![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by JasonL on March 25, 2001, at 18:15:06
I too am one of the treatment resistent folks out there. This whole thing is so frustrating to me. How is that some people can just be happier, more possitive than others?
It just goes to show how little we understand about the human body. Depression or any sickness seems to be a symptom of a lack of balance. Somehow the body, the person, is not moving toward states of equalibrium. In disease, or dis-ease, the body has lost some of its ability to maintain homeostasis. How does this occur?
The body is infinately complex. If one looks around today, there are so many other forms of illness and sickness that plague our society--despite our technological advancements.
Its an interesting contradiction that goes on. When a person breaks a leg, they go in, get a cast and baring any complications, the body does the rest of the work over the next few months. No positive attitude, no analysis of childhood traumas needed.
With depression it's different. It's the mind that is sick. But what is the difference between the mind and body? We can easily say that when a person breaks a leg, the body is broken. We wouldn't say "He has mental problems with his leg."
In depression, it is not so obvious as to what is going on. Clearly there is some inbalance in the body that needs to be fixed, or "put a cast on." Hence we have science looking for drugs to help restore this balance. The major problem here are that we don't have a good understanding of "what is actually broken." We can see that the patient has symptoms of sickness, but from where do these symptoms emerge inside the body?
Without the ability to see or understand what is trully going on, doctors and patients have a difficult time in knowing what to target. This can be seen in all kinds of illness that today remain "unsolved" in medicine. Aids, lupus, MS, cancer, heart disease, ect.
Remember it wasn't long ago that the AMA did not endorse diet as having much to do with one's health. It was even less time ago that the AMA was suggesting that high cholestoral put people at risk for heart disease. In truth, doctors are now beginning to understand the importance of cholestoral (the good kind) in healthy living. I only wonder what we are missing today about depression.
Perhaps the endocrine system will one day gain more attention, perhaps genes, perhaps the immune system. As we all know the amine theory of depression is just a theory. If you stop an think about it, ADs are working on enzymes in the brain. I wonder if it will one day be discovered that people with depression lack ceretain enzymes in their livers, ect. which are complicating things down the line in the brain. Its also interesting to note, having studied various other forms of natural medicine, that for instance in China medicine, look to treat mental and emotional problems by balancing the organs of the body. It is logical that if your stomach and gall bladder is out of whack, maybe your brain is starving of certain chemicals needed for optimal function.
I recently found some interesting websites that are looking at human health a bit differently. One site, Biomedx.com looks at analysing live human blood and its relationship to PH blood levels. The idea here is that latent within the body are primal forms of bacteria, viruses, fungi, that lay dorment. But when the environment in the body changes, e.g. the ph of the blood, you can actually see these dormant organisms morph into agressive bacteria, viruses, fugus, ect. The site focuses on trying to establish the propper blood ph so that these micro organisms do not have an environment to flourish. For more information on this disease cycle, one might look into the current and seeming wrong paradigm of the disease process set forth by Louis Pasteur. Check out the site.
Another interesing site I found dealt with the emerging field of bioaccoustics found at Soundhealthinc.com The company is using the voice patterns of patients to take an overall "snap shot" of their current state of health. You might say that the voice is a holographic representaion of yourself at any given moment. For isntance, when you are sad, your voice has a certain "footprint" as oppased to when you are happy, ect. Anyway, using the voice as a fingerprint of the human total, the technicians are then able to introduce certain sounds to cancel out or balance the abnormalities found in the voice. An example being that they can introduce the "sound of the vitamin niacin to patients and subjects report experiencing the same skin rash as if they had injested the actual vitamin. Work in bioaccoustics is emerging, but they are finding that certain pathogens respond and can be destroyed by sound. Even more exciting is that through voice recognition, computers are able to know where are person is lacking in the physiology...enabling them to create sounds to balance the physiology or reocommend certain drugs, suppliments.
Sorry to go so long, but I'd like further ideas about depression and its causes and possible ways to cure this damn disease that we suffer from.
Best wishes,
JasonL
Posted by Bill L on March 25, 2001, at 21:41:45
In reply to New theories of mental disorders needed (long), posted by JasonL on March 25, 2001, at 18:15:06
I think that your post was very interesting. The voice pattern thing might have something to it. Think about it. You can talk to someone, or observe someone talking to another person, for just a couple of minutes, and you can get a lot of information about that person's "chemistry".
Of course the classic Darwinian theory is natural selection. If a person or animal had a broken leg back in the caveman days and the body lacked the ability to fix it, that person would not be able to catch dinner and would probably not reproduce. The people who's bodies could fix broken bones would reproduce and pass on the good trait.
But anxiety and depression are different. A depressed person can still catch dinner abd reproduce. He just won't be very happy during his life. Same with anxiety. A caveman with anxiety might be even better at survival evnthough he might never be able to relax and enjoy life. So blame evolution.
> I too am one of the treatment resistent folks out there. This whole thing is so frustrating to me. How is that some people can just be happier, more possitive than others?
>
> It just goes to show how little we understand about the human body. Depression or any sickness seems to be a symptom of a lack of balance. Somehow the body, the person, is not moving toward states of equalibrium. In disease, or dis-ease, the body has lost some of its ability to maintain homeostasis. How does this occur?
>
> The body is infinately complex. If one looks around today, there are so many other forms of illness and sickness that plague our society--despite our technological advancements.
>
> Its an interesting contradiction that goes on. When a person breaks a leg, they go in, get a cast and baring any complications, the body does the rest of the work over the next few months. No positive attitude, no analysis of childhood traumas needed.
>
> With depression it's different. It's the mind that is sick. But what is the difference between the mind and body? We can easily say that when a person breaks a leg, the body is broken. We wouldn't say "He has mental problems with his leg."
>
> In depression, it is not so obvious as to what is going on. Clearly there is some inbalance in the body that needs to be fixed, or "put a cast on." Hence we have science looking for drugs to help restore this balance. The major problem here are that we don't have a good understanding of "what is actually broken." We can see that the patient has symptoms of sickness, but from where do these symptoms emerge inside the body?
>
> Without the ability to see or understand what is trully going on, doctors and patients have a difficult time in knowing what to target. This can be seen in all kinds of illness that today remain "unsolved" in medicine. Aids, lupus, MS, cancer, heart disease, ect.
>
> Remember it wasn't long ago that the AMA did not endorse diet as having much to do with one's health. It was even less time ago that the AMA was suggesting that high cholestoral put people at risk for heart disease. In truth, doctors are now beginning to understand the importance of cholestoral (the good kind) in healthy living. I only wonder what we are missing today about depression.
>
> Perhaps the endocrine system will one day gain more attention, perhaps genes, perhaps the immune system. As we all know the amine theory of depression is just a theory. If you stop an think about it, ADs are working on enzymes in the brain. I wonder if it will one day be discovered that people with depression lack ceretain enzymes in their livers, ect. which are complicating things down the line in the brain. Its also interesting to note, having studied various other forms of natural medicine, that for instance in China medicine, look to treat mental and emotional problems by balancing the organs of the body. It is logical that if your stomach and gall bladder is out of whack, maybe your brain is starving of certain chemicals needed for optimal function.
>
> I recently found some interesting websites that are looking at human health a bit differently. One site, Biomedx.com looks at analysing live human blood and its relationship to PH blood levels. The idea here is that latent within the body are primal forms of bacteria, viruses, fungi, that lay dorment. But when the environment in the body changes, e.g. the ph of the blood, you can actually see these dormant organisms morph into agressive bacteria, viruses, fugus, ect. The site focuses on trying to establish the propper blood ph so that these micro organisms do not have an environment to flourish. For more information on this disease cycle, one might look into the current and seeming wrong paradigm of the disease process set forth by Louis Pasteur. Check out the site.
>
> Another interesing site I found dealt with the emerging field of bioaccoustics found at Soundhealthinc.com The company is using the voice patterns of patients to take an overall "snap shot" of their current state of health. You might say that the voice is a holographic representaion of yourself at any given moment. For isntance, when you are sad, your voice has a certain "footprint" as oppased to when you are happy, ect. Anyway, using the voice as a fingerprint of the human total, the technicians are then able to introduce certain sounds to cancel out or balance the abnormalities found in the voice. An example being that they can introduce the "sound of the vitamin niacin to patients and subjects report experiencing the same skin rash as if they had injested the actual vitamin. Work in bioaccoustics is emerging, but they are finding that certain pathogens respond and can be destroyed by sound. Even more exciting is that through voice recognition, computers are able to know where are person is lacking in the physiology...enabling them to create sounds to balance the physiology or reocommend certain drugs, suppliments.
>
> Sorry to go so long, but I'd like further ideas about depression and its causes and possible ways to cure this damn disease that we suffer from.
>
> Best wishes,
> JasonL
>
>
Posted by Bradley on March 25, 2001, at 23:01:17
In reply to New theories of mental disorders needed (long), posted by JasonL on March 25, 2001, at 18:15:06
A hormonal protein called Inhibin was identified in 1985. Not long after that I read about Inhibin and what was known about it. It seemed to fit into the puzzle of my condition and I wondered if fluctuating levels of Inhibin might have something to do with this. About 1988 I spoke with a researcher who was studying Inhibin hopeing to develope an Inhibin contraceptive because at that time all that was known about it was that it controled the level of FSH, which is the driving force for the reproductive system. This researcher(James Macglochlin) assured me that there was no evidence that Inhibin had any role in mood disorders. In 1991 I spoke with him again and he said his studies to develope an Inhibin contraceptive were stopped because Inhibin was found in reletive high concentrations in brain and spinal fluid where if it just controled FSH levels it should'nt be. He went on to elaborate that Inhibin was suspected to have a significant role in the central nervous system. That significant role has yet to be identified. Through these following years I have contacted many research groups trying to further research on Inhibin and its possible role in mood disorders. Thus far I have been ignored. Some like Thomas Wehr who was the head of NIMH Psychobiology branch had never heard of Inhibin. Others were certain that Inhibin had only a small role in controlling the level of FSH(I encouraging them to look at the most recent studies). At NIMH BEB(Behavioral Endocronology Branch) they don't respond at all. I have never had a theory about anything before or had a belief in something like this. But I now have a strong suscpicion that low levels of Inhibin are a key to my atypical refractory depression. It somehow effects my circadian rythym. I have condensed my theory but I hope you get the gist of it.
> I too am one of the treatment resistent folks out there. This whole thing is so frustrating to me. How is that some people can just be happier, more possitive than others?
>
> It just goes to show how little we understand about the human body. Depression or any sickness seems to be a symptom of a lack of balance. Somehow the body, the person, is not moving toward states of equalibrium. In disease, or dis-ease, the body has lost some of its ability to maintain homeostasis. How does this occur?
>
> The body is infinately complex. If one looks around today, there are so many other forms of illness and sickness that plague our society--despite our technological advancements.
>
> Its an interesting contradiction that goes on. When a person breaks a leg, they go in, get a cast and baring any complications, the body does the rest of the work over the next few months. No positive attitude, no analysis of childhood traumas needed.
>
> With depression it's different. It's the mind that is sick. But what is the difference between the mind and body? We can easily say that when a person breaks a leg, the body is broken. We wouldn't say "He has mental problems with his leg."
>
> In depression, it is not so obvious as to what is going on. Clearly there is some inbalance in the body that needs to be fixed, or "put a cast on." Hence we have science looking for drugs to help restore this balance. The major problem here are that we don't have a good understanding of "what is actually broken." We can see that the patient has symptoms of sickness, but from where do these symptoms emerge inside the body?
>
> Without the ability to see or understand what is trully going on, doctors and patients have a difficult time in knowing what to target. This can be seen in all kinds of illness that today remain "unsolved" in medicine. Aids, lupus, MS, cancer, heart disease, ect.
>
> Remember it wasn't long ago that the AMA did not endorse diet as having much to do with one's health. It was even less time ago that the AMA was suggesting that high cholestoral put people at risk for heart disease. In truth, doctors are now beginning to understand the importance of cholestoral (the good kind) in healthy living. I only wonder what we are missing today about depression.
>
> Perhaps the endocrine system will one day gain more attention, perhaps genes, perhaps the immune system. As we all know the amine theory of depression is just a theory. If you stop an think about it, ADs are working on enzymes in the brain. I wonder if it will one day be discovered that people with depression lack ceretain enzymes in their livers, ect. which are complicating things down the line in the brain. Its also interesting to note, having studied various other forms of natural medicine, that for instance in China medicine, look to treat mental and emotional problems by balancing the organs of the body. It is logical that if your stomach and gall bladder is out of whack, maybe your brain is starving of certain chemicals needed for optimal function.
>
> I recently found some interesting websites that are looking at human health a bit differently. One site, Biomedx.com looks at analysing live human blood and its relationship to PH blood levels. The idea here is that latent within the body are primal forms of bacteria, viruses, fungi, that lay dorment. But when the environment in the body changes, e.g. the ph of the blood, you can actually see these dormant organisms morph into agressive bacteria, viruses, fugus, ect. The site focuses on trying to establish the propper blood ph so that these micro organisms do not have an environment to flourish. For more information on this disease cycle, one might look into the current and seeming wrong paradigm of the disease process set forth by Louis Pasteur. Check out the site.
>
> Another interesing site I found dealt with the emerging field of bioaccoustics found at Soundhealthinc.com The company is using the voice patterns of patients to take an overall "snap shot" of their current state of health. You might say that the voice is a holographic representaion of yourself at any given moment. For isntance, when you are sad, your voice has a certain "footprint" as oppased to when you are happy, ect. Anyway, using the voice as a fingerprint of the human total, the technicians are then able to introduce certain sounds to cancel out or balance the abnormalities found in the voice. An example being that they can introduce the "sound of the vitamin niacin to patients and subjects report experiencing the same skin rash as if they had injested the actual vitamin. Work in bioaccoustics is emerging, but they are finding that certain pathogens respond and can be destroyed by sound. Even more exciting is that through voice recognition, computers are able to know where are person is lacking in the physiology...enabling them to create sounds to balance the physiology or reocommend certain drugs, suppliments.
>
> Sorry to go so long, but I'd like further ideas about depression and its causes and possible ways to cure this damn disease that we suffer from.
>
> Best wishes,
> JasonL
>
>
Posted by Cam W. on March 25, 2001, at 23:23:19
In reply to I am cursed with a new theory, posted by Bradley on March 25, 2001, at 23:01:17
I like to look at mental illness as misconnection of neurons. We have a limited number of genes coding for limited number of neurons. These neurons overconnect with each other in utero and possibly neonatally. As we grow and age many of the connections are broken (called synaptic pruning) and many of the remaining connections are "hardwired" as memories and automatic actions (eg walking). As we learn, new connections are made between neurons and are strengthened via a process called long term potenitiation, resulting in learn behaviors and memories. Much of this is done through the hippocampus. Sometimes circuits are strengthened (when we learn something) and sometimes they are weakened (when we forget something or when certain neurons are damaged).
This may be why a small number of genes can produce more than 6 billion different personalities. It could be (and probably is) because we all prune our synapses in a different way, due to how we perceive environmental stimuli. This is probably also why different meds work differently on different people.
This complex of interconnections and changes (called neuronal placticity) can screw up and cause the syndromes we know as mental disorders or even medical disorders (eg artherosclerosis, Parkinsonism, Alzheimers, MS, etc). Many of these disorders resulting from neuronal screwups could be the downside to evolving consciousness.
Just a thought - Cam
Posted by Eric on March 26, 2001, at 11:19:10
In reply to New theories of mental disorders needed (long), posted by JasonL on March 25, 2001, at 18:15:06
> I too am one of the treatment resistent folks out there. This whole thing is so frustrating to me. How is that some people can just be happier, more possitive than others?
>
>Jason, unfortunately the future is rather bleak when it comes to the area of serious research for psychiatric diseases. Sure, there is some real research going on here and there but it is miniscule compared to what needs to be going on. Mental illness has always been given lipservice by the medical community. It has only been in the last fifteen years or so since the advent of the new generation of psychiatry drugs that began with Prozac have mentally ill people been given a real shot at life. Prior to the new modern class meds such as the SSRIs and atypical anti-psychotics, medications were very crude, dirty and full of nasty side effects.
Psychiatry is still too mired in its bleak past, being rooted in the social science of psychology. And not being based upon more mainstream medical science as other branches of medicine are. This is the main reason why there is not much research going on, because of the perception by most that psychiatric diseases are not "real" diseases but are in fact mere psychological problems, "its all in your head" etc. The diseases we suffer with(major depression, manic depression, schizophrenia, etc.) are still not truly recognized as medical problems unto themselves...most likely severe forms of mental illness are neurological diseases of the brain or perhaps neuro-endocrine diseases.
Eventually, the problem with mental illness will probably get solved. However I fear it will be a long time from now, probably about the time I am in old age and about ready to croak from natural causes. Maybe a hundred years from now things will be much better for the mentally ill. But for now, as in the past, things are pretty shitty and of low quality of life for the severely mentally ill.
Much of the reason is simple...psychiatry is rooted in psychology and psychology aint real medicine. Psychology is not real science. Its as simple as that. Its time to rethink the entire business of mental illness, but getting others to believe this is hard to do because of misconceptions about these problems.
Eric
Posted by SLS on March 26, 2001, at 15:23:37
In reply to Re: New theories of mental disorders needed (long), posted by Eric on March 26, 2001, at 11:19:10
Dear Eric,
I think psychiatry may be a bit further along than how you describe it.
The following publications by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an agency of the federal government, reflect the current state of psychiatry world-wide.
1. Depression Research at the National Institute of Mental Health
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/depresfact.cfm
2. Bipolar Disorder Research at the National Institute of Mental Health
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/bipolarresfact.cfm
3. Genetics and Mental Disorders:
Report of the National Institute of Mental Health's Genetics Workgroup
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research/genetics.htm
I am not sure it is reasonable to conclude for ourselves what causes depression when scientists cannot even determine what does not. From what I have seen written, most scientists are indeed continuing to look with objectivity for new data and new hypotheses in a truly intense effort to understand the causes of, establish remedies for, and prevent mental illness. New and valid ideas can come from anywhere, even from Psycho-Babble. However, I would not place my bets against neuroscience and psychiatry to come up with a few themselves.Just my perspective.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on March 26, 2001, at 15:56:49
In reply to Re: New theories of mental disorders needed (long), posted by SLS on March 26, 2001, at 15:23:37
If we are unhappy with the current pace of medical research, I think we should ask ourselves why we allow Congress to spend 1.3 billion dollars for one B-2 bomber and less than 1 billion for the entire operation of the NIMH. This includes all of the grants given to universities and other extramural research projects. Of course, we do vote for these people.
NIH Statement:"The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is one of 25 components of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Government's principal biomedical and behavioral research agency. NIH is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The actual total fiscal year 1999 NIMH budget was $859 million."
Posted by stjames on March 26, 2001, at 16:37:24
In reply to Re: New theories of mental disorders needed (long), posted by SLS on March 26, 2001, at 15:56:49
> If we are unhappy with the current pace of medical research, I think we should ask ourselves why we allow Congress to spend 1.3 billion dollars for one B-2 bomber and less than 1 billion for the entire operation of the NIMH.
I like this stance. We can either whine about the state of things (and not get better) or we can do something. If you don't like the state of mental health presently, please write a letter to your elected officials.
James
Posted by Eric on March 27, 2001, at 9:17:11
In reply to Re: New theories of mental disorders needed (long), posted by SLS on March 26, 2001, at 15:23:37
> Dear Eric,
>
> I think psychiatry may be a bit further along than how you describe it.
>
> The following publications by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an agency of the federal government, reflect the current state of psychiatry world-wide.
>
>
> 1. Depression Research at the National Institute of Mental Health
> http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/depresfact.cfm
>
>
> 2. Bipolar Disorder Research at the National Institute of Mental Health
> http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/bipolarresfact.cfm
>
>
> 3. Genetics and Mental Disorders:
> Report of the National Institute of Mental Health's Genetics Workgroup
> http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research/genetics.htm
>
>
> I am not sure it is reasonable to conclude for ourselves what causes depression when scientists cannot even determine what does not. From what I have seen written, most scientists are indeed continuing to look with objectivity for new data and new hypotheses in a truly intense effort to understand the causes of, establish remedies for, and prevent mental illness. New and valid ideas can come from anywhere, even from Psycho-Babble. However, I would not place my bets against neuroscience and psychiatry to come up with a few themselves.
>
> Just my perspective.
>
>
> - ScottScott, the amount of money being spent on mental health research is about the equivalent of one high tech Air Force bomber plane. In other words not very much money considering the pain and suffering severe mental illnesses cause. We need mental health research on par with AIDS drug research if these diseases are to be truly managed. Just look at this message board as a hard concrete example of what I am talking about. Look at how many depressives and manic depressives come to this board who are "treatment resistant" and have been thru the full gamut of current existing psychiatric treatment and still cannot get out of the hole completely.
I am sorry but I dont share your enthusiasm that current existing research for mental illness is good enough. The NIMH budget is piddly if you ask me. Like I said before, look at the AIDS research as an example of a "war on a disease" and how to do it right. By contrast, look at mental illness research as the example of how things are done extremely slowly and how footdragging occurs in scientific research.
Mental illness research is a joke. Sure, big headway has been made in the past fifteen years or so but much is left to be desired. Again, just look at the existence of this message board as hard concrete evidence of that. Look at how many treatment resistant folks are out there! Very little research is going on to target the treatment resistant community.
It seems half the people on this board are "treatment resistant." That should tell you a lot about the current status of psychiatry's ability to combat severe mental illness.
Compare AIDS research, cardio disease research, cancer research. Then compare what goes on in those areas to what goes on in mental illness research. No contest. Who gets priority? Who is being given lipservice status? Hell, there is probably more interest in this country in the development of more Viagra type drugs to enhance sexual function than there is interest in combatting severe mental illness. Its all very sad and a big joke.
We the mentally ill are the red headed step children of the medical world. Half the problem is that a lot of people refuse to really admit our kinds of problems are in fact "real" and are actually real medical diseases. We dont have priority.
Eric
Posted by Fred Potter on March 27, 2001, at 15:10:28
In reply to Re: New theories of mental disorders needed (long), posted by Eric on March 27, 2001, at 9:17:11
Treatment resistant people are more likely to be on this board than those who respond well and get on with life. Also a B2 Bomber presumably lasts more than a year. We must be careful how we make these statements
Hey. By the way, I agree with you
Fred (an unrepentant statistician)
Posted by SLS on March 27, 2001, at 19:40:28
In reply to Re: New theories of mental disorders needed (long), posted by Eric on March 27, 2001, at 9:17:11
Hi Eric.
> Mental illness research is a joke.
How so?
> Sure, big headway has been made in the past fifteen years or so...
These two statements seem quite contradictory to me.
> ...but much is left to be desired.
I would say, "but much is left to do".
What precisely do you feel the medical research community is doing wrong?
What do you feel they are doing right?
What specific changes would you recommend?
> Look at how many treatment resistant folks are out there!
Now that you mention it, I have noticed a few.
> Very little research is going on to target the treatment resistant community.
Are you sure?
I used the following keyword statement to perform a search on Medline:
("treatment resistant" OR trd) AND (depression or bipolar)
Results: 327 hits
I guess everything is relative. How would you characterize the number 327?
- Scott
Posted by Neal on March 27, 2001, at 22:24:50
In reply to Re: New theories of mental disorders needed (long) » Eric, posted by SLS on March 27, 2001, at 19:40:28
If mental health research is a joke right now, it's because of the huge shame factor to having a mental disorder. People with mental health problems tend not to band together and lobby Congress and that kind of thing.
I think Prozac was a good thing in that it showed the pharmacuetical companies that there was big money to be made. The lure of profits is the driving force in research right now.
Posted by Eric on March 28, 2001, at 9:14:13
In reply to Re: New theories of mental disorders needed (long), posted by Neal on March 27, 2001, at 22:24:50
> If mental health research is a joke right now, it's because of the huge shame factor to having a mental disorder. People with mental health problems tend not to band together and lobby Congress and that kind of thing.
Very very true. I totally agree with you that the mentally ill are not politically active like they should be. The shame factor, and even more than that, the refusal to admit these illnesses are real physical disorders(brain illnesses), are what keeps serious mental health research to a minimum. I know sooooooooooo many people who dont believe me when I tell them about major depression. They only think of depression in an emotional or psychological context. The lay public thinks of depression only in terms of "you are sad, you are suicidal and your puppy dog died." Serious depression goes so far past that. Its a full body illness that destroys basic physiological bodily functions like sleeping, eating, sex, energy levels and cognition.
People just dont understand, they dont wanna understand and the lay public just doesnt care about us mentally ill people. Its pathetic.
>
> I think Prozac was a good thing in that it showed the pharmacuetical companies that there was big money to be made. The lure of profits is the driving force in research right now.Yes, the age of Prozac was the best thing that ever happened to the mentally ill. If it were not for these modern class psych meds, we would still be left in the dark ages of tricyclic antidepressants and MAOIs. And yeah you are correct that its money that is driving it. Thats OK I suppose, money is an incentive to develop better drugs and treatments. Its the pharmaceutical companies that are behind this. Lord knows its not psychiatry itself, for the psychiatrists are surely not an industrious group of individuals as a general rule. There is very little innovation coming directly out of psychiatry itself, with a few exceptions I can think of.
I just dont have much faith in psychiatry as it currently exists.
Eric
Posted by Eric on March 28, 2001, at 10:06:30
In reply to Re: New theories of mental disorders needed (long) » Eric, posted by SLS on March 27, 2001, at 19:40:28
> Hi Eric.
>
> > Mental illness research is a joke.
>
> How so?How so? Look at how little research is being done in mental illness compared to other fields of medicine. Its not very much research. And what research is being done is notoriously slow. There doesnt seem to be much of a sense of speeding things up in mental illness research. Its a joke. What we need is research comparable to AIDS research, what we actually get is lipservice research. And we need SPEED!
>
> > Sure, big headway has been made in the past fifteen years or so...
>
> These two statements seem quite contradictory to me.
>
> > ...but much is left to be desired.
>
> I would say, "but much is left to do".Why? Whats wrong with saying much is left to be desired? Its true. Much IS left to be desired.
>
> What precisely do you feel the medical research community is doing wrong?I feel the medical research community has other priorities besides mental illness research. That is my personal opinion. We the mentally ill are not one of medicine's priorities. In particular the treatment resistant community is not a priority.
There are still a lot of extremely sick mentally ill persons out there despite all the current available treatments. This Psycho-Babble message board is hard proof of that.Id also like to see some new high tech diagnosis tools developed for psychiatry. So that Pdocs would have some actual tools at their disposal to aid in proper diagnosis besides just interviewing patients. Its ridiculous. If these illnesses are really medical problems(which they are) then some diagnostic tools are needed. SPECT scans, fMRI...SOMETHING!
>
> What do you feel they are doing right?The only thing I feel psychiatry is doing right is they are getting modern class psychiatry medications to use on patients, which are being developed by the pharmaceutical companies.
>
> What specific changes would you recommend?I would recommend more priority for the mentally ill. LOTS more money to be spent on biological mental illness research. Dropped from the top of the chain of the command...the President of the United States. Gore wanted to do it(or at least said he did). I feel the only way it will ever get done is if its dropped from the top. Trying to push this thing up from the bottom will be impossible. It needs to be recognized as a problem area by our country's leadership and subsequently dealt with in a structured, methodical manner. Kind of like fighting a war. Or kind of like how the AIDS research thing was handled. Both things...major wars and AIDS get priority by our country's leadership.
Mental illness needs to get priority in Washington DC.
I would also recommend that psychiatry be formally merged back into neurology and that all severe forms of mental illnesses be treated as neurological problems and/or neuro-endocrine problems. And not as "psychological" problems of the mind. Again, the only way a change this dramatic and fundamental would go thru would be if it was being strongly encouraged by our country's leadership.
Im tired of my psychiatrist telling me that "my brain has physically changed from longstanding severe depression" but Im not being referred to a neurologist. Doesnt make any sense to me...know what I mean? If Im having problems with my brain not functioning properly, that sounds like a neurological problem to me.
>
> > Look at how many treatment resistant folks are out there!
>
> Now that you mention it, I have noticed a few.>
> > Very little research is going on to target the treatment resistant community.
>
> Are you sure?
>Oh yes, I am sure. I am one of those treatment resistant persons and trust me there is not very much research going on. To list, you have the rTMS trials...which failed. The current VNS program...which there is no telling how that will turn out. And a few clinical trials here and there for treatment resistant people, most of which do nothing but experiment with augmentation strategies for antidepressants. There is very little research going on that seriously tries to find out WHY people become treatment resistant. Or WHY antidepressants poop out.
I find it interesting to know that the only truly novel research in the area of TRD is VNS and VNS was originally an innovative tool developed by the neurology community to combat refractory epilepsy. Hmmmm lets see, some other drugs commonly used in psychiatry were initially developed for neurology usage...anti-convulsants like depakote, Tegretol, lamictal, Neurontin, Topomax. Seems to me, major mental illnesses have some similarity to neurological illnesses?
> I used the following keyword statement to perform a search on Medline:
>
> ("treatment resistant" OR trd) AND (depression or bipolar)
>
> Results: 327 hits
>
> I guess everything is relative. How would you characterize the number 327?Id characterize that number as rather unimpressive. I did the same search on Yahoo and pulled up even more than you did. I looked at many of the results. MOst of the sites pulled up in the search were discussions of rTMS(which doesnt work) or the current hot area of research, VNS. Most of the other sites concerning TRD were just discussions of augmentation strategies for antidepressants such as adding anti-psychotics or lithium to the ADs. In other words, nothing very new or novel nor anything that really works.
I should tell you I was in the rTMS clinical trials myself. rTMS doesnt work. Neither do a lot of these much touted drug augmentation strategies for TRD. This message board is proof of that. Just look at how many individuals on this board bounce on and off meds constantly and repeatedly which they try to augment with...it rarely works.
I dont consider having maintenance ECT for the rest of my life as a viable option. I dont know about you. Im just saying that a lot is left to be desired within psychiatry. What little research is being done in mental health is not enough, nor is it being done in an expeditious manner. Mental illness just does not get priority in the overall scheme of things.
To end this post, if methods of diagnosing were dramatically improved that would go a long long way towards improving the plight of the mentally ill. Again, research needs to go not just into new drugs and treatments but also to dramatically improve diagnosis. Diagnosis is very crude and subjective in psychiatry. Whereas in other areas of medicine they ALWAYS try to get the diagnosis right the first time. It wouldnt be possible without X-Rays, MRIs, EEGs, blood tests and a whole host of other diagnostic tools in other branches of medicine. Psychiatry badly needs some diagnostic tools of its own. The face to face interview just isnt good enough, nor specific enough.
If you want severe mental illness to ever get figured out and fixed psychiatry needs to be overhauled and given back to neurology.
Eric
Posted by JasonL on March 28, 2001, at 14:29:09
In reply to Re: New theories of mental disorders needed (long), posted by Eric on March 28, 2001, at 10:06:30
This has been a an interesting string.
One of the absolute major problems with mantal illness, and medicine in particular is the over all lack of wholeness by which alopathic, western medicine approaches the health of the human body. I've been doing a tremendous amount of study in this area. Its part of my ADD spectrum of super focus.
Depression is a manifestation of the body not working. Genes has something to do with it. We get what we get, but its not predetermined. One might look into "functional medicine" where blood, urine, hair analysis can show certain deficiencies or excess in the body. It has been suggested that often the problem is too much of a mineral, vitamin, ect. in the body that is causing disturbabnces. Human phsysiolgy is emensely importent in depression. It had been show that people with ADD have sugar sensitivity problems that prevent the propper amount of DA an NE from being released into the brain. Also the role of fats is enormous. Implicated in metal disorders, alcoholism, sugar problems...the brain is sixty percent fat. I read an interesting article of a young autistic child that was treated, after thourough diagnostics of blood work, fats, minerals, such that the doctor was stunned when he returned monthhs later. Check the sites exporepub.com, isopathic therapys, biomedx.com.
Analysis of depressed folks tend to show lowered levels of cholesterol, iron, potassium, albumin, urea, nitrogen, and elevated triglycerides. Researches need to study problems with fatty acid metabolism, coenzymes that break proteins and fats down. Some have suggested that depresion has roots in abnormal gut function. (Serotonin is found in high concentrations in the gut.) Another interesting place to check out is the CBC products page and work of Nancy Kane? and her Body Bio Centre in New Jersey. She is the one who turned this autistic child around with certain fatty acids and minerals, ect.Also we would have to consider the funtion of the immune system and metabolism and endocrine system. Hell! Its all related. The major problem thus far being able to acurated see, acurately diagnose what the hell is going on in the bidy.
We are a long way awy from solving this mess. My feeling is that the break throughs will not come with new pharmaceuticals, but with entire shifts in the way doctors and humantiy view the body as a whole.
JAsonL
Posted by Doo on March 28, 2001, at 23:25:38
In reply to New theories of mental disorders needed (long), posted by JasonL on March 25, 2001, at 18:15:06
I read your message and some of the follow ups. It seems like we are focusing a lot on the biology of the mental illness. I don't want to minimize that path. But let's not forget some important things that psychology has taught us. I'll try to expose some of what I have learned, and excuse my imperfect english (I'm from Quebec, french speaking)
The psychodynamic (freudian) and post-freudian litterature describes with impressing details the way the psyche is developping through the first years of life. Each traumatism produces a "zone of sensitivity" in the psyche. Depending on what stage the traumatism(s) occur(s), the psyche will develop different "symptoms" which are ways to avoid the suffering the traumatism produces. Early traumatisms (0-2 years) tend to induce psychotic predisposition - as an example, dissociating from reality is one of the ways the small baby's psyche will use to avoid the pain. Dissociating becomes a "favorite" way of avoiding the pain, that may persist through the ages. From 2 to 4 years, traumatisms seem to induce "borderline" symptoms - this is the age that will determine how the psyche will handle agressive emotions. After 4 years, the psyche stronger and traumatisms are faced with much more efficiency if the first years have been going "good enough". The symptoms will be in the neurotic range - obsessions, compulsions. The capacity to rationalize emotions is a sign that the psyche works on a neurotic way, which is, by the way, the more "mature".
So there are, according to the psychodynamic point of view, three families of personality. There are subgroups, of course. But I won't go farther in this way. I just want to point out that there have been many poeple who studied the way the psyche evolves, what are our needs, what effect the environment has on the formation of the psyche, of the person. For example, there are things that lead a child to feel confusion, anger and the "sense of going mad", like a parent giving a double-bind-message. For example, let's say a young boy asks permission to watch tv. Mother says no. The boy starts crying and yelling, and the mother, tells him "fine look at the tv" on an agressive voice tone. The boy knows that if he looks at the tv, mother will not be happy. And if he doesn't mother won't be happy either. He is in a double-bind. He can't do anything to be "ok". He will probably feel confuse, feel agressive towards himself and his mother. Repeating this often will make a "zone of sensitivity", and if the situation is worse, the development of the psyche, of the person, that is, can be compromised. A psyche can not develop itself while so much suffering is contained. All the energy of the psyche will be used to keep the strong and threatening emotions away.
Lack of consistency from the parents, lack of empathy, lack of structure or a too harsh one are some of the things that can make the person develop "symptoms". Let's not forget one thing: symptoms are the way the person uses to stay sane. That's one of the leading ideas of the antipsychiatists. They said that we had to let the person live his or her psychotic symptoms and try to follow him/her in that illogical world that is the psychosis. I suggest a very good book called Mary Barnes, that describes the "reparenting" of a psychotic woman who recovered a rather good mental health after being welcomed in her regressive way of functionning. This book is amazing.
There is also one point about the biology of mental illness. Let's say I take some syrup for my cough, and it helps. Then, would I say that the cause of my cough is a lack of syrup? Nope. In the same way, if the medication helps (and thank god it often does), can I say that my "illness" is due to the lack of certain neurotransmitters? not really. I think we have to go to another question: why is my brain in such a bad shape? Why am I lacking neurotransmitters? I think that saying it is all genetic is so simplistic. It negates the impact of the environment on the biology. There really are some persons that have some genetic predispositions, but I don't think that it is a so huge percentage of the population.
I think it is necessary to continue the present research, but let's not focus on only one part of the reality, and let's not forget that the way we conceptualize mental illness in our times is very closely linked to the industry of pharmacology. Let's not forget what we learned a century ago, and let's not close the door to other new avenues of research.
By the way I'm not against meds, I take some.
Thank you for reading!
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 29, 2001, at 7:58:24
In reply to New theories of mental disorders needed (long), posted by JasonL on March 25, 2001, at 18:15:06
> I'd like further ideas about depression and its causes and possible ways to cure this damn disease that we suffer from.
This is a great discussion, and I do *not* mean to stifle it, but could further responses be redirected (you know, from the top of the preview page) to Psycho-Social-Babble? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by SLS on March 29, 2001, at 9:28:03
In reply to Redirect: New theories of mental disorders needed, posted by Dr. Bob on March 29, 2001, at 7:58:24
> > I'd like further ideas about depression and its causes and possible ways to cure this damn disease that we suffer from.
>
> This is a great discussion, and I do *not* mean to stifle it, but could further responses be redirected (you know, from the top of the preview page) to Psycho-Social-Babble? Thanks,
>
> Bob
How do you do that?
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 29, 2001, at 22:16:54
In reply to Re: Redirect: New theories of mental disorders needed, posted by SLS on March 29, 2001, at 9:28:03
> > could further responses be redirected (you know, from the top of the preview page) to Psycho-Social-Babble?
>
> How do you do that?As you know, after you type in your post and click "Submit", it's not posted right away, you go to a preview page first. At the top of that page, before your post, there are buttons for each board. Click one, and that's where your post will go.
Bob
PS: I'm going to delete the follow-ups here that weren't redirected, sorry for any inconvenience...
This is the end of the 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.