugs.

Right. I agree with Steph about that.

I occasionally link to Andrew Weil's sites as well. Those are two sources that are really easy to read which I also personally trust.

I see. I think you mean post #89 (long thread!). Thanks a lot for pulling out specific passages that you disagree with. The thing is, I don't see anything in there that is obviously wrong. Let me pick out the most controversal-sounding thing that I see:

"They have imposed upon Western society a faith in fake biological explanations, concocted diagnoses, and toxic drugs that do infinitely more harm than good.
We do not falsely attribute emotional suffering and personal difficulties to genetics and biochemistry."

OK. I can see that this is controversial in the sense that it contradicts the practice of many many medical professionals. On the other hand, I'm not sure he's wrong. If depression, for instance, is determined by genetics and biochemistry, how come depression is sometimes essentially cured by, say, meditation or therapy alone? I have to say that his statement seems a bit exaggerated, but I suspect that he's trying to make the point that if you think that depression is caused by genetics and, say, the serotonin level in your brain, you will think that you are helpless to improve other than by taking a drug which will increase your serotonin level.

I noticed and appreciated that.

He does. See 13:44 into the video that I usually link to above.

I'm not personally claiming that they do. I'm just claiming that Dr. Hyman said that, 13:44 into his talk.

You typed all this on your iPhone?? That's pretty impressive in itself.

I also never got really noticeable effects from supplements alone. I used to drink Odwalla Super Food but I don't anymore as I think it's got too much sugar (it's also expensive). I'm trying to keep my glycemic load way down as a general way to be healthier.

You may be annoyed at me at this point and I think you've tried lots of things, but I suspect that you still haven't tried the three things that I have seen at this sight that people claim made a huge difference for them: meditation, brain training and "SNAP CLUB." For me, this had a huge effect. It was much more powerful than any drug I took.

By the way, what do you think of this?



Also, what was this thread about again?

- vital

I am on my phone again so I will only address one thing.
I have consistently been practicing meditation for 20 years. In that I also practice my form of neuro plasticity through visualisation and intention. Powerful concepts.

I consider practicing CBT and the twelve steps of AA brain training. It is all about decision making and right action. It is all about uncovering unconscious processes, bringing them into awareness, seeing how they effect emotions and behavior, and making changes for better outcomes. This I have also been doing for twenty years. As a matter if fact I am currently trying to help my siblings with these concepts as they have issues they have never chosen to deal with that are cropping up. None of them have any mental illness. Well my sister has moderate depression that has been well managed with Wellbutrin for many years. The med is not the only thing she does, especially the last two years she has done a ton.

SNAP CLUB I have tried to look up a few times and can't find a single thing on it. Quite honestly I would feel foolish walking through the grocery store snapping my fingers a thousand times. We make hundreds of decisions every minute. I understand your concept but I think I accomplish the same thing by other means. Would be nice to see a source for it.

There are lots of new books in brain training for lots of things. I am a little skeptical at first when a bunch of docs all write their own book on their theory or technique of it. Jeffery Schwartz is someone I trust and have read a few of his books. I may buy a depression brain training book if it isn't to gimmicky and makes sense to me. If you followed the whole discussion in that other thread I think you will find I take a very broad view as it applies to myself and treatment. Especially in a spiritual sense. Apotheosis and I had a very good discussion.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/s/ref=nb...ffery+schwartz



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't believe that many people have biological/genetic reason for their depression. I think depression is largely stress related,and to do with suppressed bottled up emotions. It holds some messages we need to know that can enable us to learn and make changes. Viewing depression as entirely bad, isn't helpful. There are factors that lead people to have depressive episodes, not always obvious. When we push ourselves too much to do things, overwork,are highly critical about ourselves or others, act passively with others so they take advantage of us, encounter disappointments/setbacks, give up on things or if take personally or over react to others negative unhelpful words and behaviour towards us, that can lead to depression. There are def neg unhelpful habits we have that can lead us to become depressed.

What are you basing you claims that it is not genetic on? Which noted authority or scientific journal?

It is my personal view and we are all entitled to have different perspectives based on our own learning, insights, understandings and experiences. Depression is a complicated issue that is different for different people.

I am sure that is true for lots of people. I am not sure it is fair to say that about a lot of people who come to this site. Usually they are venting and looking for understanding and we don't really know what all they have tried and are doing.
Not all depression is determined by genetics/biology. It is involved in some percentage. If a child is physically abused, sexually abused, neglected, traumatized, etc. that has been shown to profoundly affect brain development and brain function. Genetics may not be involved but biology is. Maybe even in the case of PTSD in soldiers. I am not sure about that one. Genetics and biology may play a huge role with someone who had a great childhood, my case.

Meditation and therapy may work very easily for situational depression where biology is not involved. It may also work where biology is involved because meditation and therapy have been proven to change biology. In the case of severe abuse of a child that person might spend years in therapy and it doesn't have a large impact. There is too much damage. In a case where it is deeply embedded in genetics therapy and meditation may not have a large impact because it is too much a part of the biology. I think this is true in my case for lots of reasons. Maybe in someone else the genetic influence is not as great and they will respond better. It is never the sole reason.
For him to say genetics and biology are fake and that diagnosis are concocted is irresponsible. It is not about not taking responsibility for your treatment it is about better knowledge and understanding. It doesn't make you helpless. I think I will start a thread in "Other Mental Health Discussion" on genetics.

You don't think his theory of spellbinding is far fetched?
You might argue that case for alcohol and illicit drugs but even then I don't think it is true. I have known many addicts in all phases of addiction and in recovery. I have never met one who didn't think what they were doing was harmful. Denial takes the form of "i am not addicted" not "it isn't harmful to me". They continue to use because the benefits outweigh the risks and they are addicts. Me and my friends figured we would only live until we were thirty because what we were doing was so harmful. We did it because it was fun and at that age you don't think much about long term consequences. I have quite a bit of experience with psyche meds and I just can't see where anything he is saying is true about that theory.

You don't think his statements about universities, NIH, NIMH, the AMA, the American Psychiatric Association, all being totally corrupted by big pharma is extreme? Big Pharma is the puppet master and the whole community dances to their tune? He is disparaging a lot of people. I see a lot of good work coming out of universities. Psychiatry is a medical profession. Of course they focus on biology. A psychiatrist has to become a medical doctor first, then even more school. Psychology is a different field although they overlap and should work together.

Get rid of all psyche meds, genetics and biology play no role, fake diagnosis, total corruption. I don't go to him as a source. Not that corruption doesn't exist or that there are not real problems. There is a small percentage of corruption in everything. More so in politics, government, and big business.
You have always referenced him and linked his video but actually you have said they can cause it without linking any studies. I am not saying they don't. Hypothyroidism for sure can. Vitamin D deficiency I think there are studies on. There are studies that show fish oil helps some people.

I have consistently been practicing meditation for 20 years. In that I also practice my form of neuro plasticity through visualisation and intention. Powerful concepts.

I consider practicing CBT and the twelve steps of AA brain training. It is all about decision making and right action. It is all about uncovering unconscious processes, bringing them into awareness, seeing how they effect emotions and behavior, and making changes for better outcomes. This I have also been doing for twenty years. As a matter if fact I am currently trying to help my siblings with these concepts as they have issues they have never chosen to deal with that are cropping up. None of them have any mental illness. Well my sister has moderate depression that has been well managed with Wellbutrin for many years. The med is not the only thing she does, especially the last two years she has done a ton.

SNAP CLUB I have tried to look up a few times and can't find a single thing on it. Quite honestly I would feel foolish walking through the grocery store snapping my fingers a thousand times. We make hundreds of decisions every minute. I understand your concept but I think I accomplish the same thing by other means. Would be nice to see a source for it.

There are lots of new books in brain training for lots of things. I am a little skeptical at first when a bunch of docs all write their own book on their theory or technique of it. Jeffery Schwartz is someone I trust and have read a few of his books. I may buy a depression brain training book if it isn't to gimmicky and makes sense to me. If you followed the whole discussion in that other thread I think you will find I take a very broad view as it applies to myself and treatment. Especially in a spiritual sense. Apotheosis and I had a very good discussion.

This is possibly my most important point, I think, zinco. If someone asks me for advice and they are depressed and doing nothing but taking drugs, I feel morally obliged to point out that there are alternatives that always should be tried. I think it essentially never makes sense to take drugs alone for depression.

I do find these claims shocking, but, very unfortunately, apparently justified. See this article in Nature

Paxil study under fire : Nature News

Healy estimates that up to 50% of the "scientific" literature on drugs is ghostwritten by drug companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Healy_(psychiatrist)

This is just a video, but it makes detailed disturbing claims which are not dismissible without an investigation



including

o Corrupted or ghostwritten scientific studies
o Disease/drug combinations created with marketing campaigns like SAD/Paxil
o The relationship between the fragmentation of the DSM and the drug approval process
o Underinforming patients of the risks of drug dependence, side effects, long term toxicity and severe withdrawal symptoms

It's not my field, but I am a scientist myself and I find corruption of science to be very, very disturbing.

There are many wonderful and brilliant and honest medical professionals doing great work at universities. I totally agree.

Some people develop depression later in life as an adult and it doesn't relate to their childhood or brain chemistry or genetics. Its a result of major stressful traumatic experience. Some people have depression for short duration or manage to overcome it. Others have mod-severe depressive episodes which can be triggered by certain factors. If you view depression as all bad and out of your control then you dont give yourself chance to understand and tackle issues you need and make changes. Whether depression is mental or physical illness related to gentics, biology or negative stressful circumstances will always receive different views and responses from different people. Depression is not one way and same for everyone or limited to certain types of people getting it.

Every persons mind/body reacts differently to medication. I've seen a rare few where meds don't help much.

The best treatment most effective form of treatment for depression is medication and therapy.

Medication and therapy are the common forms of managing depression recommended by mainstream people but people are different and those methods of dealing with depression aren't necessarly correct /right or successful for everyone . No one particular same way for all. There are a lot of people who haven't found medication or therapy really work well for them, haven't had good lasting outcomes.

I agree. I don't think it makes sense to take drugs alone for depression either. The key words are "asking me for advice". If someone asks me for advice on how to treat depression I always list all the things and list meds last with the caveat, that if they want to and they should educate themselves.

Many people post and complain about their problems or vent. And I have no idea if they are on meds unless it is in their sig and I have no idea what else they are doing. Sometimes I will ask if they are in therapy or have seen professionals. I think many times people are not looking for advise. They are looking for support and understanding from people who will not judge them. This is a very important part of treatment and helps people. Someone who will listen to them and validate what they are going through. I learned in AA not to give unsolicited advice because it is invalidating. It is my job to share my experience, strength and hope. So I will relate my experience so that they can relate to me and not feel alone in all of this. If they ask for advise I will give it. Listening, understanding, validating, relating, not judging, are powerful things for healing. Many people have never gotten much of that from their family and friends. Many families don't give it at all, not just in the area of mental health. That is a large part of their problem.
I also find corruption very disturbing. My main point was not that it doesn't exist it was that I found Breggins statements very broad and sweeping, implicating many good people.

My Dad is a retired pharmacists. My brother and sister in law are both pharmacists. My other brother in law was a top salesman for Pfizer for many years. We have been discussing these issues for years. We are not fans of big pharma. I don't know if this was due to federal regulations or not but I do know for a fact through my brother in law that about four years ago Pfizer stopped all gifts to doctors and pharmacists period. Then they cut their sales force by a huge amount. He lost his job and he was top salesman. His biggest tactic was food to the staff. It was very hard for him to get into see a doctor. Many doctors refused to see him so there was no perception of a conflict of interest. I don't think doctors are influenced by a dozen donuts. They try new drugs because they are looking for better solutions for their patients.

My dad became a pharmacist in the 50's. He has seen many many drugs come onto the market in all areas. Lots of them very beneficial and life saving. Some harmful. He has told me a thousand times that medicine is a game of trial and error. More art than science. People get harmed. Life includes risk. I take a big risk driving my car. In recent decades it has become a ton more scientific. The structure of DNA was only discovered in the 70's and that turned into the Human Genome Project which has allowed huge advances.

Because of my family and the fact I have been a C-Span addict since it first started i have never trusted big pharma, the FDA, and their clinical trials. The clinical trials are way to short term and small. There is a revolving door between the FDA, big pharma, and congress. They have huge influence on capital hill just as lots of industries do, and I don't like it one bit. That doesn't mean there are not a lot of good researchers with integrity in big pharma and the FDA. I don't think TV advertising should be allowed. Big pharma did not prevent block box suicide warnings. They have not prevented publication of withdrawal effects. More transparency. Medicine is a process of building on knowledge like any science and it can be an ugly process.

Big pharma doesn't hold all the power. Look at how many new bio tech companies that have sprung up. Universities and researchers patent everything they possibly can. If a venture capitalist thinks something has potential a start up springs up in silicone valley. Silicon valley goes on despite of big pharma. Genentech the most famous one. It got bought by Roche but that doesn't mean it hasn't made a huge contribution. There are many of them and new ones every year. If they do all the research and come up with something promising they may partner with or license to a big pharma company to get it to market but the basic science was done by them.

Paxil study under fire : Nature News
This is very disturbing but it is one study and one professor and it seems claims by both sides. Was he disciplined or was it resolved?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Healy_(psychiatrist)

He can claim 50% but where is his proof?

I haven't watched the video yet. I do not want to see corruption and I think it should be aggressively rooted out. Especially in science, a sacred field in my eyes.

I do to. I don't know what field of science you are in but I imagine it has industry influence and a certain amount of corruption. It exists in all human affairs. I have found that corruption gets a lot of attention and is always a scandal as it should be but in reality it is a very small percentage of any field.

Really personally I am much more interested in the best most current research and hard science and not in the debate about SSRI's and the original clinical trials. I know psyche meds have dangers. But what does the whole body of real world experience and research tell us about risk vs benefit.

And I dunno about pharma inventing diseases to match a drug. I remember when restless leg syndrome came out and that's what I thought. WTF what a bunch of crap. Everyone thought that. Recently a friend of mine who thought the same thing and is very conservative said "you know I didn't believe that crap for a minute, but you know what then I got it years later and took the little pill it works. I can sleep again. I'm a believer now."

I don't think SAD is made up. Its a real phenomenon. I wouldn't recommend meds for it. I can tell you alcoholism, addiction, severe depression, and anxiety are very real things and not made up by pharma. Schizophrenia, bi polar I, ADHD.....made up and fake?

Again I would like to see all corruption, greed, influence peddling, and all of that rooted out. But overall I have faith in humans and our progress and endeavors. that is just my optimistic view in human nature and societal and cultural evolution. Lots of people would disagree with me on that and think we are destroying ourselves and a species but I think we will find solutions in the big picture.

Another area where big pharma hasn't had any success is in changing patent laws, which they would very much like to do. They might spend a billion dollars getting a drug to market and by that time only have five years on the patent. That is why they charge 300 or 400 dollars for 30 tabs of abiliify. Most insurance companies won't make it a part of their formulary unless they can negotiate huge discounts and they think it will be beneficial. Once it goes generic it becomes dirt cheap and there is not money in it anymore.

Kaiser Permanente for example won't just except a brand new drug. They have a whole division that spends quite a bit of time evaluating and even doing their own clinical trials before adopting a drug. And then they will negotiate big discounts. Big pharma tries to influence them, obviously, but they are interested in patient outcomes. Kaiser is a non profit health care provider and insurance company all in one. They have a great model and are cutting edge.

Clinical Trials

The last I knew Kaiser was doing their own clinical trials on TMS before adopting it. I am not sure if they have adopted it. They need to see enough evidence before buying the machines even if all their patients are asking for it.

One thing big pharma will do to extend the life of a drug is market the active metabolite after the original drug goes generic. Pfizer, Effexor, and Pristiq is an example. Pristiq is just the active metabolite of Effexor with a better extended release coating. Pristiq is actually a "cleaner" drug but you don't have to take it. You can get Effexor dirt cheap.

Kaiser even has a section on energy therapies like reiki on their website. I don't know if they have practitioners. They are very very open to alternatives. They have different divisions and they are not all equal. I am very familiar with Kaiser of Northern CA and I can tell you they are very into preventive medicine and alternative therapies and are cutting edge. Evidence based.

https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org...S1vWc!/#ut1809