7 replies to this topic

[dunbar]

I'd have a bad feeling cause drugs which are brand new aren't studied that well.
What if they find out a few months or years later that it can have dangerous unknown side effects?

On the other hand it also sucks when a new drug comes out which sounds good and you have to wait
for years before trying it.

[formergenius]

Depends on which drug..
NRX-1074, JDTic, NSI-189 etc. hell yes I would be standing in my doctor's office right now.

Edited by formergenius, 10 January 2014 - 08:51 PM.

[dunbar]

Are those new antidepressants?

I heard about a SNDRI but it's only in stage 2 of testing. Don't know how many stages there are.

[Max Headroom Incident]

Ultimately, it depends on the drug's safety profile (or probable safety profile).

As is, we're all guinea pigs to some extent. The black box warning that, woops, SSRI's might cause suicide or violent behaviors in people under 25 was just added a few years ago after a bunch of school shootings and suicides. Now boys who took Risperdal are growing breasts and Eli Lilly has been majorly sued for covering up the Zyprexa/diabetes link. In other words, the general public is in the process of providing the long-term safety data for many of these drugs as we speak.

I've been pretty gung-ho about trying various research chemicals, so I'd probably be up for trying a new AD if it looked promising enough.

Edited by Max Headroom Incident, 11 January 2014 - 10:41 AM.

[dunbar]

This means if a new antidepressant comes out with fairly few side effects then you can never really know if it's only because it was only tested on a few people?
I wonder on how many people do they even have to test a new drug/antidepressant before it comes out? 1000? 10.000? Is this regulated somehow?

[Milkyway]

I think the FDA has failed because it does not require any long term testing of the effects of anti depressants yet you are often told you should take them for extended periods.  Its kind of half ass, but maybe the cost of long term trials is so expensive that they do not feel pharmaceutical companies should have to endure them.  In my opinion that is where the problem is.  That being said given the extent that S.S.R.I.'s have exacerbated my psychological problems I would ironically try anything new just to get those problems back in control.  I don't think anything could be quite as viscous as the stuff that first enhances and then seems to deplete Seratonin.

[Nemo888]

I stick to bioidentical peptides and improving general health. I did not like the outcomes with my fellow soldiers and modern psychiatric medicines. Tesosoterone works just as well in some cases and the side effects are you get ripped, can't get women pregnant and become a tiger in bed. Can an SSRI do that? I would take it just FOR the side effects.

Edited by Nemo888, 21 June 2014 - 09:20 AM.

[founder53]

dvanden said: "I think the FDA has failed because it does not require any long term testing of the effects of anti depressants yet you are often told you should take them for extended periods.  Its kind of half ass, but maybe the cost of long term trials is so expensive that they do not feel pharmaceutical companies should have to endure them.  In my opinion that is where the problem is."

 

I think the FDA could be more honest about it though. They could simply say "this drug has been tested on this many people over this period of time, so we don't really know what happens after that".

 

Actually, what they really should do, and it wouldn't cost much, is require all psychiatrists to encourage all their patients to report all their experiences to a central database for an extended period of time. It would be a much more effective, expedient way of learning what the effects really are in actual practice.

 

They should also require drug-makers to provide plausible explanations for specific side-effects. Just saying "5 people experienced this" is not useful for looking at potential long-term problems.

 

Sorry for hijacking.