Psycho-Babble Medication | about biological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Dr. Tracy on SSRIs.. » linkadge

Posted by Larry Hoover on December 11, 2005, at 10:44:52

In reply to Re: Dr. Tracy on SSRIs.., posted by linkadge on December 10, 2005, at 21:07:06

> >Excepting serotonin syndrome, no demonstrated >condition of excess serotonin is known.

> So I restate. Some research shows that high serotonin is implicated in certain disease states.

We're arguing a semantic distinction, about our interpretation of another person's words.

Localized serotinergic activation can be, on a relative scale, high or low. I am arguing against a global "elevated serotonin" state, as postulated by the under-educated Tracy.


> >MAO-A is not specific to serotonin. Flooding the >brain with free serotonin does not mimic any >known physiological process.
>
> Taking LSD, doesn't mimic any physiological process. I don't know what you are trying to say?

We can mess with the brain, with drugs, and produce unnatural states. Tracy was implying an innate condition, "excess serotonin", or however she phrased it, was the underlying etiological factor in mental diseases of all sorts.

It is a preposterous theory, with no evidence.

> SSRI's simply mimic the antidepressant effects of sleep deprivation.

Whether that's your theory or hers, I disagree. I don't think anyone knows the mechanism, but it most certainly won't be as simple as that.


> >?? What is premature aging?
>
> Lets not be difficult. I think there was an X-Files on it.

It's a meaningless phrase. That's my point. It contributes nothing, except perhaps, hooking the naive mind.


> >I try to stay away from these mechanistic >arguments, because they require that you believe >the premise to believe the conclusion. Petitio >principii.
>
> It's quite simple. The higher the functional agonism at 5-ht2a receptors. The higher the probability of visual disturbances as a side effect.

Which differs so substantially across the population it is more reasonably a genetic trait (susceptibility) than a drug effect.

Exceptional cases always occur. Sample enough population, and you're going to find outliers. How to treat those cases is a matter of opinion, and we shan't settle that by arguing.

I am an outlier. Me. I've had very bizarre drug effects, when compared to normalized data. My bizarre response to a drug demonstrates nothing, other than I should avoid the drug.

> >She doesn't make those arguments. You did.
>
> No, I didn't make that connection. She has made it her job to try and explain some of the behaviors that have resulted from the use of the drugs.

She wants to blame the drug for all aberrant behaviour. And I'm still waiting for the explanation part.

> I am to suppose that her attemps to liken the effects of SSRI's to that of harsher drugs has no relavance to this?

Her generalizations amount to hyperbole without any reasonable support.

"If feeling depressed.....injecting one-quarter gram of PCP.....will have same effect on body and mind.....as Prozac."

That is false, bizarre, fear-mongering, meaningless.

> >In the very next breath, she argues that SSRIs >are prophecied in the Bible, and I just stopped >listening at that point.
>
> I would stop listening too.

Oh, but you snipped the part about "the gummy gooey glossy substance". I thought that was so relevant.

> But that doesn't mean I would throw the baby out with the bathwater.

This woman makes what amount to emotional appeals. Her theories contain vague expressions which can be taken in many ways. There is a plausibilty to what she says. But nowhere, does she offer the data, the observations, the physical evidence, to support even her core allegations. What baby?

> It is too bad that the sensationalists are the only ones who get the attention.

As I said earlier, let the data speak for themselves.

> Goodness knows there are more sensable people saying the same thing.

No, not that I've seen.

> >Please try to separate from the emotional >appeals, with seemingly plausible arguments, >based on zero evidence. The woman scares me.
>
> Zero evidence?

Would you kindly present her evidence? I've seen none. I am totally serious.

> Now that is kind of talk scares me.

> Linakdge

Perhaps we should agree to disagree?

Lar

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Medication | Framed

poster:Larry Hoover thread:587690
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20051211/msgs/588023.html