Talk:Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor/Archive 1

message: Would someone familiar with the chemical action of these drugs please add this.
----
Why not, Zundark? --AV
:- Because it makes it look like an advertisement. --Zundark, 2001 Oct 22
::- I agree with Zundark -- MarXidad, 2002-01-17 6:36 AM EST
----
I was filling in a link from Multiple Sclerosis. Is that so bad? RoseParks
It was BF's contribution that I was objecting to, not yours. --Zundark, 2001 Oct 22
----
Someone added ® signs to the trademarked drug names, and Zundark removed them.  This information is accurate (the names really are trademarks) and is generally included in descriptive texts.  If we're going to use commercial brand names (and I see no reason not to), then we should do it correctly.  --LDC
Why is it only correct if you put a ® after it? We've used "Intel" and "Pentium" and numerous other registered trademarks in Wikipedia without using a ®. Are you going to go through and "correct" all these? It will look a mess. --Zundark, 2001 Oct 22
----
I agree, it could get very messy (Pentium should be labelled, Intel should not).  It's also hard to track down which are officially registered and which aren't.  This is an editorial decision that should be made carefully, though, since it can piss of very rich people if you don't do it right.  I don't have a copy of CMS with me at the moment, but I believe that in things like newspaper and magazine articles, the first use of a trademarked name is generally labelled.  Larger works often just have a prologue that says "these terms...are trademarks or service marks of...".  Perhaps Wikipedia could just have a statement of policy somewhere.  --LDC
:I think it would be best just to have such a statement. Keeping all the trademark information correct would be easier if it's all in one place, and the articles would be tidier without all those ® and ™. Perhaps this discussion should be moved to a more appropriate page. --Zundark, 2001 Oct 22
:I could be mistaken, but I believe a blanket statement such as "All trademarks are the property of their respective owners" would cover us legally. Jimmy should probably check with a lawyer, though. --Stephen Gilbert
::Legally, I don't think even this is necessary. (If it is, then someone needs to tell Richard Stallman -- see the GNU policy on trademarks.) I don't think LDC was talking about legal requirements, he was talking about not pissing off very rich people. --Zundark, 2001 Oct 22
::Take some Prozac® if the registered symbols bother you so much and be sure to make appts. with your therapist more often *) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.94.122.xxx (talk • contribs) 25 February 2002
----
I have to take offense to the following:
:Third, the first letter of SSRI standing for "selective" indicates that not all synapses 
are affected, but only selectively those that are responsible for the the mood and, thus, the depression.
This gives way too much credit to the schleps who designed these drugs and their understanding of brain function as it relates to mood, which is minimal. In general this article makes the biochemists out to be some sort of gods. The reality is much closer to saying that they had some rough idea of what to do, stabbed in the near-dark, and fortuitously got it right. Depression and the brain in general is NOT well enough understood for drug design to be wholly "rational", and this article needs to reflect that.  Thoughts? Graft, 26 September 2002
::It was not the intention of the name SSRI to imply a selective action on certain 5-HT receptors. Rather they are "selective" in the sense that they only inhibit uptake of 5-HT, as compared to the older tricyclic antidepressants which inhibited several uptake mechanisms including 5-HT and noradrenaline. Techelf 09:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Various 2001 and 2002

message: Guys, it's late, I'm tired and pissed off, but who is this Allen Frances chap?  I'm not in a mood to look him up right now.
Exactly why does he say that psychiatric conditions have no underlying physical mechanism?  If they don't have one, why do psychiatric medications tend to work (not always as intended)?  And what did Julius Axelrod get his Nobel on?  Will he propose next that Phantom limb pain does not exist?
Pilatus 22:20, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allen J. Frances 

message: :children taking SSRIs or MAOIs are 1.89 times more likely to commit suicid.
More likely than what? Children not receiving treatment? Children without depression? Children who like candy? This is important. Can you link to a study or something?
I'm removing the line until someone can clarify.
--Ntg 04:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suicidality

message: Someone anonymous messily removed the list of fluoxetine SSRIs; as there was no explanation or apparent reason, I put them back.  If there *was* in fact a reason, could the anonymous person please explain here.  Thank you.  Junkyardprince | Talk 16:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fluoxetine Removal 

message: Does anyone know why, or have any further information regarding SSRIs used in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. I just found that a little odd and I was wondering if anyone knew any further information on it.
:IBS is notoriously related to stress, anxiety and panic. There are many theories, but the influence of the autonomic nervous system on the "enteric nervous system" is thought to be significant, making the patient more sensitive to peristalsis, irritation etc. Improving stress-related symptoms with tricyclics or SSRIs often improves symptoms in severe cases of IBS.
:The 5HT3 inhibitor alosetron and the drug tegaserod interfere with the serotinin neurotransmission in the gut. Their role is modest, especially since alosetron has been linked to ischemic colitis. JFW | T@lk 08:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SSRIs and IBS 

message: I feel that as it stands this article focuses on the critcisms of SSRIs without clearly stating why these drugs are perscribed and the benefits that the vast majority of the psychiatric professions sees in patients on the drugs.  Thoughts? protohiro 17:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance/NPOV 

message: Comment. I am responding to the RFC request on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, natural science, and technology. Reviewing the history of edits and the above discussion, I don't think the two studies previously referenced in the article
 are enough to support the assertion that persistence of SD after discontinuation occurs in humans. Edwardian 06:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC request

message: When does a victim decide to stop rationalizing abuse from an offender?  Perhaps at that psychological threshold of tolerance, serotonin reuptake is inhibited rather than facilitated within the subject.  Beadtot10/18/200504:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  healing versus dysfunction/flight versus fight 

message: The following note was left in the article by User:12.149.141.14:
:"NOTE TO EDITORS: the Wikipedia 5-HTP page indicates that it standa for 5-Hydroxy-tryptophan and that it is USED to create Serotonin. The Serotonin page indicates it's abbreviated term is 5-HT. Also this page should reference the 5-HTP page and its use as an alternative to L-Tryptophan."
Please see serotonin and 5-HTP. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  5-HTP 

message: This edit looks legitimate. However, the sentence "SSRIs meet the World Health Organization definition of 'addictive'" probably should be sourced. The closest I could find was here, which states "In the 1960s the World Health Organization recommended that both terms be abandoned in favour of dependence, which can exist in various degrees of severity." Is there a better source for the claim? --Arcadian 17:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there isn't, it should be removed as original research. JFW | T@lk 17:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Addictive

message: Why isn't the stuff on suicidal ideation in the section on side effects? It is a side effect (and a serious one, too) yet that section doesn't even mention it.  24.4.248.59 22:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide 

message: As the production error responsible for the contamination would have been easily correctable, some critics have suggested that this appears to have been done to make money for the manufacturers of SSRIs. This bureaucratic action neglecting the most important fact established regarding the biochemistry of tryptophan: that it is an essential amino acid that humans cannot live without eating, led to renewed questioning as to whether the FDA was a science based or political agency.
This section was recently deleted from the article. Any comments? Kim Bruning 13:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted block 

message: The article claims that antidepressants have been shown to be neurotoxic. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Numerous studies have indicated that SSRIs may actually promote neurogenesis, quite the opposite effect. If no one can supply evidence of purported neurotoxicity, I am going to remove the claims, as they are currently devoid of any scientific basis, and in the light of new research suggesting an effect to the contrary, ridiculous. --Muugokszhiion 05:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neurotoxicity? Where's the proof?