Shown: posts 1 to 18 of 18. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by ace on December 5, 2010, at 23:36:02
I'm sure some of you guys/gals know who i am.
I have not posted for a long while and I apologize for the following self-centered post. I have a vast knowledge on almost all psychiatric drugs from my own experience, literature, the data I have gained from other sufferers etc etc Obviously am most knowledgeable about the drug Nardil, and always happy to answer questions (if my anhedonia can at times be overcome). When I am real low I barely have the energy to turn the computer on.I am in a bind.
On the one hand Nardil, now only at doses beyond 75mg, does alleviate (at times, abolish) my depression (and a great extent, anxiety).
However, the very use of this drug causes a moral and ethical dilemma, and their is the issue of weight gain and other s/effects to which i am now most vigilant too.
I truly want to be self-sufficient. By using Nardil I am using an external agent, and negating my own POSSIBLE capacity to overcome these afflictions. We all know here that their is NO evidence of a biological basis of depression. I am not sure if their will ever be due to the inherent individuality (brain biochemistry) in all of us. I am convinced, however, that depression and anxiety, in cases where it greatly impedes ones functioning, and does not respond to psychotherapy (self-administered in my case) is not the function of a healthy brain.
I am concerned that exogenous factors are causing/contributing greatly to my depression and anxiety. But without the Nardil sometimes I have not the energy to bring about a change in these very factors. It's a viscous cycle.
So I'm down to 60mg on Nardil, and the Xanax has to be around 3mg a day. I am still concerned about cognitive dysfunction arising from the use of these, in particular my use of Xanax.A part of me feels like saying 'screw it, use the Nardil, if i need a dependence on it, so be it'
Another part says 'rely on nothing but your self, your functioning/creativity has been "fraudulent", engendered by the use of an external agent.
What do you guys think? Should I just raise the Nardil back up to 105mg (i can drop the Xanax then due to Nardils GABA effect at that dose). I then have the energy to get to the gym and try to offset it a bit.
My professional life is fine. My social life, since a youngster) has greatly suffered due to all this. My passion, my zest for life, my trusting of others (maybe all precipitated by a deep desire to feel loved) has been withering way (as my Nardil dose has been lowered- that should be noted). The way people an speak so ill about you behind your back, the way that you are mocked by because your very nature does not allow you to "fit in" to societal norms. This is not a soliciting for attention/pity (doesn't help)- this is a soliciting for genuine advice and empathy.
I really do appreciate any reply's. Over the years, in so many posts I have said to myself "that is JUST LIKE ME'! We are here are treading a similar ground i feel. One thing is for sure- the vast number of people I have met ( and I have seen a LOT now) with bona-fide psychiatric problems (I know that comment is an affront to one of my aforementioned comments!), are always more deeper, intelligent and empathetic, even if at times they are given to selfishness, dissimilitude, and vices all humans share.
I hope you are ALL well, and never ever give up.
Ace:)
Posted by Phillipa on December 5, 2010, at 23:44:05
In reply to Thoughts please.... Nardil + Xanax + more, posted by ace on December 5, 2010, at 23:36:02
Ace how did you know I've been thinking of you and wondering how you were and now here you are. From the years of knowing you here Not that I'm that knowledgeable of the meds but I've seen posts when you are the Champ and on top of the world and now a down in the dumps one. My advise is do what works for you. No second guessing. Go back on your nardil dose that works for you. Love and Hugs Phillipa
Posted by ace on December 6, 2010, at 0:02:16
In reply to Re: Thoughts please.... Nardil + Xanax + more » ace, posted by Phillipa on December 5, 2010, at 23:44:05
> Ace how did you know I've been thinking of you and wondering how you were and now here you are. From the years of knowing you here Not that I'm that knowledgeable of the meds but I've seen posts when you are the Champ and on top of the world and now a down in the dumps one. My advise is do what works for you. No second guessing. Go back on your nardil dose that works for you. Love and Hugs Phillipa
Cheers Phillipa. I'm going to try and get more on, just life at the moment, with my own problems and my commitments- it's hard to get time so much!
And I am swaying to your advice
Just those other factors really are hard to reconcile with.How is everything at your end? I hope well!
God Bless You,
Ace
Posted by Tomatheus on December 6, 2010, at 0:27:08
In reply to Thoughts please.... Nardil + Xanax + more, posted by ace on December 5, 2010, at 23:36:02
> We all know here that their is NO evidence of a biological basis of depression.
Maybe if we've been living under a rock for the past 50 years...
If you're not joking, you might find this REVIEW article to be helpful:
http://hampshirelpc.org.uk/uploads/NEJMdepression.pdf
Tomatheus
Posted by ace on December 6, 2010, at 0:53:31
In reply to Re: Thoughts please.... Nardil + Xanax + more, posted by Tomatheus on December 6, 2010, at 0:27:08
> > We all know here that their is NO evidence of a biological basis of depression.
>
> Maybe if we've been living under a rock for the past 50 years...
>
> If you're not joking, you might find this REVIEW article to be helpful:
>
> http://hampshirelpc.org.uk/uploads/NEJMdepression.pdf
>
> TomatheusI'm NOT joking and I stand by my comment.
And I don't appreciate your comment about 'living under a rock". Why not just say "I disagree"?
However let me qualify my former statement:Their is absolutely NO conclusive external evidence, external valid criteria, that their is a unified biological basis for depression or ANY psychopathology.
There is only speculation, sometimes ridiculously naive, and sometime very intelligent.Take that to ANY MD- neurologist, psychiatrist, etc etc etc
If they are being honest they will admit the veracity of this statement.
For a doctor to say "You suffer a biochemical imbalance" (with regards to psychopathology) is a falsehood. It MAY be true, but not now, not any time in the past.
For a doctor to say " I THINK you suffer a biochemical imbalance" (with regards to psychopathology) is plausible.
Posted by sigismund on December 6, 2010, at 1:56:04
In reply to Thoughts please.... Nardil + Xanax + more, posted by ace on December 5, 2010, at 23:36:02
> My passion, my zest for life, my trusting of others (maybe all precipitated by a deep desire to feel loved) has been withering way (as my Nardil dose has been lowered- that should be noted). The way people an speak so ill about you behind your back, the way that you are mocked by because your very nature does not allow you to "fit in" to societal norms.
I'd be more worried about so much Xanax (I think).
It's very up and down.It may not be the most fortunate thing, but having a deep desire to be loved (and cultivating the ability to reciprocate) is the most wonderful thing about being alive.
I believe some people are depressed because it is so difficult to know how to live according to one's nature.
Posted by ace on December 6, 2010, at 5:43:24
In reply to Re: Thoughts please.... Nardil + Xanax + more, posted by sigismund on December 6, 2010, at 1:56:04
> > My passion, my zest for life, my trusting of others (maybe all precipitated by a deep desire to feel loved) has been withering way (as my Nardil dose has been lowered- that should be noted). The way people an speak so ill about you behind your back, the way that you are mocked by because your very nature does not allow you to "fit in" to societal norms.
>
> I'd be more worried about so much Xanax (I think).
> It's very up and down.In terms of mood lability?
I've noticed it occasionally makes me feel a little happier, but it seems to generally only serve to thwart my anxiety. And I have never had any dependence issues, and my dosage has never got out of control. I have come off Xanax with ease, ofcourse with a slow taper. With the exception of mild cognitive impairment, I can only say good things about Xanax.
> It may not be the most fortunate thing, but having a deep desire to be loved (and cultivating the ability to reciprocate) is the most wonderful thing about being alive.Two edged sword. Because I think this desire, by perforce, it makes us conform to others expectations and desires, not truly our own. We lose our true identities under so many masks.
What do you think?
> I believe some people are depressed because it is so difficult to know how to live according to one's nature.I would agree. But if one's nature naturally alienates the great majority of others, what is one to do?
The true genius' in this world have almost always suffered great solitude, loneliness, and had a melancholy temperament.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on December 6, 2010, at 8:48:33
In reply to Re: Thoughts please.... Nardil + Xanax + more » sigismund, posted by ace on December 6, 2010, at 5:43:24
I agree with you Ace about the cognitive issues with Xanax. I've been at a very steady dose of 1.5 mg daily for several years now, and always seem to benefit from a holiday - aside from the anxiety creep that accompanies the decrease in dosage.
As to the Nardil? Well, you ARE the Champ. I believe we're all walking the tightrope when it comes to functioning, falling off, and maybe having a day or two of bright shiny everything's-working!
I say work with your dosage as you have in the past. The weight gain/exercise dilemma is one I struggle with as well.
My best wishes to you,
PartlyCloudy
Posted by Sailboat77 on December 6, 2010, at 9:38:55
In reply to Re: Thoughts please.... Nardil + Xanax + more » ace, posted by PartlyCloudy on December 6, 2010, at 8:48:33
All I can do is give my genuine advice that you stay with the Nardil, and even raise it to a level that has in your experience provided the most amount of relief from the depression and heartache you seem to be familiar with. As for the Xanax, I can't make much of a recommendation considering my experience is limited.
I understand the feeling of being hopelessly tired of being on meds for so long, especially when the struggle entails SO MANY different meds over SO MANY years.
With this in mind though, you must see the bright spot. You have a medicine that you know has the "ability to work", Nardil. I can't tell you how desperately I wish I had a medicine that could provide "significant" relief. I myself tried Nardil 2 months ago and felt for the very first time a limited antidepressant effect. But I hit a brick wall and the dose increases failed to bring me to a level of happiness or even level of mere contentment (I also had awful side effects where I would pass out and fall over once or twice a day). My point is, is that although the Nardil comes with side effects and all sorts of problems concerning stable effectiveness, I would continue to stick with it. The possibility alone of halting the depression makes it worth the fight.
On a side note, I start a new regime of Parnate in 10 days and have a real hope that my depression can finally be relieved.
-Keep up the hope!
Posted by sigismund on December 6, 2010, at 10:51:15
In reply to Re: Thoughts please.... Nardil + Xanax + more » sigismund, posted by ace on December 6, 2010, at 5:43:24
>Two edged sword. Because I think this desire, by perforce, it makes us conform to others expectations and desires, not truly our own. We lose our true identities under so many masks.
What do you think?YES
But I don't think the solution lies in having less of this desire, but rather finding the right people to share it with. The right people might find it very lovely. In any case, it is part of us and only repressed at a cost. The desire to merge is legitimate and attractive to some people.
Posted by Tomatheus on December 6, 2010, at 12:33:58
In reply to Re: Thoughts please.... Nardil + Xanax + more » Tomatheus, posted by ace on December 6, 2010, at 0:53:31
Ace,
See below for my responses...
> I'm NOT joking and I stand by my comment.
I find it puzzling how you can stand by your comment that there is absolutely NO evidence to support a biological basis for depression when I just presented you with some evidence. Don't you think it would be reasonable to adjust your views as evidence presents itself?
> And I don't appreciate your comment about 'living under a rock". Why not just say "I disagree"?
I'm sorry if you felt offended and if I made my point too forcefully. I don't, however, think that saying "I disagree" would have been appropriate because we were talking about a matter of fact, not opinion.
> However let me qualify my former statement:
>
> Their is absolutely NO conclusive external evidence, external valid criteria, that their is a unified biological basis for depression or ANY psychopathology.
> There is only speculation, sometimes ridiculously naive, and sometime very intelligent.From my perspective, that seems to be a departure from your previous statement, not a qualification of it, but you may disagree. I think the key word that you used in this most recent statement is "unified." With that word being part of your statement, I agree with you, but I wouldn't expect there to be a unified biological basis for a disorder that's heterogeneous.
> For a doctor to say "You suffer a biochemical imbalance" (with regards to psychopathology) is a falsehood. It MAY be true, but not now, not any time in the past.
>
> For a doctor to say " I THINK you suffer a biochemical imbalance" (with regards to psychopathology) is plausible.On this point, I agree.
I also wish you the best of luck in making the appropriate adjustments to your medications. I'm sorry that I don't have much to offer you in the way of advice in that area.
Tomatheus
Posted by bleauberry on December 6, 2010, at 19:18:05
In reply to Thoughts please.... Nardil + Xanax + more, posted by ace on December 5, 2010, at 23:36:02
> I truly want to be self-sufficient. By using Nardil I am using an external agent, and negating my own POSSIBLE capacity to overcome these afflictions. We all know here that their is NO evidence of a biological basis of depression.Ace, I hear ya loud and clear. We all want to overcome.
The above statement however, I absolutely do not accept the premise. There is a ton of evidence of biological depression. It's just that the causes of it are varied, and it is not within the norm of our medical system to be detectives at finding what is wrong. If it is cancer, sure. Depression, no.
Sad because it could be something as simple as a methylation issue, or a genetic defect that a couple supplements would bridge, an unsuspected chronic infection, a gut problem, a hormonal problem, a flawed detox problem.
I could go on for pages and pages sharing with you treatment resistant folks who completely remitted and got their lives back when the biological problem was fixed. The barrier that we all face however is that most of these biological problems are not the ones the psychiatrists or general practitioners vigilantly look for. It takes a creative MD with true passion for winning. It takes out-of-the-ordinary testing. The cure is usually not a psychiatric drug, but something else that would completely take the rest of us by surprise.
But the psychological part plays into it as well. Psychological factors do shape brain function. The biological and the psychological can both feed each other for the worse or the better, depending on how we attack the entire thing.
I don't know. Unless you are determined to do some deep detective work, spend some money, and try some challenge tests and try stuff just to see, and perhaps some counseling to deal with any psychological issues you are suspect of, it might be better to enjoy what you get with Nardil and go forward with it. To come off it with the plans of taking control yourself requires a well planned comprehensive strategy that covers a lot of bases.
Posted by ace on December 6, 2010, at 21:47:38
In reply to Re: Thoughts please.... Nardil + Xanax + more » ace, posted by PartlyCloudy on December 6, 2010, at 8:48:33
> I agree with you Ace about the cognitive issues with Xanax. I've been at a very steady dose of 1.5 mg daily for several years now, and always seem to benefit from a holiday - aside from the anxiety creep that accompanies the decrease in dosage.
>
> As to the Nardil? Well, you ARE the Champ. I believe we're all walking the tightrope when it comes to functioning, falling off, and maybe having a day or two of bright shiny everything's-working!It is very true what you say. I think a lot of problems, too, will naturally fade with time and experience. People with psychiatric syndromes seem to have a more pronounced sensitivity and emotional capacity- it has great advantages, but great disadvantageous too. When we fall off that tightrope all we can do is just keep on keeping on, and, as a wise man said "strive to be happy".
> I say work with your dosage as you have in the past. The weight gain/exercise dilemma is one I struggle with as well.Thanks for your input, I have already slightly raised the dose and experienced a profound shift in mood. At times, with regards to weight gain (and other similar problems) I try to use, and recommend the following "Oh well, who cares!" Shrug it off as best as I/we can.
> My best wishes to you,
> PartlyCloudyMy best wishes to you, and thankyou for the post!
Peace,
Ace
Posted by ace on December 6, 2010, at 21:58:29
In reply to Re: Thoughts please., posted by Sailboat77 on December 6, 2010, at 9:38:55
> All I can do is give my genuine advice that you stay with the Nardil, and even raise it to a level that has in your experience provided the most amount of relief from the depression and heartache you seem to be familiar with.
I am definitely tending to this view. It's just a viscous, frustrating cycle. So many people here can relate with this depression and heartache.
As for the Xanax, I can't make much of a recommendation considering my experience is limited.
>
> I understand the feeling of being hopelessly tired of being on meds for so long, especially when the struggle entails SO MANY different meds over SO MANY years.
>
> With this in mind though, you must see the bright spot. You have a medicine that you know has the "ability to work", Nardil. I can't tell you how desperately I wish I had a medicine that could provide "significant" relief.That is a very very good point. And something which i must remind myself about- constantly.
I myself tried Nardil 2 months ago and felt for the very first time a limited antidepressant effect. But I hit a brick wall and the dose increases failed to bring me to a level of happiness or even level of mere contentment (I also had awful side effects where I would pass out and fall over once or twice a day).What dose were you on?
Were you on other medications in combination?
You did report this s/effect to your doctor?
My point is, is that although the Nardil comes with side effects and all sorts of problems concerning stable effectiveness, I would continue to stick with it. The possibility alone of halting the depression makes it worth the fight.
>
> On a side note, I start a new regime of Parnate in 10 days and have a real hope that my depression can finally be relieved.Parnate can be an extremely effective drug in the right patient. I really hope this drug provides that relief you seek.
> -Keep up the hope!I will- and you too! Even when we feel so low we can't get out of bed, you just have to keep on keeping on!
All the very best,
Ace
Posted by ace on December 6, 2010, at 23:54:59
In reply to Re: Thoughts please.... Nardil + Xanax + more » ace, posted by Tomatheus on December 6, 2010, at 12:33:58
> Ace,
>
> See below for my responses...
>
> > I'm NOT joking and I stand by my comment.
>
> I find it puzzling how you can stand by your comment that there is absolutely NO evidence to support a biological basis for depression when I just presented you with some evidence. Don't you think it would be reasonable to adjust your views as evidence presents itself?
>
> > And I don't appreciate your comment about 'living under a rock". Why not just say "I disagree"?
>
> I'm sorry if you felt offended and if I made my point too forcefully. I don't, however, think that saying "I disagree" would have been appropriate because we were talking about a matter of fact, not opinion.But I personally felt a tone of anger in that statement. And that is OK. It is OK for people to be angry with each other. But i think on a site like this we must be very gentle with each other. I may be totally off base, and I apologize if I am. I respect your opinion and I hope you do mine.
> > However let me qualify my former statement:
> >
> > Their is absolutely NO conclusive external evidence, external valid criteria, that their is a unified biological basis for depression or ANY psychopathology.
> > There is only speculation, sometimes ridiculously naive, and sometime very intelligent.
>
> From my perspective, that seems to be a departure from your previous statement, not a qualification of it, but you may disagree.I do disagree. It's an elaboration on my former statement. I am expanding on what I stated, not departing/negating from it in any way I feel. On this site I have said the same thing many times. Sometimes more cogently and articulate, sometimes less so.
I think the key word that you used in this most recent statement is "unified." With that word being part of your statement, I agree with you,
but I wouldn't expect there to be a unified biological basis for a disorder that's heterogeneous.
but I would think this lends even more credence to my view?
> > For a doctor to say "You suffer a biochemical imbalance" (with regards to psychopathology) is a falsehood. It MAY be true, but not now, not any time in the past.
> >
> > For a doctor to say " I THINK you suffer a biochemical imbalance" (with regards to psychopathology) is plausible.
>
> On this point, I agree.
>
> I also wish you the best of luck in making the appropriate adjustments to your medications.Thankyou.
I'm sorry that I don't have much to offer you in the way of advice in that area.
>
> TomatheusTomatheus, thankyou for your post. You voiced an opinion honestly and sincerely, and didn't sit on the fence. I respectthat. Absolutely no hard feelings this way. Hope the same applies for you. If we do disagree on certain things, that's a good thing I feel. Life would be pretty boring if we all had the same views.
All the very best,
Ace
Posted by ace on December 7, 2010, at 0:16:47
In reply to Re: Thoughts please.... Nardil + Xanax + more, posted by bleauberry on December 6, 2010, at 19:18:05
>
> > I truly want to be self-sufficient. By using Nardil I am using an external agent, and negating my own POSSIBLE capacity to overcome these afflictions. We all know here that their is NO evidence of a biological basis of depression.
>
> Ace, I hear ya loud and clear. We all want to overcome.
>
> The above statement however, I absolutely do not accept the premise. There is a ton of evidence of biological depression.But their is no conclusive evidence. But please don't get me wrong- I do not think, by any means, that bona-fide psychopathology- i.e. schizophrenia, TRD, etc etc- is due to only external factors. It has to have a biological underpinning in some way, by perforce.
For someone to say to a chronically depressed person i.e. "there is nothing wrong with you, just get yourself together", I feel is not only invalid, but cruel.
It's just that the causes of it are varied,
Agreed.
and it is not within the norm of our medical system to be detectives at finding what is wrong.
Can you elaborate on that statement?
If it is cancer, sure. Depression, no.
>
> Sad because it could be something as simple as a methylation issue, or a genetic defect that a couple supplements would bridge, an unsuspected chronic infection, a gut problem, a hormonal problem, a flawed detox problem.
>
> I could go on for pages and pages sharing with you treatment resistant folks who completely remitted and got their lives back when the biological problem was fixed.I know. And I have seen this with my eyes. People it catatonic states, get a medication, and bang! They are a new person. I am certain that it does psychopathology does have a biological underpinning. But I believe that very biological underpinning is wholly unique to that individual.
That's why this business with SSRI's- 'you have a serotonin problem like everyone who has depression'- is ludicrous.
Give me 10 px with TRD and I can give you 10 different biological causes. There may be similarities in the pathogenesis, but, their illness cannot have the exact same pathogenesis.
But virtue of the very fact that we are individuals.
The barrier that we all face however is that most of these biological problems are not the ones the psychiatrists or general practitioners vigilantly look for. It takes a creative MD with true passion for winning.Agreed. But their is such pressure, time-limitations involved, and a necessity to conform to current models, that this is hard.
Why are the pharmaceutical companies having ANYTHING to do with a MD's training?It takes out-of-the-ordinary testing. The cure is usually not a psychiatric drug, but something else that would completely take the rest of us by surprise.
Give me an example.
> But the psychological part plays into it as well. Psychological factors do shape brain function.Agreed. They must.
The biological and the psychological can both feed each other for the worse or the better, depending on how we attack the entire thing.
>
> I don't know. Unless you are determined to do some deep detective work, spend some money, and try some challenge tests and try stuff just to see, and perhaps some counseling to deal with any psychological issues you are suspect of, it might be better to enjoy what you get with Nardil and go forward with it. To come off it with the plans of taking control yourself requires a well planned comprehensive strategy that covers a lot of bases.
What you say is very true. It's very convoluted and, like you said, it does involve so many different factors.
At the end of the day, I just say to myself "Just keep on keeping on!"Cheers for the post:)
Ace
Posted by ace on December 7, 2010, at 1:29:35
In reply to Re: Thoughts please.... Nardil + Xanax + more » ace, posted by sigismund on December 6, 2010, at 10:51:15
> >Two edged sword. Because I think this desire, by perforce, it makes us conform to others expectations and desires, not truly our own. We lose our true identities under so many masks.
> What do you think?
>
> YES
>
> But I don't think the solution lies in having less of this desire, but rather finding the right people to share it with.I agree, but alas! the right people can be so tough to find.
The right people might find it very lovely.
In any case, it is part of us and only repressed at a cost. The desire to merge is legitimate and attractive to some people.I see your point. I think, overall, we have to try and set limits on our desires. Otherwise we end up turning away people and chasing our tails.
Thanks for the post:)
Ace
Posted by Tomatheus on December 7, 2010, at 13:31:47
In reply to Re: Thoughts please.... Nardil + Xanax + more » Tomatheus, posted by ace on December 6, 2010, at 23:54:59
Ace,
See below for my responses...
> But I personally felt a tone of anger in that statement. And that is OK. It is OK for people to be angry with each other. But i think on a site like this we must be very gentle with each other. I may be totally off base, and I apologize if I am. I respect your opinion and I hope you do mine.
I wouldn't say I was angered as much as I was amazed that one could hold the view that there is absolutely no evidence for a biological basis of depression when I think it's very clear that there is at least some evidence. I don't think that you're totally off base, though, as I think that the tone of my original reply was inappropriate for this site. I apologize for it and agree that we should be gentle with each other here.
Ultimately, if you continue to hold the view that there is absolutely no evidence to support a biological basis for depression, then I respect you for that. I was hoping, though, that by presenting some evidence that maybe I could convince you that the statement that you made in your original post was not accurate.
> I do disagree. It's an elaboration on my former statement. I am expanding on what I stated, not departing/negating from it in any way I feel. On this site I have said the same thing many times. Sometimes more cogently and articulate, sometimes less so.
I guess the point that I was trying to make was that your qualification or elaboration of your original statement makes room for the possibility that there could be some evidence for biological underpinnings in depressive disorders, while your original statement does not. In other words, just because there isn't data to support the notion that there is a *unified* biological basis for major depressive disorder doesn't mean that studies haven't found biochemical abnormalities in patients with the disorder. As evidenced by the link that I posted in my original reply, there are studies that have found biochemical abnormalities in depressed patients, and this is evidence that there is a biological basis for depressive disorders. It, however, is not evidence that there's a *unified* biological basis for major depressive disorder or any other depressive disorder.
> > I think the key word that you used in this most recent statement is "unified." With that word being part of your statement, I agree with you,
>
> > but I wouldn't expect there to be a unified biological basis for a disorder that's heterogeneous.
>
> but I would think this lends even more credence to my view?I think that what I said lends credence to the view that there isn't a *unified* biological basis for major depressive disorder or any other depressive disorder, but not necessarily to the view that there is no evidence to support a biological basis for depression whatsoever. As I understand it, one of the reasons why major depressive disorder is thought to be heterogeneous is that a variety of biochemical abnormalities have been found to be associated with the disorder. Does this heterogeneity refute the possibility that there could be a *unified* biological basis for major depressive disorder? Absolutely. It would be impossible for there to be a unified biological basis for a heterogeneous disorder. However, I don't think that the heterogeneity of major depressive disorder denies the evidence that has been found for biochemical abnormalities in the disorder.
> Tomatheus, thankyou for your post. You voiced an opinion honestly and sincerely, and didn't sit on the fence. I respectthat. Absolutely no hard feelings this way. Hope the same applies for you. If we do disagree on certain things, that's a good thing I feel. Life would be pretty boring if we all had the same views.
I have no hard feelings toward you, either, and I agree that life would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything. I too thank you for sharing your views with me, and I wish you well.
Tomatheus
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.