![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 41 to 65 of 102. Go back in thread:
Posted by cecilia on August 13, 2006, at 21:18:53
In reply to Is Kramer right?, posted by Dinah on August 12, 2006, at 11:57:21
I haven't read Kramer's latest book, but I skimmed through it at the bookstore and it looked like it was taking hundreds of pages to say "depression is bad". Like, does anyone really think it's good? Who wouldn't want it eliminated? Unfortunately, not everyone responds to Prozac or any other med the way the patients in his 1st book so miraculously did. Cecilia
Posted by Phillipa on August 13, 2006, at 21:24:08
In reply to Re: Is Kramer right?, posted by cecilia on August 13, 2006, at 21:18:53
Cecelia thanks. I haven't read the book. So his patients miraculously respond to meds? That would be depressing in itself to read. It would mean that I have a fatal flaw, what's wrong with me everyone else is fine what about me? Is this what it's about? Love Phillipa
Posted by willyee on August 13, 2006, at 22:40:42
In reply to Re: Optimistic part » willyee, posted by laima on August 13, 2006, at 19:25:04
Thanks a million,much clearer now!!!!!!!!!
Posted by willyee on August 13, 2006, at 22:42:43
In reply to Re: Optimistic part, posted by willyee on August 13, 2006, at 16:51:56
Oh just FYI,just in case,that was sincere not sarcasim,it does make more sense to me now,ty.
Posted by laima on August 13, 2006, at 23:54:12
In reply to Re: Optimistic part » willyee, posted by willyee on August 13, 2006, at 22:42:43
> Oh just FYI,just in case,that was sincere not sarcasim,it does make more sense to me now,ty.
Sure! No problem, I'm so happy I could be of any help.
Posted by laima on August 13, 2006, at 23:57:24
In reply to Re: Optimistic part » laima, posted by Phillipa on August 13, 2006, at 19:41:12
> Excellent summary. Thanks it definitely helped me too. It must be like listening to prozac that book scared me. Love Phillipa
Oh yes- that's the other book I was referring to in earlier posts- I never read it- I picked it up a few times, but somehow just couldn't get into it. I have no idea if I was being fair or not, but in my mind I always blamed Kramer for the prozac rucous of that era...Do you remember that stuff and all those jokes???
Posted by laima on August 13, 2006, at 23:58:54
In reply to Re: Optimistic part, posted by linkadge on August 13, 2006, at 19:55:37
> >How do you know so many things, anyway?
>
> Perhaps some of my attemtps to grow new brain cells have been sucessfull :)
>
> Probably more that the topic interests me.
>
> Linkadge
It interests me too- it's so key for a lot of us!
Thanks again for sharing that long list.
Posted by laima on August 14, 2006, at 0:01:51
In reply to Re: Optimistic part » Aphrodite, posted by linkadge on August 13, 2006, at 20:04:09
>Nobody would dare to blame something like cancer on a "personaltiy flaw" or weakenss
You'd be surprised- it's happened to a friend of mine who is battleing brain tumours. It's happened to her a lot- people directly and indirectly accusing her of unhealthy living and such.
Posted by laima on August 14, 2006, at 0:04:15
In reply to Re: Optimistic part » linkadge, posted by cecilia on August 13, 2006, at 20:51:30
> Has anyone noticed those "antismoking" commercials sponsored by the tobacco companies. They make me furious!!!!!! They tell parents to "talk to your kids about not smoking". Those companies aren't dumb, just extremely evil, they know the best way to get kids smoking is to have parents telling them not to. Cecilia
That's so sinister!!! I never understood before why they did that!
Posted by laima on August 14, 2006, at 0:27:09
In reply to Re: Is Kramer right?, posted by cecilia on August 13, 2006, at 21:18:53
> Unfortunately, not everyone responds to Prozac or any other med the way the patients in his 1st book so miraculously did. Cecilia
When prozac came out it REALLY was a miraculous breakthrough:
Easy to use, "activating", supposedly very safe, relatively free of the side effects that plagued the tricyclics and maois. And that of course was well before anyone knew about the "poop out" and before anyone spoke of sexual side effects or emotional blunting. Right before its introduction, I tried just about every single available tricyclic, one after another, but they all made me lethargic, slug-like, and gain weight. (No one dared give me, sneaky teenager, any maoi, or even mentioned the possibility.) Then came prozac- brand new- and it truely seemed miraculous. I had never even heard of it when I got my first prescription. It was the start of an entirely new class of drugs. It was supposed to revolutionize psychiatry by being safe, effective, and super-easy to prescribe. True- did not likely work for everyone-but in the begining when it worked, it REALLY worked! It worked great for me-I had dropped out of college and felt like a doomed loser, but went right back and did very well there within a couple weeks. Prozac made quite a media splash, too: on the cover of Time Magazine and everything. I get the impression Kramer was swept up in all of the excitement when he wrote that prozac book. I venture to speculate that we are all a bit wiser and more sophisticated nowadays. It's still great for some people-no doubt-but it's not a magic cure for everyone, and does come with the possibility for some hefty side effects after all.
Posted by SLS on August 14, 2006, at 8:00:50
In reply to Re: Is Kramer right?, posted by SLS on August 12, 2006, at 21:46:43
> > What he's actually saying, to paraphrase as best as I can understand, is that people prone to multiple bouts of depression are people who have a defect in brain repair.
>
> As opposed to a defect in brain regulation?
>
> I think the latter is closer to the truth.
Depression appears to be a complicated illness with a multiplicity of factors contributing to its induction and persistence. Right now, I still don't think that it is a defect in brain repair that is responsible for its induction. I believe this to be more a product of dysregulation in neurotransmission and circuitry. However, I can see how such a defect could contribute to its persistence. I guess the illness might progress as a self-reenforcing process, with the inability of the brain to recover from stress-induced cell loss hindering the reestablishment of healthy interactions between entire circuits. Still, this is probably a matter of a diminished rate of repair rather than its complete absence as has been demonstrated by the recovery of brain tissue seen with lithium and antidepressant use.
- Scott
Posted by willyee on August 14, 2006, at 9:58:09
In reply to Re: Is Kramer right?, posted by SLS on August 14, 2006, at 8:00:50
> > > What he's actually saying, to paraphrase as best as I can understand, is that people prone to multiple bouts of depression are people who have a defect in brain repair.
> >
> > As opposed to a defect in brain regulation?
> >
> > I think the latter is closer to the truth.
>
>
> Depression appears to be a complicated illness with a multiplicity of factors contributing to its induction and persistence. Right now, I still don't think that it is a defect in brain repair that is responsible for its induction. I believe this to be more a product of dysregulation in neurotransmission and circuitry. However, I can see how such a defect could contribute to its persistence. I guess the illness might progress as a self-reenforcing process, with the inability of the brain to recover from stress-induced cell loss hindering the reestablishment of healthy interactions between entire circuits. Still, this is probably a matter of a diminished rate of repair rather than its complete absence as has been demonstrated by the recovery of brain tissue seen with lithium and antidepressant use.
>
>
> - ScottVery encourgaging words,thanks
Posted by Dinah on August 14, 2006, at 10:26:39
In reply to Re: Is Kramer right?, posted by SLS on August 14, 2006, at 8:00:50
That's more or less what he says. That it's a cycle for some (not all) people. That some people have traits that protect them from neurological damage, and some people have the ability to repair the neurological damage, and some have neither.
I think he also says that neuroticism is a trait that is closely linked with depression, perhaps because both result from a lack of protection and of neurological resilience.
I'm already starting to forget what he says though. I need to read it again, or brush up on it. Or put it aside and never think of it again. :)
Posted by SLS on August 14, 2006, at 10:49:27
In reply to Re: Is Kramer right? » SLS, posted by Dinah on August 14, 2006, at 10:26:39
> That's more or less what he says. That it's a cycle for some (not all) people. That some people have traits that protect them from neurological damage, and some people have the ability to repair the neurological damage, and some have neither.
Hmm.
It sounds logical enough.
What does he claim is causing the damage to begin with? Is this damage a product of normal everyday living or is it abnormal and part of the disease process?
Gosh. I feel like I'm having you do a book report.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on August 14, 2006, at 11:09:40
In reply to Re: Is Kramer right? » Dinah, posted by SLS on August 14, 2006, at 10:49:27
I'm definitely forgetting. :)
Ummm... I think he means environmental stress.
Things that psychologically inclined people think of as causing depression. Poor parenting, trauma, stress. He says those things do contribute to depression, but only in those who are biologically predisposed.
Posted by pulse on August 14, 2006, at 11:23:34
In reply to Re: Is Kramer right? » notfred, posted by laima on August 12, 2006, at 18:56:36
> Hope so--I'm hoping for that plasticity--if Kramer is asserting that's not possible, I think that would be a tad irresponsable of him. After all, there ARE people who manage to overcome their depression or at least keep it in remission or under control. Again, haven't read any of his books- but I'm bewildered what, other than sensationalism, would motivate anyone to write anything remotely along the lines of 'depressed people are all doomed due to permanently damaged brains'- if that is what he's saying. It almost seems that believeing something like that could in itself be a predictor of staying depressed. I'm more interested to take a closer look at Lindage's list about neurogenesis, and do anything I can, whenever I can manage, to go against atrophy.
my therapist just finished this book and is very impressed with it. she made a big point of bringing it up in 1 of our latest sessions.
in no way does she feel that it's saying anything close to 'depressives are all doomed. etc.'
she's a fan of kramers; she read his 'listening to prozac' when it 1st came out, so she wanted to see his latest takes on depression.
i'm his fan also, and since i can no longer take any ads, i'm sure this book will be of at least some help to me.
Posted by Aphrodite on August 14, 2006, at 11:35:26
In reply to Re: Is Kramer right? » Dinah, posted by SLS on August 14, 2006, at 10:49:27
Not really pertinent, but this stuck with me from the book:
He makes an interesting but brief side note about German psychiatry's interest in the role of scrupulosity in mood disorders -- he states that they've conducted studies that show people with in-born, clear rules of ethics and what is right and wrong are much more likely to develop depression.
Posted by Dinah on August 14, 2006, at 11:37:48
In reply to Scrupulosity » SLS, posted by Aphrodite on August 14, 2006, at 11:35:26
Well, that's me. In fact scrupulosity OCD is part of my diagnosis.
Posted by pulse on August 14, 2006, at 11:46:22
In reply to Re: Optimistic part » Phillipa, posted by laima on August 13, 2006, at 23:57:24
> Oh yes- that's the other book I was referring to in earlier posts- I never read it- I picked it up a few times, but somehow just couldn't get into it. I have no idea if I was being fair or not, but in my mind I always blamed Kramer for the prozac rucous of that era...Do you remember that stuff and all those jokes???
i was one of those miracle prozac patients. have moderately severe to very severe mdd, recurrent. i did most definitely feel better than well.
it did burn me up that ppl w/out depression were demanding prozac. also the prozac jokes. however, i never blamed peter kramer. he was, unfortunately, used as a too convenient scapegoat for the entire bruh haha.
remember prozac was the first of the newer gen. ads when it came out in 1986. this WAS a big deal. as an aside, i still believe the tcas to be more effective - for me - than ANY of the newer ads....or combos.
Posted by laima on August 14, 2006, at 11:51:24
In reply to Re: Is Kramer right? » laima, posted by pulse on August 14, 2006, at 11:23:34
> > Hope so--I'm hoping for that plasticity--if Kramer is asserting that's not possible, I think that would be a tad irresponsable of him. After all, there ARE people who manage to overcome their depression or at least keep it in remission or under control. Again, haven't read any of his books- but I'm bewildered what, other than sensationalism, would motivate anyone to write anything remotely along the lines of 'depressed people are all doomed due to permanently damaged brains'- if that is what he's saying. It almost seems that believeing something like that could in itself be a predictor of staying depressed. I'm more interested to take a closer look at Lindage's list about neurogenesis, and do anything I can, whenever I can manage, to go against atrophy.
>
> my therapist just finished this book and is very impressed with it. she made a big point of bringing it up in 1 of our latest sessions.
>
> in no way does she feel that it's saying anything close to 'depressives are all doomed. etc.'
>
> she's a fan of kramers; she read his 'listening to prozac' when it 1st came out, so she wanted to see his latest takes on depression.
>
> i'm his fan also, and since i can no longer take any ads, i'm sure this book will be of at least some help to me.
>Oh- actually we got a better understanding about this book later in the thread.
Posted by laima on August 14, 2006, at 11:55:45
In reply to Re: Optimistic part » laima, posted by pulse on August 14, 2006, at 11:46:22
No- the entire fuss wasn't Kramer's fault- but he sure seemed to ride the wave, and he was often the person media picked out for comments. That book of his was mentioned all over the place.
> > Oh yes- that's the other book I was referring to in earlier posts- I never read it- I picked it up a few times, but somehow just couldn't get into it. I have no idea if I was being fair or not, but in my mind I always blamed Kramer for the prozac rucous of that era...Do you remember that stuff and all those jokes???
>
> i was one of those miracle prozac patients. have moderately severe to very severe mdd, recurrent. i did most definitely feel better than well.
>
> it did burn me up that ppl w/out depression were demanding prozac. also the prozac jokes. however, i never blamed peter kramer. he was, unfortunately, used as a too convenient scapegoat for the entire bruh haha.
>
> remember prozac was the first of the newer gen. ads when it came out in 1986. this WAS a big deal. as an aside, i still believe the tcas to be more effective - for me - than ANY of the newer ads....or combos.
Posted by pulse on August 14, 2006, at 12:28:13
In reply to Scrupulosity » SLS, posted by Aphrodite on August 14, 2006, at 11:35:26
now you've really got my attention re: the germans and their conviction of scrupulousness re: 'extreme' morality of right vs. wrong.
boy, am i ever locked into that!
this is wild because i just asked my therapist how she felt about the notion of - i'll call it - a more, to much more, 'fluid' type of morality.
i asked because it has become more than obvious to me that my moral views exert an enormous amount of stress on me. btw, i'm quite liberal and anything but a fascist; i'm a realist who used to be an idealist. i so wish i could get back to the idealist, but i believe i'm simply too damaged by life events, NOT of my own making, for that to be possible.
i feel my moral pressures to be quite damaging, yet it's such a catch 22, because 'to thine own self be true' has literally saved my life. i can't see a way to reconcile the two.
pulse
Posted by pulse on August 14, 2006, at 12:29:47
In reply to Re: Is Kramer right? » pulse, posted by laima on August 14, 2006, at 11:51:24
sorry, my bad. i see that better understanding now.
pulse
Posted by laima on August 14, 2006, at 13:15:51
In reply to Re: Is Kramer right? » laima, posted by pulse on August 14, 2006, at 12:29:47
> sorry, my bad. i see that better understanding now.
>
> pulseNo problem- the whole thread got pretty confusing for awhile, and did a lot of evolving.
Posted by linkadge on August 14, 2006, at 17:34:08
In reply to Re: Optimistic part » linkadge, posted by cecilia on August 13, 2006, at 20:51:30
I guess you are right. I suppose if some moron is able to find some reason they think a person is responsable for their own cancer, they feel less anxious about getting it themselves.
Its a self serving bias to assume that the rules are different for onelself.
Linkadge
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.