Posted by linkadge on April 6, 2006, at 18:17:23
In reply to Re: Drugs versus Psychotherapy - Backlash? » linkadge, posted by SLS on April 6, 2006, at 17:38:29
>Probably, but not all investigations are funded >by drug companies. I don't think there is a >conspiracy between drug companies and people >involved in pure research. Pure research >demonstrates physiological differences in the >brains of healthy versus depressed individuals.
True, we need more pure research. It is hard to know what is exactly pure research. A lot of it is tainted.
>I didn't. I went from therapist to therapist >without success until I properly identified >myself as having an affective disorder.
But have you found the right drug either?
There are others who have found the right therapist after a few trials, and some who give up right away, so results vary just like with drugs.
>It was when one did work that I became convinced >of the biological nature of my particular case. >Actually, I was convinced prior to that because >I was an ultra-rapid cycler. Once I read "Mood >Swing" by Ronald Fieve, MD, I was able to >observe and interpret my cycling; 3 days up, 8 >days down. The switch from one state to the >other took place within the time period of 30-45 >minutes. It was quite dramatic and regular. I >learned that I could keep a social calendar >based upon the 11-day cycle.
Not really trying to dismiss the biological nature of the illness. There are many different cases. I have had a bad track record with antidepressants. Little help / often make things worse. I have had more success with therapy. Thats not to say that my diseas might not be biological, it just means that current drugs don't help much. So I would say that I respond better to therapy than drugs.
>What is fair is to be able to identify in >advance who will respond to biological >interventions and who will respond to >psychological interventions. Of course, to >combine the two offers an enhanced chance of >successful treatment and prophylaxis.
Another thing to consider is exercise. It has been shown to be as effective as antidepressants in many trials, even for severe depression. Exercise actually seems to have similar downstream targets as antidepressants do. Not to say that everybody will respond. I just think that it is best to at least try alternitives first, as they can be less harsh. Not that you said it, but I don't think it would be fair to sayt that if a person responds to exercise that their illness was mild.
>Perhaps the reason we don't agree here is that >we see depression from the perspectives of >dissimilar illnesses. My depression is the >result of bipolar disorder. Perhaps there is a >bipolar spectrum affective disorder that is >driven by biological perterbations, one that is >most treatable using biological interventions; >depressions that do not belong to this spectrum >are treatable using psychotherapy. The problem >would then lie in the inability to tell the >difference. I think a good psychiatrist can, >though.
I see what you are saying. But I think that it is not really fair to restrict certain diseases to certain treatments. For instance, a new study suggests listening to mozart can increase the seizure threshold, and reduce some patient's need for anticonvulsants. Thats not to say that the disease isn't biological, it just says that biology can be altered in ways other than drugs.
Linkadge
poster:linkadge
thread:629584
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060403/msgs/629792.html