Posted by bleauberry on January 11, 2014, at 7:03:11
In reply to Re: Suicide Attempt » bleauberry, posted by SLS on January 10, 2014, at 13:51:21
Good questions, Scott. thank you. I will try.
> > Whatever the cause, it appears to me there are toxins of some kind that causing misfiring and messing up the whole mood center operations.
>
> What toxins, specifically?
Lots of long bizarre names. There is so much we don't know. One of the MDs pioneering the research and treatment on this topic goes by the name of Shoemaker. I think it would be easier to google and take a look around yourself rather than me copying and pasting the equivalent of about 3 books on this one page. The toxin I am most concerned with in my own body is Quinolic acid, and cholestyramine does a good job of clearing out my head. Weird huh? Take a drug that passes thru the intestines but makes the head feel better? That's what happens.There are pubmed articles that indicate how toxins have affinity with opioid receptors, which would obviously have indirect negative effects on dopamine and norepinephrine, and the resulting psychiatric symptom manifestation would not be a surprise. Pretty much any of the popular internet LLMDs have piles of ongoing scientific studies relating to their pioneering work. Harowitz, Burrascano...if you start studying the writings of these guys, and researching where they got their leads from, you yourself Scott would be able to write an entire book on this topic. And we need that book. There is no better science oriented guy I know of for that job than you.
Can you offer a peer reviewed study indicating that toxins do not impact the brain?
>
> What are the clinical indicators described by Danielj that leads you to your conclusions regarding her son?
The symptoms, severity, and history. To many people, all these different diagnosis and symptoms look pretty much the same all under one blanket....for example depression is depression is depression, right? Well, no. There are different kinds of depression. The subtle differences offer really powerful clues to me, because I can recognize the difference between DanielJ situation verses someone else that looks similar. Subtle clues are usually not seen, ignored, or considered idiopathic. To me, those subtle clues speak loudly and at the very least give me an idea of what we are dealing with and how to proceed.>
> Can you cite any scientific literature demonstrating that the misfiring and messing up of the whole mood center operations are produced by the toxins you allude to?
No. Science is lagging. It will catch up, if former historical patterns hold true, maybe in about 5 to 10 years. The best information out there is fragmented....a researcher here, a researcher there, a few hundred MDs, patient reports, blogs, forums, and such.
That said, type "cholestyramine lyme" into a google search box and you will find a treasure of data available to anyone curious.>
> I look forward to your thread on cholestyramine. I'm sure you will provide peer-reviewed scientific literature to corroborate the contents of your posts.
Scott you know me better than that. I operate about 5 to 10 years in advance of science peer reviews. Wait for those reviews and our lives will be done already, suffering that could have been reduced, wasn't. I am not one to wait for someone else to figure out my problems and hand the solution to me on a silver platter. I only have one life. It is mine. It does not belong to science. We each have our own journeys, our own cross to bear, and we each do the best we can in our own lives to what we think is right. And naturally, what works for us, we want to share. A person has the right as the boss of their own body to accept or reject, discern, whatever information they gather.Trust but verify. I like that. There is not a single "gray" thing I've done in my treatment that had not already proved impressive with several hundred thousand other people in the real world clinical setting. There is decent science on it all, but not the establishment type peer review stuff you are looking for. Well, that's not really true either....not that simple....I guess it depends on who one considers to be peers. If all the other LLMDs are peers, then yeah, there is a ton of peer reviewed stuff. Who qualifies to be a peer? What makes them so qualified? Versus someone else who claims to be a peer? It's all subjective. Not objective. Mostly. Generally. Science used to be science. In this day and age it seems to have morphed into science based opinion editorials. What appears to be true and fact, is accepted as so even without repeatable duplicatable reliable proof.
Global warming is an example outside of psychiatry. Too much confusing data. Choose your side. There is enough data to defend both sides. Of course, we now know that all of the peer reviewed science from the big players was completely fabricated data. Massive hoax, but they call it science. Hey, that research ship stuck in the Antartic ice....do know what they were researching?.....global warming! lol
That said, peer reviewed, in my observations, does not significantly increase the validity of whatever is being reviewed. The reviewers have been proved wrong, or misguided, all throughout history. Over and over. It repeats. Nothing new. Sometimes they get it right. But we don't know that until 10 or 20 years later when real-world practice confirms and validates. But how often does the FDA pull something from the market that was not only approved in the first place, but peer reviewed as well, with flying colors. Happens.
I think the reason you and I see the world through different lenses is because I do not trust establishment types, you do. You depend on science. I do not. Simple as that. There is no right or wrong in there. People who do things with zero peer reviewed approaches get just as much improvement, if not more, than someone else, in my experiences anyway. Human intuition and wisdom, on an individual basis, can trump the best science has to offer. That is in fact how hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people, are gaining ground against their chronic diseases. For example, the LLMD are literally saving thousands of lives and giving life back to patients who have been severely ill for a long time. But nothing they do is peer reviewed....NOTHING. It is all the wisdom and intuition gained in the clinical setting that is healing people. Those same people, if they wait for science to catch up, will be in the grave a long time before that happens.
>
>
> - ScottI understand you do not agree with a single thing that I have to say, and that is cool. I am very respectful of what other people believe. I like varying perceptions, because I believe no one is ever completely right or wrong, that the truth is a mixture of them.
The real best way to help people involves both your points of views and mine, a mix of science and intuition, science and clinical observation, eastern medicine and western medicine, combined and honed for the individual patient on a case by case basis.
I would think anyone involved in the medical world....patients as well as clinicians....would understand that we are dealing with one of the most complex physiological things called a human body that we know very little about, relatively speaking compared to all we do know, and that every new discovery out in the field would be greeted with optimistic promise for a deeper look, rather than immediate critical trash disposal.
Black and white. Gray. I think another difference between your perceptions and mine, is science oriented humans tend to desire to box concepts in black or white compartments and there isn't much gray area inbetween. To me, that is a very dangerous approach for the patient's future and outcome. But it is a commonly adopted approach throughout the medical establishment. There is no such thing as adrenal weakness, only cushings or addisons. For the many who are having hormonal issues related to substandard cortisol operation, or HPA axis disregulation, the black and white world is not going to help them much. Matter of fact, the establishment is perfectly fine telling them to go home and get some rest and not even try to help the patient. Meanwhile, the MD operating in the gray zone already has a long list of happy patients that received some sort of prescription or procedure that was sort of out of the box and not peer reviewed.
It's all so complicated. Intertwined. So much we don't know, but we think we know plenty. We don't. If we did, we would have all sorts of answers to questions that are asked at pbabble day after day year after year. They repeat. Nothing new. Lab results themselves often offer confusing or contradictory results. Peer reviewed science is not going to help in that situation. The MDs clinical intuition is going to have to kick in. He will not have the support of scientists when he makes his decision.
I do not see and rights or wrongs, better or worse, because I believe we are in such infancy in understanding the incredibly complicated workings inside the body, that even the best scientists are poorly armed to explain things in ways that can be proved and duplicated time and again. We do eventually get there. Polio. Ulcers. Discovery of bacteria. On and on throughout history. On and on going forward. We are in the middle of it right now. Until we know as much God, it will always be that way.
But...disclaimer...all one person's opinion, based on intuition guided by experience.
poster:bleauberry
thread:1058186
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20140104/msgs/1058260.html