Whats with people taking so many different meds at once?!

This is an odd thread that seems inclined to offend.

Yes, it is. It allows psychiatrists to give the impression that they're really up to something, and that what they're up to is very scientific . . . and requires a lot of thinking . . . and has a lot to do with high-falutin' chemistry.

It shows how they fine tune a person's treatment. And it leads the gullible patient into thinking, "Wow, I must really be under control now. Look how many drugs are addressing my symptoms."

You're lucky to find one drug that really helps, and one or two might. By the time they have you on 4 or 5 drugs, I believe it's a bunch of baloney.

So many people are put on small doses of things like clonidine and propranolol that have virtually no psychotropic effect. Replace them with placebos and no one would know the difference. But it is reassuring to hear the pdoc say, "Well, I'm going to add this because it will help you blah, blah, blah." Power of suggestion then kicks in.

Why do you think that the illicit drug trade is such a booming industry? Because they're peddling the stuff that will really change how you feel. Of course, that change comes at a high price - long term.

A couple of mg of Klonopin or or Risperdal changes nothing. I've taken almost everything out there. Most of it does nothing much, or nothing good. The argument runs that different people react differently. I no longer buy that. Human beings aren't quite that individually differentiated. Everyone who drinks enough ETOH gets drunk. Everyone who smokes enough weed gets stoned. Everyone who takes just about any illicit drug reacts in a predictable way . . . which is why people buy the stuff. But pdocs prescribe all these magic substances that affect different people in vastly different ways. Yeah, because people differ in their degree of credulity - their ability to buy B S.

I have to disagree with your generalized thoughts here. Not everyone who smokes what you consider to be enough weed gets high....I know a few people from back in the day who didn't get high no matter how much they smoked or how potent the weed was. Not everyone reacts the same way to illicit drugs as there is certainly less control over how they're made not to mention people's metabolism is different, size is different, a dose that could mildly affect a larger person might kill a smaller person.

My daughter and I have been prescribed some of the same meds over the years and neither one of us has the same reaction to those same drugs. Whether they are psych drugs or medical drugs, we both had way different experiences with them. I've seen it happen to many folks I've known over the years....the term "different strokes for different folks" comes to mind here.

We can all have our own opinions about medications and big pharma, but please be careful when generalizing.....no one is exactly the same, there can be lots of folks who have horrible reactions compared to lots of folks who have good experiences with these drugs. Please, let's not insult one another with generalizing.

I don't believe that. But I do believe that you believe that. I respect that your beliefs are as sincerely held as mine are.

In my experience - and having been born, raised, and living in NorCal for half a century there's a whole lotta pot around here - there are most definitely people who smoke and don't really get high. Those who smoke a lot and have built up a tolerance to pot, for example. It's just like most drugs when it comes to physical tolerance.

I disagree with part of that also Rose, based on personal experience. I take an anti-depressant and an anxiolytic. I don't recall the anti-depressant I took before Prozac but it was an old school drug. Elavil or something like. The difference was night and day.
When I was switched to Effexor XR I didn't notice a difference. A couple of years or so ago I wanted off of Effexor. I tapered slowly and used Prozac to help with withdrawal. The Prozac definitely helped with that but I immediately crashed into an awful depression. We upped the dosage and there was no change. I chose to go back to Effexor and the depression improved.
I've been prescribed three anxiolytics. Xanax did absolutely nothing. An M&M would have had more effect on me. I've known people who used Xanax as a recreational drug so it must make them feel pretty good. Ativan worked... sort of. It was too sedating and the anxiolytic effect was too short lived. Clonazepam was perfect. I didn't feel sedated. I just felt a great deal less anxiety.
On the original topic I still have the same opinion. I may be skeptical of 5 to 7 drug cocktails but it isn't my business what other people take.

This is a very complicated subject because well let's be honest, some people need to be on a lot of meds. I do believe most do not. I try to stay as low as possible! The bare bones if you will. I think Big Pharm is partially to blame and a lof of pdocs who mean well are deceived by Big Pharm! Case in point, Buspar which does horrible in every study, barely beating the placebo, yet is prefered by many pdocs over benzos because it's not addicting, never mind the side effects or uselessness to most patients who are forced to try it. I'm sure that they cost more then benzo's has nothing to do with it lol.

Another case in point, mood stabilizers and anti-psychotics. There is no reason to be on BOTH unless your prong to hallucinate and get psychotic. Anti-depressants are perhaps the worse of the bunch. Totally useless for most people, yet it is a great market place for Big Pharm.

You end up with 1 mood stabilizer plus 1 anti-psychotic plus buspar and of course benzo's as need because we really know buspar doesn't work that well. Let's also throw in at least one AD just for good measure. What you end up with more times then not is a over med person feeling worse or like a zombie.

I take wellbutrin and klonopin most of the time, that's all. And occasionally a mood stabilizer and for short term until I feel better then I stop the MS. I refuse to take anti-psychotics or any useless AD's or anxiety med substitutes for the real thing.

So I would agree that most people are way over med, but some really do need to be too. Also add to this mix other meds, pain killers, anti-seizure meds and other meds for other medical problems on top of the psych meds, you could easily be up to 10 different meds a day

Just my 2 cents but there u have it

You really are very wrong here. My husband and I have been on several of the same medications and we DO respond completely differently. I was able to take lithium without serious side effect issues; lithium nearly killed my husband. I was able to take lamictal with absolutely no side effects and it worked well for my depression; my husband cannot take lamictal at all because it causes him severe memory and cognitive problems and has little effect on his mood. I can take seroquel xr, in fact prefer it, because it doesn't overly sedate me during the day like regular seroquel does; if my husband takes one seroquel xr, it knocks him unconscious for 24 hours--he takes regular seroquel with no sedation issues at all during the day.

Even simple allergy and cold medications affect people differently. Most people prefer to take a cold or allergy med with a decongestant, but anything with a decongestant in it creates insomnia in me. Can't touch the stuff.

People really are that different in how they react to medications. What works well for one may do absolutely nothing or cause severe side effect issues in another.

Well, Angsty, you are not alone in being suspicious of the wisdom of polypharmacy, as it often gets practiced. You are in some very good company. The criticism that I read of most is not about concern of interaction issues (though that's a concern, especially when multiple drugs have similar bad side effects that become additive) but there is concern as to whether layering on multiple drugs actually does any good. Here's a statement by a psychiatrist from Columbia University:

"What we practice now involves the use of multiple antipsychotics in combination or an antidepressant, a mood stabilizer, benzodiazepines, or anxiolytics added to antipsychotics. Clinicians do this because the antipsychotic by itself isn't working sufficiently well, and they are trying to improve the level of response. But little evidence supports the use of these additional medications, and virtually no evidence supports the benefits of combining antipsychotic drugs."

From: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/756977

It's not a belief Rose, it's absolute truth. It was my experience as well that I'm talking from. Unfortunately, I think you missed the main point of my post.

I do not disagree that many meds are pushed on unsuspecting folks, but I also know that there are some very smart folks out there who will ask questions and research for themselves before taking a combination of meds. To group all the people together and generalize does a disservice to everyone.

Well, it seems we've had some experience in common. Like you, I found Elavil effective, while Prozac was useless to me. Doctors had reasons to be concerned about the old style antidepressants. They had bad side effects, especially on the heart, and they were quite lethal in overdose. Prozac was so much safer, and doctors so wanted to believe that it was just as good . . . that it was even better. These later generation antidepressants haven't proven to be all that. Efficacy tends to come at a price, for drugs of any classification.

With the A.D. I also took a benzo, Librium, that certainly helped me fall asleep faster, which was a god-send.

Neither of these drugs cured my depression and anxiety. But they were worth taking because I was much less de-railed by my mental problems. But I still was plagued with problems that became severe at times. Eventually, I spent a few years getting all kinds of psych drugs substituted and layered on, to no avail. I've become very skeptical. I don't think there is a complete pharmacological solution to any psych issue . . . for anyone. But pdocs prescribe with such gusto, as though they'll find one, if you just let them layer on enough meds.

I think all that drug ordering dissuades people from taking a hard look at the non-physiological component to their problem.

Okay, I think I see where you're coming from.

Then why did they bother smoking it?

That is exactly how I meant it- as more of a question out of curiosity, not to offend. That is one of my faults perhaps, being too curious. I didn't mean to offend. I guess I'm more curious, because I haven't known too many people who take many prescriptions like that and the ones I've known had a lot of seemingly interacting (and negative) side effects. so yeah, I guess everyone is different and if things work for you, that's great. I just know that I myself don't do too well on to many prescriptions at once for example . . .

I'm glad you brought it up! I encourage people to also do their own research too, google studies for any drug you wish. You may be surprised. Where does this "off the shelf" stuff come from? Big Pharm representatives who stop by your doctors office to provide their studies and suggestion for other uses. I was horrified with some of the side effects I read about. Yet they were deemed more preferred then safer "addicting" drugs. Also of interest, look for independent studies where they compare different drugs with the placebo. It's pretty interesting to say the least and a real eye opener.

For the longest of time I had doctors that did not agree on ANY med combinations. I had to decide if I wanted my depression OR anxiety treated. They refused to do both.

That was madness in itself but I lived that hell for a decade.

I take several meds. for my conditions. They do not interact badly. It took me awhile to come to this place where my meds. seem to be working somewhat as they take the edge off. I am not unstable due to them or due to the fact that I have disorders. It is not wise to assume anything about anyone these days.

It depends. The pharmacist for my husband's cancer chemotherapy was explaining to us a couple days ago that if you have 100 people with a bacterial infection, they'd probably all be on the same antibiotic but if you have 100 people with even the same cancer, there would be 100 different formulas, each individual would have to be individually assayed. Height, weight, other illnesses, this particular illness, what an individual eats/drinks, how they react "this time", etc. all make a difference.

Unfortunately, I think mental illness pharmacology is very much like chemotherapy in that various meds and combinations have to be tried with that individual to see what will or will not work. "Depression" is not a one-size-fits-all illness. With brain chemistry, they can't really "see"; if you are being treated for something in the blood, they can take your blood and analyze it and see a bit of what may/may not be going on. My husband gets a 40-50 category long blood test before each chemo treatment and the results are then sent to the pharmacist who only then makes up his treatment for this time (he does not get the same thing/amounts each time). That's not possible with brains?

i think we need to take whatever works to help us with our problems or diagnosis.

Some people need more meds than other people, I take Latuda to deal with my bipolar and hallucinations, Celexa to deal with my depression, Klonopin for anxiety, etc.

Biggest reason? Peer pressure.

I'm quite aware of my med interactions so I can dosage according to them. This was something I had to tell the doctor though! LOL. She didn't know it!

Very good discussion here! I often use 'interaction checkers' for instance on webmd or drugs.com and there are others. Don't count on your dr or pharmacist to catch them all, we typically have so little time with them and they are only human, and we are the ones that will suffer if there is a bad reaction.

It seems to me that when psych patients take meds and then feel better, they give credit to the meds. I think that credit can be misplaced. If you go on and off a med a number of times and you see a consistent pattern, then I can see a basis to the conclusion that the med helped. But sometimes it could just be coincidence. Here's a doctor who sees this as I do.

"But I’ve also made an observation that seems incompatible with one of the central dogmas of psychiatry. To put it bluntly, I’m not sure that psychiatric medications work.

Before you jump to the conclusion that I’m just another disgruntled, anti-medication psychiatrist who thinks we’ve all been bought and misled by the pharmaceutical industry, please wait. The issue here is, to me, a deeper one than saying that we drug people who request a pill for every ill. In fact, it might even be a stretch to say that medications never work. I’ve seen antidepressants, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, and even interventions like ECT give results that are actually quite miraculous.

But here’s my concern: For the vast majority of my patients, when a medication “works,” there are numerous other potential explanations, and a simple discussion may reveal multiple other hypotheses for the clinical response. And when you consider the fact that no two people “benefit” in quite the same way from the same drug, it becomes even harder to say what’s really going on. There’s nothing scientific about this process whatsoever."

From: Why I?m not sure that psychiatric medications work

People want to believe that they got better by taking the meds. But, maybe, they just got better, for awhile. And when multiple drugs are in play, it's very hard to know ehat is foing what. When I was on 5 psycotropics, no one including me knew what was doin what. When I woke uo with a pounding heartrate of 140 beats a minute, there was no telling what caused it. Bu that was the end of my willingness to swallow all that stuff. I was lucky. Many oatients on that many meds wake uo dead.

Right now, I take one medication but I used to take another one called "alcohol". Perhaps you've heard it. Sometimes it is red, sometimes it is brown. I thought it was all yummy but it didn't really work for me. Many people in society think it's great!

It all comes down to some combination of medication and living that work for the individual. Another poster on another thread made mention that she didn't want to offend me with her response but I was OK with it because different stuff works for different people. I can say with 100% confidence that there's not one single person in the world that can offer a cure-all.

Also, keep in mind that people with other health issues (like cancer) take all sorts of chemo, anti virals, anti fungals, anti nausea, dietary supplements, etc and no one really questions it. When it comes to mental illness, there seems to be some constant questioning about medication in society. IMO, I think it links back to the fact that there's no pathology to mental illness. Medication, in part, is a logical step.