Posted by bleauberry on April 23, 2018, at 11:38:48
In reply to Re: TRIP8b inhibitors? Truly novel antidepressants. » bleauberry, posted by SLS on April 21, 2018, at 21:55:27
>
> Genes + childhood diversity = psychiatric illness.
>
> How would you fix this particular scenario, understanding the realities of our current society?I couldn't speculate on that. What kind of genes? What kind of adversity? What kind of psychiatric illness? You will find some of the people in this imaginary scenario would respond well to Acupuncture, another to an sssri, another to some herbs, and another to simply avoiding gluten.
>
>
> Would you venture a guess as to what these actual problems are?
>
> Borrelia burgdorferi? Nutrition? Genes? Prenatal exposures? Bullying? Learned helplessness? Sexual abuse? Neglect? Stroke? Brain trauma? Substance abuse? Bereavement?The 1st one requires a skilled LLMD and maybe some temporary psych meds. Nutrition is easy to fix. Genetic technology is only in its infancy so it isn't much assistance at this time. The next 3 need a counselor and/or a pastor. Same for substance abuse and bereavement. The substance abuse person might need some medication for about a year. Stroke and brain trauma there really isn't a whole lot we can do except make the person comfortable and as functional as possible.
>
> My vote is for "all of the above - and more".
>
> > I mean, I have a question. Our scientists are so brilliant that they can figure out how to manipulate various proteins this way or that way, but they can't figure out what is actually wrong with the person's chemistry?
>
> You are angry at the scientists?Everybody should be concerned with inadequate science and inadequate medical treatments. Getting angry helps nothing.
>
> And yes, we do need to manipulate biological functions in order to help people feel better until you or scientists can figure out the rest.Armchair quarterbacking at best. Half of the 'manipulations' we assume are doing something could be way off base. Just one of hundreds of examples - zyprexa turns on or up a couple dozen different genes - zyprexa also turns down or off a couple dozen other genes. It also is an antagonist at certain receptors. We automatically deduce that when improvement of mood happens, it is because of something dopamine related or something antagonistic related. But we never even consider that maybe those just make side effects and its the manipulated genes that did the healing. We can discuss manipulating things all day long but a quick glance at the folks at psychobabble immediately tells you that particular approach is unsatisfactory.
>
> > Why do they focus on downstream but not upstream?
>
> How far upstream would you like to go?All the way to the tick bite, to the amalgam filling, to the gluten, to whatever insults the person's body is experiencing. Get rid of all obvious potential insults. Can you provide neuroscience with knowledge so that they can focus their attention there? Are you willing to support scientists or simply rail against them? And while we are here talking about scientists, they are not a monolithic consortium plotting against you and the two doctors you rely upon for your belief system.
I don't agree with your stance of pitting one group against another. They are all supposed to be healing patients but only some of them actually are. Focus on them. Doctors and scientists who are not generally showing patients what remission looks like do not deserve much focus. imo. But I disagree with making a competition about it. The patient is what matters - not theory, not textbooks, not consensus. That's how I view things.
>
> As far as I can see, scientists focus on as many things as they can conceive of given the technologies that are available and the knowledge provided to them. Knowledge is always accumulating and evolving. Perhaps you expect too much of today's scientists. They are closer than they were yesterday and further away than they will be tomorrow - as long as science is not stymied by the dogma of demagogues and the disinformation spread by charlatans.There is way too much disinformation and politics that has corrupted the world of science. Maybe that's why I had to suffer for 20 years without good reason. The CDC is particularly guilty of disinformation, especially in discussions of Lyme, and that is only scratching the surface.
I can literally point my finger at the white coat academia pinheads over at the CDC and blame them directly for losing 20 years of my life to treatment resistant depression. That's because THEY were the ones who instructed MY doctor to tell the patient the DONT HAVE Lyme disease IF THE TEST COMES BACK NEGATIVE! And that is exactly what happened.
>
> > In any case, the medical world could use some new options in terms of psychiatric medications so hopefully these new discoveries will help to improve the quality of life for some folks.In my opinion the next great antidepressant discovery would be a substance that does this: 1.It binds up anything in the blood system that isn't supposed to be there - endotoxins, heavy metals, plastics, undigested foods, stray protein fragments, etc. 2.It provides anti-inflammation from multiple mechanisms and angles. This antidepressant would have nothing to do with agonism, antagonism, reuptake, monoamines, or any of that. It's job would be to remove the most common insults that cause depression, in my opinion.
For example - my case - I walked around for years with endotoxins of Borellia infection hitting my brain receptors and causing psychiatric stuff. Nobody knew. Nobody here even suggested it. But just imagine if there was such a drug that mopped up the endotoxins. You would immediately be able to rule-in or rule-out certain things.
Right now we can't do anything like that. We basically toss a coin in the air and guess at this drug or that drug. And after a few years when we find out that drug is no better than any of its predecessor, we wait with great enthusiasm for the next one. And so it goes, round and round.
Scientists really should be doing a better job helping patients restore wellness. imo I don't mean that in a blanket way for all scientists - primarily the ones in the health field are focusing their expertise on the wrong things, the wrong mechanisms, if you ask me.
>
> I always appreciate your enthusiasm.
>
>
> - Scott
poster:bleauberry
thread:1098278
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20180331/msgs/1098314.html