Steven B. Harris sbharris at ix.netcom.com
Tue Mar 24 02:10:02 EST 1998

In <6f4q4q$2dk at crl3.crl.com> bny at crl3.crl.com (Bradley Yearwood)

>>   I will agree with the lawsuit in one respect, however: in my
>>experience in practice, Xanax is indeed far more "addictive" or
>>"dependence-producing" than its manufacturers admit.  And far more
>>addictive, strange to tell, than it is in clinical trials, if you
>>bother to look up such things on medline.  Which trials are mostly
>>supported by UpJohn <embarrassed grin>.
>So what.  Don't give it to people who don't need it.  The ones who
need it
>(speaking here of the true panic disorder fraction) are likely to be
>long-term on one drug or another, or are going to have their lives
>or wrecked by the disease.  This will be the case until and unless a
>effective treatment is identified.

    How should I know who's going to have their lives truncated or
wrecked because I didn't write them that prescription for #60 Xanax? 
Hmmm?  That's the sort of thing anxious people tell a really good story
for, don't you know.  And the truth only really comes out if you refuse
and see what happens.  

>For this to happen, the mechanisms of the disease process are going to
>to be understood, which seems not yet to be the case.  There are
>leads and interesting conjectures, but no comprehensive and
well-tested theory.


>To flaming perpetual sulfurous hell with the addiction and dependency
>labels.  If you can't understand and treat the disease, then why not
treat >the symptoms if there is an effective and reasonably unharmful
way to do so?

    One word: lawsuits (the one that started this thread).  Well,
actaully two words: *laws* (the criminal and state licensing codes
which keep adults from being able to take risks for themselves
regarding addiction, when in pain and suffering.  

    I'm a libertarain.  I think adults of moderate mental endowment and
history of responsible behavior, should have access without
prescription to any drug they want, for use in their own home.  Just
like alcohol.  Except, of course, for antiobiotics, which are horrible
public health hazards, and should be controlled like rat-breeding
dumps, nuke weapons, large bore guns, shoulder launched missles, and
canisters of nerve gases. 

>Is the person truly worse off with a daily intake of 0.75-1.5mg of
Xanax >or Klonopin than with 20mg of Paxil or 100mg of Zoloft?

    Depends on the person.  And no way to know, really, until you try
them all and see.  Guess wrong, and it's lawsuit time.   Lovely society
we live in, no?

> Which molecular
>family has 30+ years of clinical experience toward revealing possible
adverse >long-term effects?

    None of them.

>A person whose thyroid has been (literally) nuked, is going to be
lifetime >dependent upon taking thyroid hormones, no?  This person
isn't stigmatized or >labelled or viewed as an addict; they are simply
>Brad Yearwood
>Cotati, CA

    Yep.  But the tests for thyroid are much more straight forward. 
And the people don't sue you if their body chemisties don't agree with
what you and they decide would be a good experimental regime.   And
they shouldn't be able to with Xanax, either (or at least not easily,
or sucessfully).  It's time people grew up.

                                            Steve Harris, M.D.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list