zyprexa

The topical discussion of the FDA, warning labels and such... those would be good for their own threads.

adieuolivaw - The main reason for responding to your post in such a heavy-handed manner was due to the tone of your post. It seemed to me that you were trying to scare Vetttech. Using words (and capitalizing) words like "fatal" and "irreversible" in describing Zyprexa's adverse effects seemed to me to be a blatant over-reaction intended to scare Vetttech into not taking the drug. I sincerely believe that using adjectives like "sinister" to describe a drug that has given several of my patients who suffer from severe psychosis a quality of life that they had not experienced in decades. It is not your quoting of the side effects from monographs that bothers me, it is the embellishments that do.

I was not only thinking of Vetttech reading your response, I was thinking of those people who read this forum, but do not (cannot) post online due to their suffering from varying levels of paranoia. When I worked within the mental health system much of my time was spent on "damage control". More than a few of my patients with paranoid or delusional forms of psychosis have quit taking their medication (not just Zyprexa) when they read posts containing adjectives, such as those mentioned above, in describing the medication that they are taking. I have been given several similar posts over the years that I have had to prove were over-reactions. Many times the damage had already been done. The person had stopped their medication , suffered a psychotic relapse, and ended up on the psych ward; at a great cost to the healthcare system and a greater cost to my patient.

As for my "faith" in drug companies, it should be obvious that my reliance on evidence-based medicine rather than industry-produced monographs makes me no fan of drug company information. Besides, I'm a Canadian; I have no opinion on the FDA, except that the fact that it is much harder to have a medication approved for use in Canada than it is in the U.S. Health Canada requirements and regulations are anything but lax. And BTW, I am a sceptical scientist; I try not to believe in anything without proof; I try to accept nothing on faith.

Forgive me for not believing that your doctor is running "unauthorized" experimentation" on human "guinea pigs", but their is two sides to every story. I shall reserve judgement until I know the entire story. I have seen both unreasonable physicians and unreasonable patients, and when there is one or the other in doctor-patient relationship, seldom have I seen any treatment success stories. I do agree with you that you do need to find a doctor that you are able to work with. Your ultimate goal is to find a treatment regimen that maximizes your quality of life; I seriously doubt that your present clinician will be able to to help you find an appropriate regimen. I wish you luck in your hunt for the proper mix.

Sincerely - Cam

First, thank you Cam for your post, I appreciate it.

I'm not recommending that anyone take any type of medication. I'm not a doctor, nor do I have the benefit of being a pharmacist like my dear friend Cam. But I would like to say this about Zypreza. I searched for a very long time trying to find a med or combination of meds to help relieve my BPII symptoms. I was severly suicidal and had a medicine cabinet full of failed meds. A new doctor suggested that we try a very low dose of Zyprexa (2.5mgs). I knew it was an AP and didn't like the stigma attached to it, but I was desperate for something, anything to help pull me out of the pit I was in. Within three days of taking my first dose, I was 100% better, no exageration. My suicidal feelings were gone, as were the ruminating thoughts, the manic behavior was under control. And I'm not the only one who has claimed that Zy has had this effect on them. I say with 100% certainty, that if it weren't for the Zyprexa, I wouldn't be here today. If you want to call me the Zyprexa poster boy, that'll work.

I just thought it would be nice to point out that while the med is being touted as the drug from hell, for some of us it literally has been a life-saver.

Thanks,
Greg

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I just thought it would be nice to point out that while the med is being touted as the drug from hell, for some of us it literally has been a life-saver.

Thanks,
Greg

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I have to agree with Greg. When my psych put me on Zyprexa, it was due to my first full-blown psychotic manic episode. I had blown $3K in the previous week and then attacked my ex. I didn't remember any of it. I do remember that I was scared, hearing things and felt like my brain was racing so hard that it was on fire. I didn't want to take it at first either, but within 2-4 days it felt like I had me back again and that someone put the fire out. Emphasizing nothing but the rare, seriously harmful side effects does a grave disservice to those of us who have had our minds saved by it and those who need it but are easily spooked by oversimplification of complex rare events.

I think that it is all too common these days for people that are well-meaning but unfamiliar with the years-long process of drug trials to assume that because the FDA approved it, it's been proven safe. Nothing could be further from the truth. All FDA approval means is that the drug in question ameliorates a condition previously untreatable, or ameliorates a condition as well as or more effectively than a current drug option - with a minimum amount of known risk. It says nothing regarding unknown risk, because no one can predict the future. For instance, the oldest AD we have is Prozac, approved in the mid-80's. That's the only one of its kind with 20 years of data on it. We have no idea what the newer SSRIs and novel-class ADs may or may not do to us in the long-term. However, I'd say it's more important to all of us that we live a good quality of life now, even if based on a limited amount of data, instead of waiting for the future as in many cases it would be literally suicidal.

When medical news comes out with the latest drug problem, as was the case with Phen-fen (we were unfamiliar with its long term effects), or Vioxx (which was often wrongly prescribed, as it was meant for people suffering from debilitating conditions like MS, not arthritis that was treatable with Advil. Most of the victims fell in the "shouldn't have been taking it" column)there tends to be mass accusation against the FDA as "lax" and to call drug companies "unethical money-grubbers".

I would like to say, as one who works intimately with the drug submittal process, that for the most part the image of pharmaceutical companies as sharks preying on hapless patients is entirely untrue. I work every day with people who are sincerely and deeply committed to doing the best they can to help others live a better quality life. Calling the FDA "lax" is laughable. Please see this link: http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning.htm to review the many, many stringent actions against all sorts of companies, including at times your own doctor for failure to follow trial protocol perfectly - and I mean perfectly- as well as your grocery store, meat provider, favorite restaurant, etc. FDA regulators have all the personality of a statistician crossed with an accountant. They are very, very, very rigorous, especially where drug submissions are concerned. Pharmaceutical companies, these days, are guilty before being proven innocent, and it's rarely possible to come back from the initial accusation. These companies are public corporations that first and foremost have a responsibility to their shareholders as well as to the patients. Altruism leads to a lot of angry shareholders, many of them healthcare consumers themselves. Drug companies charge what the consumer is willing to pay, and we've always paid it. Also, a lot of companies operating in the US aren't even ours, which pretty much negates the argument of "enlightened" overseas pharmaceuticals. Their drug development costs are just as high, if not higher, than U.S. company costs, but it's the entire healthcare system in places like the UK that makes it look cheap. It's patently not. Those "altruistic" companies merely charge us that much because we'll pay it.

Please keep in mind that I too am a longtime traveler through the US medical system. It's not that I don't believe there aren't any bad apples, or bad decisions or poor judgement from time to time. They exist in all walks of life, regardless of occupation. I'm just tired of hearing an entire industry get villified that spends a lot of time, effort and care and yes, money, to fulfill a social responsibility. They could not ever have provided us with the medication options available to us if they gave them all away.