![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 7 of 7. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Cydnie on March 31, 2011, at 8:37:10
If you are taking natural supplements, is that what you want? 5-htp works for serotonin, but I don't know if you can take it with sam-e. Rhodiola rosea is something I take, and have been taking with a lot of things (my doc thinks I am low on dopamine) and Gaba should be helped by l-theanine I think (I think it also works on dopamine, but am not sure how - there's a book you can find at the library which talks about a lot of nutritional supplements and conventional medications: How to use herbs, nutrients, & yoga in mental health care). It talks about medications for bipolar, depression, anxiety, add/adhd, cognitive impairment and memory, and one of my favorites - women problems (also men) which includes libido, things like that, and also has a suggestion of things that you can do or take for conventional medication side effects (for me, weight gain! libido) I like it so far, and my doc just suggested maca, not just for libido, but for mood! I don't know if it works on dopamine or what, but he thinks I am low in dopamine because of how well I do on adderall. Hope that helps! Cydnie
Posted by bleauberry on March 31, 2011, at 16:41:21
In reply to alternatives?, posted by Cydnie on March 31, 2011, at 8:37:10
My perspective....there is amazing potency in many herbs, with dozens of active ingredients in each working in concert to get a lot of good things accomplished that none of them isolated on their own could do.
Maca...it is very potent in my experience. Rapid antidepressant but rapid poop out as well, for me anyway. I probably took it wrong because Maca is one of those plants, like most actually, that needs to be taken continuously for months for all its benefits to overcome the disease and symptoms. If I had kept taking it for months maybe it would have gone better but I stopped it after a few days.
For sure it did one amazing thing....my hands which are always cold, well, they became warm to the touch. That was really nice. Plants have such wide ranging actions it is hard to know what Maca was doing to warm up my hands....microcirculation?....adrenal?....thyroid?....other?...unknown?...or what it did to immediately lift the mood. Dunno. I just know that for me it is potent stuff. My doses were only maybe the tip of a teaspoon or less...enough to fill maybe 1/4 of a capsule.
Posted by mtdewcmu on March 31, 2011, at 19:34:11
In reply to alternatives?, posted by Cydnie on March 31, 2011, at 8:37:10
There are some herbals out there that definitely have real effects. But there is no reason to think they are better than pharmaceuticals just because they are herbs. If they actually work, they are studied and a pharmaceutical is eventually made that does the same thing but is much better tested and standardized.
SAMe is one that definitely has some kind of effect (I didn't stay on it long enough to know if it was an antidepressant), and I'm not aware that it has been copied. But you should bring a high level of skepticism when dealing with herbs, because there are a lot of false claims and little regulation.
Posted by bleauberry on April 2, 2011, at 10:14:29
In reply to Re: alternatives?, posted by mtdewcmu on March 31, 2011, at 19:34:11
> "There are some herbals out there that definitely have real effects. But there is no reason to think they are better than pharmaceuticals just because they are herbs."
Actually that's not true. Not completely untrue either. It just misses the whole picture. Which is this. Some herbs have proven in the lab and in the clinic to be more effective then their pharmaceutical counterparts.
Many plants actually have hundreds of clinical studies and proof on them. It's just that most of those were not within the borders of the USA. We can be kind of arrogant here. If we didn't invent it, and if we didn't discover it, or we didn't research it....then surely that plant is worthless. Pure folklore. We are kind of arrogant in that sense, disregarding huge amounts of clinical and anecdotal evidence purely on the basis that we are unaware it exists or on the basis that someone else did it that isn't as good as we are (the arrogance thing).
Something else to consider....even without solid scientific proof....which hardly exists on anything we discuss in psychiatry anyway....many herbs have been found century after century, civilization after civilization, for thousands of years to have reliable purposes and effects which can be confirmed and duplicated. The "folklore" of such plants did not survive thousands of years based on hoax or dreams. Real credit for the plant is necessary for that reputation to stand the test of time generation after generation. No one along the journey had any type of bias or profit motive. The plant stood on its own merits.
Unlike synthetic isolated meds, plants have dozens of active ingredients in them, all working in a harmonious concert. Their actions are numerous, far reaching, and synergistic. That doesn't happen in meds.
"If they actually work, they are studied and a pharmaceutical is eventually made that does the same thing but is much better tested and standardized."
They do actually work on a repeatable basis, assuming of course the correct diagnosis has been made and the plant is justified for that purpose. For example, if someone is diagnosed with depression and given St Johns Wort....well, on the surface that looks like a logical choice, but in fact might be all wrong....maybe the depression is a co-existing symptom of a completely different problem that SJW doesn't address. That's also why a lot of psych meds don't work for some people....they are completely missing the target, and in fact the target hasn't even been spotted. The most common symptom my Lyme doctor sees is....depression, with or without any other symptoms. Patients who have failed 20 years of antidepressants and have no sign of infection improve for the first time in a long time at about 2 months into antibiotic and/or antifungal treatment.
Standardization....no purpose in it whatsoever except for the profit motive. If a company can isolate the likely active ingredient in a plant and make a drug out of it, they are looking at huge profits. The problem is, plants usually have more than one active ingredient, and for man to assume that only one chemical in that plant gets all the credit is, well, I think kind of arrogant and ignorant at the same time. Why don't they just take a plant that has worked for thousands of years, and still works today, and use it? Because there is no profit in it. It has nothing to do with isolating a particular ingredient other than gaining a patent on it. The synergy of a plant's components will almost always outperform any single component of that plant.
>
> "SAMe is one that definitely has some kind of effect (I didn't stay on it long enough to know if it was an antidepressant), and I'm not aware that it has been copied.""But you should bring a high level of skepticism when dealing with herbs, because there are a lot of false claims and little regulation."
I think it is a very healthy thing to be skeptical and suspicious of anything in medicine....meds, herbs, supplements, what the doctor says, what a clinical trial abstract says....any of it and all of it. Why? Because face it, despite our belief we have the most advanced medical knowledge of all time, it is still in infancy. There is a lot more we don't know than we do know. SSRIs for example....it would not surprise me whatsoever if we were to learn in 50 years that the serotonin component of had nothing to do with anything except side effects....it was some other unidentified mechanism or genetic coding due to the drug that did the job.
Meds and plants both are victims of false claims. Clinical studies on your favorite med for example look fairly impressive if you just look at the abstract or the summary of it. Yet, get the entire manuscript and read all the details and you begin to see a lot of flaws. What was said in the abstract wasn't really false, it just wasn't solidly true either, and was based on cherry picked data. Stuff that was left out, if it had been incorporated in the abstract it would have shown how weak the case was...so it was purposely left out, creating a false image to anyone reading just the abstract. Companies spend millions of dollars both behind the scenes and upfront, with the sole purpose being to sell us that drug for their profit. That's good business, no problem. The problem however is it creates a false impression of the drug's worthiness. The same happens with herbs....so often you will read a highly informative web page on a herb, only to discover at the end of it they are selling their own brand of that herb. It was like an infomercial. The way the drug companies do it is more sly and discreet, but it's the same game.
Meds have only been a part of history for what, 50 years at most? Medicinal properties of plants have been known and repeatedly rediscovered for thousands of years. I personally am more skeptical of the drug that had: cherry picked patients, financial purpose, and political ties, during its clinical trials, than I am of one of God's plants.
But I am indeed skeptical of any and all claims...meds, herbs, or other. I think it is a healthy thing for every patient to self educate themselves on everything they can find out about their disease and every possible angle of eradicating it. In doing such research, you see both sides of the fence....pros, cons, true claims, false claims, black, white, and grey areas. One can then make educated decisions, but make ones with a high degree of strategic reasoning, purpose, and potential.
Posted by mtdewcmu on April 2, 2011, at 15:21:31
In reply to Re: alternatives?, posted by bleauberry on April 2, 2011, at 10:14:29
> > "There are some herbals out there that definitely have real effects. But there is no reason to think they are better than pharmaceuticals just because they are herbs."
>
> "Actually that's not true. Not completely untrue either. It just misses the whole picture. Which is this. Some herbs have proven in the lab and in the clinic to be more effective then their pharmaceutical counterparts.
>
> Many plants actually have hundreds of clinical studies and proof on them. It's just that most of those were not within the borders of the USA. We can be kind of arrogant here. If we didn't invent it, and if we didn't discover it, or we didn't research it....then surely that plant is worthless. Pure folklore. We are kind of arrogant in that sense, disregarding huge amounts of clinical and anecdotal evidence purely on the basis that we are unaware it exists or on the basis that someone else did it that isn't as good as we are (the arrogance thing)."There are lots of plants that were used traditionally that really work. It's just that modern medicine has already adopted the best ones. Willow bark became aspirin, foxglove became digoxin, opium became morphine, ma huang became ephedrine, deadly nightshade became atropine, etc.
When traditional herbs didn't become pharmaceuticals it was because they didn't work. Not because of arrogance.
>
> "Something else to consider....even without solid scientific proof....which hardly exists on anything we discuss in psychiatry anyway....many herbs have been found century after century, civilization after civilization, for thousands of years to have reliable purposes and effects which can be confirmed and duplicated. The "folklore" of such plants did not survive thousands of years based on hoax or dreams. Real credit for the plant is necessary for that reputation to stand the test of time generation after generation. No one along the journey had any type of bias or profit motive. The plant stood on its own merits.
>
> Unlike synthetic isolated meds, plants have dozens of active ingredients in them, all working in a harmonious concert. Their actions are numerous, far reaching, and synergistic. That doesn't happen in meds."There are numerous herbs from which multiple drugs have been isolated. Tea contains caffeine and theophylline, a drug useful in asthma. Opium contains morphine and codeine. Opium with all of the alkaloids intact is actually still used in modern medicine.
>
> ""If they actually work, they are studied and a pharmaceutical is eventually made that does the same thing but is much better tested and standardized."
>
> They do actually work on a repeatable basis, assuming of course the correct diagnosis has been made and the plant is justified for that purpose. For example, if someone is diagnosed with depression and given St Johns Wort....well, on the surface that looks like a logical choice, but in fact might be all wrong....maybe the depression is a co-existing symptom of a completely different problem that SJW doesn't address. That's also why a lot of psych meds don't work for some people....they are completely missing the target, and in fact the target hasn't even been spotted. The most common symptom my Lyme doctor sees is....depression, with or without any other symptoms. Patients who have failed 20 years of antidepressants and have no sign of infection improve for the first time in a long time at about 2 months into antibiotic and/or antifungal treatment.
>
> Standardization....no purpose in it whatsoever except for the profit motive. If a company can isolate the likely active ingredient in a plant and make a drug out of it, they are looking at huge profits. The problem is, plants usually have more than one active ingredient, and for man to assume that only one chemical in that plant gets all the credit is, well, I think kind of arrogant and ignorant at the same time. Why don't they just take a plant that has worked for thousands of years, and still works today, and use it? Because there is no profit in it. It has nothing to do with isolating a particular ingredient other than gaining a patent on it. The synergy of a plant's components will almost always outperform any single component of that plant.
>
> >
> > "SAMe is one that definitely has some kind of effect (I didn't stay on it long enough to know if it was an antidepressant), and I'm not aware that it has been copied."
>
> "But you should bring a high level of skepticism when dealing with herbs, because there are a lot of false claims and little regulation."
>
> I think it is a very healthy thing to be skeptical and suspicious of anything in medicine....meds, herbs, supplements, what the doctor says, what a clinical trial abstract says....any of it and all of it. Why? Because face it, despite our belief we have the most advanced medical knowledge of all time, it is still in infancy. There is a lot more we don't know than we do know. SSRIs for example....it would not surprise me whatsoever if we were to learn in 50 years that the serotonin component of had nothing to do with anything except side effects....it was some other unidentified mechanism or genetic coding due to the drug that did the job.
>
> Meds and plants both are victims of false claims. Clinical studies on your favorite med for example look fairly impressive if you just look at the abstract or the summary of it. Yet, get the entire manuscript and read all the details and you begin to see a lot of flaws. What was said in the abstract wasn't really false, it just wasn't solidly true either, and was based on cherry picked data. Stuff that was left out, if it had been incorporated in the abstract it would have shown how weak the case was...so it was purposely left out, creating a false image to anyone reading just the abstract. Companies spend millions of dollars both behind the scenes and upfront, with the sole purpose being to sell us that drug for their profit. That's good business, no problem. The problem however is it creates a false impression of the drug's worthiness. The same happens with herbs....so often you will read a highly informative web page on a herb, only to discover at the end of it they are selling their own brand of that herb. It was like an infomercial. The way the drug companies do it is more sly and discreet, but it's the same game.
>
> Meds have only been a part of history for what, 50 years at most? Medicinal properties of plants have been known and repeatedly rediscovered for thousands of years. I personally am more skeptical of the drug that had: cherry picked patients, financial purpose, and political ties, during its clinical trials, than I am of one of God's plants.
>
> But I am indeed skeptical of any and all claims...meds, herbs, or other. I think it is a healthy thing for every patient to self educate themselves on everything they can find out about their disease and every possible angle of eradicating it. In doing such research, you see both sides of the fence....pros, cons, true claims, false claims, black, white, and grey areas. One can then make educated decisions, but make ones with a high degree of strategic reasoning, purpose, and potential."
>
>I think you give modern medicine too little credit.
Posted by bleauberry on April 3, 2011, at 4:24:57
In reply to Re: alternatives?, posted by mtdewcmu on April 2, 2011, at 15:21:31
I am of one of God's plants.
> >
> >
>
> I think you give modern medicine too little credit.It's not that I give them too little credit, it's that the masses give them too much.
Posted by desolationrower on April 4, 2011, at 1:53:14
In reply to Re: alternatives?, posted by bleauberry on April 3, 2011, at 4:24:57
the masses give them too much credit, and benefit from that. its the placebo effect.
and there are arrogant #$#@s, and conflicts of interest, and intellectual properties rights, and funding regimes, etc. lots of reasons things are or aren't drugs.
a lot of it is noticing beneficial effects from some plant, instead of just taking subclinical but summable levels of many drug from a balanced diet of unprocessed foods.
-d/r
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.