Posted by SLS on July 30, 2006, at 7:49:07
In reply to Re: Effexor - A personal experience (long read), posted by linkadge on July 30, 2006, at 0:46:41
Hi.
> To say that a psychotic reaction exists is not necessarily sufficiant (IMHO) to ban the substance from those who do attain benifit.
I think each drug must be evaluated on its own on a risk versus benefit basis.
> Its the same with the TCA's. They can cause psychosis,
I have never heard of a single case of this happening. This is not to say that it has not, but certainly, the rate of this adverse event occuring is miniscule by comparison to marijuana.
> but this does not negate there theraputic potential.
Risk versus benefit based upon psychosis as the axis of risk and the amelioration of depression as the benefit might not allow marijuana to have a place on a national formulation for MDD as do the TCAs.
> Show me one article that conclusivly links one to the other
Now, what exactly should such an article look like? What do you imagine proof could be without actually subjecting people with risk factors of developing schizophrenia to marijuana? Perhaps even twin studies?
Chosen from here:
I guess one can find whatever one is looking for. Like I said, I am not convinced one way or the other. However, there is enough there to make me think twice before using marijuana were I at risk for developing schizophrenia.
> Unless you can prove a direct association (which has not been done), its not really fair to implicate the substance
Fair? Are we supposed to be fair to a substance or to the pusuit of knowledge? What exactly is a "direct" association. An association is nothing more than a statistical co-occurrence. It is not an explanation of cause and effect. Is it being "unfair" to present statistics?
- Scott
poster:SLS
thread:670781
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060724/msgs/671966.html