![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 22 of 22. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by huxley on July 19, 2012, at 7:22:53
Which one are we doing?
Are we correcting a biological problem, or are we just getting high?
Are we healing depression? or are we entering drug induced states?
Posted by Phil on July 19, 2012, at 9:33:18
In reply to Correcting an Imbalance or getting high?, posted by huxley on July 19, 2012, at 7:22:53
> Which one are we doing?
>
> Are we correcting a biological problem, or are we just getting high?
>
> Are we healing depression? or are we entering drug induced states?
I would hardly call psych drugs getting high. Acid is high..very high. Lamictal just doesn't give me that great of a buzz. Although you could obviously have fun resetting your dosages on dex or xanax or whatever.
My doctors have never said, take this you'll be healed. When medication works well you return to 'your old self' before depression and it feels nothing like a 'drug induced state' which has a negative connotation, right?
But it all depends on one's perspective at any given time.
When meds work, you don't feel like you're on anything.
None of this is easy and your questions are one's that we should always ask when trying something new. Mania on the other hand requires no drugs and I've never done a drug that can touch it. Pick your poison.
Posted by Phillipa on July 19, 2012, at 9:47:00
In reply to Re: Correcting an Imbalance or getting high?, posted by Phil on July 19, 2012, at 9:33:18
I needed them for panic years ago and should have never kept taking meds but I did and now seems even though stopped some. I feel worse the less or more I take. So for me what does it matter? Phillipa
Posted by Tomatheus on July 19, 2012, at 11:26:58
In reply to Correcting an Imbalance or getting high?, posted by huxley on July 19, 2012, at 7:22:53
Huxley,
When a person is in a state that's characterized by an absence of thought and energy and accompanied by hypersomnia and a difficulty enjoying things, I think that the culprit for that person's difficulties most likely rests with that person's biology. Seeking to attain a level of energy that is consistent with the level of energy that a person has known for much of his or her life is hardly getting high. It's seeking wellness.
Whether medications correct biological problems or heal depression is a different issue from whether people with affective disorders have biological problems in the first place. There are a lot of drugs used in medicine that don't heal or correct the underlying biological problems causing the conditions that the drugs are designed to treat. Take high blood pressure for example. There are a lot of different factors that can cause high blood pressure, but can doctors tell their hypertensive patients exactly what's causing their blood pressure to be high and/or prescribe a medication that corrects the very cause of the problem? I don't think so, at least not in most cases. The thing is that just because high blood pressure medications don't heal or correct the underlying cause of the high blood pressure (or at least the likelihood of the medications correcting the underlying cause is slim in most cases) doesn't mean that individuals with high blood pressure don't have a biological problem. They do, and it's obvious because high blood pressure can be measured. Now, the symptoms of depression and other psychiatric disorders can't be measured in the same way that high blood pressure can be measured. The measurements of one's energy, for example, are taken by the patients themselves and then relayed on to the doctors treating them. But the point that I'm trying to make is that high blood pressure is obviously a biological problem, despite the fact that the medications used to treat it are highly unlikely to do any healing or correct the underlying cause of the problem. The fact that blood pressure medications don't heal or correct imbalances isn't used as an argument to invalidate the fact that high blood pressure is a biological disease, and I don't think that the fact that psychiatric medications probably don't usually heal or correct imbalances should be used as an argument to invalidate the idea that affective disorders have biological underpinnings.
Although there may be some cases where a psychiatric medication does correct an imbalance, it would be my guess that in most cases medications medications don't heal or correct imbalances. Usually, psychiatric medications treat symptoms. In the case of depression, antidepressants increase energy levels, boost mood, reduce sleep disturbances, and otherwise reduce the symptoms of depressive disorders. The goal is to manipulate a person's symptoms so they're at a healthy, normal level -- not to get a person to feel high, hypomanic, or manic. Sometimes patients do end up feeling hypomanic or manic from antidepressant treatment, even when they don't have a history of manic or hypomanic symptoms. This is just one example of many of how psychiatric medications are imperfect treatments for mental disorders. But does the fact that the medications are imperfect have any bearing on whether or not the disorders being treated have a biological basis to them? I think not.
I'd be interested in reading your responses to your own questions. To what extent to you think affective disorders are biological problems? And do you think that patients with affective disorders have legitimate symptoms that might be treatable with psychiatric medications, or would you say that those with affective disorders are really just trying to get high? And if you're of the opinion that those with affective disorders are just trying to get high, what do you make of the complaints that patients make regarding their symptoms? Are the patients liars? Have they been conned by someone into believing that they're unwell? Do they have legitimate symptoms that are based in something other biology (and if they do, how do you know?)? How would you explain the symptoms that those with affective disorders experience?
Tomatheus
Posted by huxley on July 19, 2012, at 19:28:17
In reply to Re: Correcting an Imbalance or getting high?, posted by Tomatheus on July 19, 2012, at 11:26:58
> Huxley,
>
> When a person is in a state that's characterized by an absence of thought and energy and accompanied by hypersomnia and a difficulty enjoying things, I think that the culprit for that person's difficulties most likely rests with that person's biology. Seeking to attain a level of energy that is consistent with the level of energy that a person has known for much of his or her life is hardly getting high. It's seeking wellness.
>
> Whether medications correct biological problems or heal depression is a different issue from whether people with affective disorders have biological problems in the first place. There are a lot of drugs used in medicine that don't heal or correct the underlying biological problems causing the conditions that the drugs are designed to treat. Take high blood pressure for example. There are a lot of different factors that can cause high blood pressure, but can doctors tell their hypertensive patients exactly what's causing their blood pressure to be high and/or prescribe a medication that corrects the very cause of the problem? I don't think so, at least not in most cases. The thing is that just because high blood pressure medications don't heal or correct the underlying cause of the high blood pressure (or at least the likelihood of the medications correcting the underlying cause is slim in most cases) doesn't mean that individuals with high blood pressure don't have a biological problem. They do, and it's obvious because high blood pressure can be measured. Now, the symptoms of depression and other psychiatric disorders can't be measured in the same way that high blood pressure can be measured. The measurements of one's energy, for example, are taken by the patients themselves and then relayed on to the doctors treating them. But the point that I'm trying to make is that high blood pressure is obviously a biological problem, despite the fact that the medications used to treat it are highly unlikely to do any healing or correct the underlying cause of the problem. The fact that blood pressure medications don't heal or correct imbalances isn't used as an argument to invalidate the fact that high blood pressure is a biological disease, and I don't think that the fact that psychiatric medications probably don't usually heal or correct imbalances should be used as an argument to invalidate the idea that affective disorders have biological underpinnings.
>
> Although there may be some cases where a psychiatric medication does correct an imbalance, it would be my guess that in most cases medications medications don't heal or correct imbalances. Usually, psychiatric medications treat symptoms. In the case of depression, antidepressants increase energy levels, boost mood, reduce sleep disturbances, and otherwise reduce the symptoms of depressive disorders. The goal is to manipulate a person's symptoms so they're at a healthy, normal level -- not to get a person to feel high, hypomanic, or manic. Sometimes patients do end up feeling hypomanic or manic from antidepressant treatment, even when they don't have a history of manic or hypomanic symptoms. This is just one example of many of how psychiatric medications are imperfect treatments for mental disorders. But does the fact that the medications are imperfect have any bearing on whether or not the disorders being treated have a biological basis to them? I think not.
>
> I'd be interested in reading your responses to your own questions. To what extent to you think affective disorders are biological problems? And do you think that patients with affective disorders have legitimate symptoms that might be treatable with psychiatric medications, or would you say that those with affective disorders are really just trying to get high? And if you're of the opinion that those with affective disorders are just trying to get high, what do you make of the complaints that patients make regarding their symptoms? Are the patients liars? Have they been conned by someone into believing that they're unwell? Do they have legitimate symptoms that are based in something other biology (and if they do, how do you know?)? How would you explain the symptoms that those with affective disorders experience?
>
> TomatheusGood post Tomatheus.
My thoughts are.- Yes there is a biological problem, what else could it be.
- We don't understand the chemistry of the body and mind. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out when doctors have little idea what a drug will do when administrated. It could do anything from make you manic to suicidal. They are hoping that it does the right thing.
- We like to pretend we know what we are doing with meds. tinkering with dopamine agonists and antagonists like we are find tuning a motor.
I think a more apt analogy is more like bludgeoning a motor with a hammer.
- We can't correct an imbalance when we can't detect the imbalance. We might get lucky and correct a chemical defect but really we are (bad choice of words) getting high. Or using drugs to change our state.- When you talk about blood pressure. You are talking about something that is tangible. That can be measured.
Most or all of psychological disorders cannot be meausred in a tangible sense. It's an opinion.
One person might be given 4 or 5 different diagnoses by different doctors.
For depression, you might get an Anti Psychotic, a mood stabaliser, an AD, a stimulant...
You might get all of them stacked on top of each other if you are unlucky.
Posted by huxley on July 19, 2012, at 19:30:46
In reply to Re: Correcting an Imbalance or getting high?, posted by Phil on July 19, 2012, at 9:33:18
> > Which one are we doing?
> >
> > Are we correcting a biological problem, or are we just getting high?
> >
> > Are we healing depression? or are we entering drug induced states?
>
> I would hardly call psych drugs getting high. Acid is high..very high. Lamictal just doesn't give me that great of a buzz. Although you could obviously have fun resetting your dosages on dex or xanax or whatever.
> My doctors have never said, take this you'll be healed. When medication works well you return to 'your old self' before depression and it feels nothing like a 'drug induced state' which has a negative connotation, right?
> But it all depends on one's perspective at any given time.
> When meds work, you don't feel like you're on anything.
> None of this is easy and your questions are one's that we should always ask when trying something new. Mania on the other hand requires no drugs and I've never done a drug that can touch it. Pick your poison.Not a negative connotation. Its just an interesting line that needs to be drawn by the industry.
We are not 'correcting an imbalance' and if we are we are doing it acidently.
We are infact changing our state with drugs. Not returning to our old state before drugs.
Posted by Meatwood_Flack on July 19, 2012, at 20:04:11
In reply to Re: Correcting an Imbalance or getting high?, posted by huxley on July 19, 2012, at 19:30:46
> We are infact changing our state with drugs. Not returning to our old state before drugs.
Good distinction. Getting us back to our new old selves, again...
Posted by Tomatheus on July 19, 2012, at 20:47:03
In reply to Re: Correcting an Imbalance or getting high?, posted by huxley on July 19, 2012, at 19:28:17
Huxley,
Thank you for your reply. I basically agree with much of what you wrote, although my choice of words might be different from yours in some instances. I would agree with you that psychiatric patients are using drugs to change their state, but I would say that from a symptomatic point of view, we're trying to change our state from being unhealthy and dysfunctional to being healthy and functional. That doesn't mean that reducing the severity of symptoms necessarily corrects the underlying cause of the symptoms or even that we always achieve our goal of feeling more mentally healthy, but mental wellness is the goal with psychopharmacology. Usually when I think of someone getting high, I think of that person being symptom free to begin with (which may not always be accurate) and then creating what one might consider to be "symptoms" that weren't previously present (such as an altered perception of reality). In other words, mental wellness does not seem to be the goal of getting high. That's not to say that there can't be any overlap, like for instance, that street drugs can't be used for medicinal purposes, including the treatment of mental disorders. And both users of street drugs and patients taking psychiatric drugs are trying to change their mental states with substances, as you pointed out. But I think that where treating a psychiatric condition with medications differs from getting high is with the goals of the two practices.
Tomatheus
Posted by Phil on July 20, 2012, at 14:46:02
In reply to Correcting an Imbalance or getting high?, posted by huxley on July 19, 2012, at 7:22:53
So, the big picture, 60 years ago you may have forcibly had a hole drilled in your head, had ECT the hard way, or been strapped to a table 23 hours a day. Not counting being in an asylum for life.
Are things better now? I'm sure there will be no's out there.Oncology, which many people hate but are willing to almost die to almost get well, is in the dark ages. Oncologists go from chemo to chemo with worse and worse side effects and most people like their doctor. My brother, mother and others liked their doctor. If you are stage 4, it would be wise to get your affairs in order. Cancer will kill you so doctors are learning as they go.
Mental illness will kill you too. But like oncologists, the medical profession can only develop new meds on what little is known about the brain. Unlike oncology, some patients, not all by far, despise their doctors, meds, psychiatry in general. Not despise, hate.
Anyone that forgets that in many areas of medicine you are dealing with risk/benefit situations. If a surgeon says I think you will die if we don't amputate that leg, what's one to do?
Once again I'm leaving this place. It used to be people cussing and discussing meds but most got along pretty well. They wanted to hear about possible help, not seething hatred of anything to do with psychiatry. And people really wanted to share their experience.
Since it seems anti-psychiatry is back in full bloom here and they aren't going anywhere, I'll be glad to. Why stay on a site designed to help and support that's turned into an alligator pit of bitter people that forgot to read the fine print.
Posted by SLS on July 20, 2012, at 15:13:36
In reply to Re: Correcting an Imbalance or getting high? » huxley, posted by Phil on July 20, 2012, at 14:46:02
Dear Phil.
I very much understand your sentiments, but wish that you would not leave. I find your opinions balanced and valuable. I just wish that you could have found what you were looking for on Psycho-Babble.
I was going to say more, but I deleted what I wrote. I do not wish to promote any more conflicts at this time.
I like your big picture.
- Scott
> So, the big picture, 60 years ago you may have forcibly had a hole drilled in your head, had ECT the hard way, or been strapped to a table 23 hours a day. Not counting being in an asylum for life.
> Are things better now? I'm sure there will be no's out there.
>
> Oncology, which many people hate but are willing to almost die to almost get well, is in the dark ages. Oncologists go from chemo to chemo with worse and worse side effects and most people like their doctor. My brother, mother and others liked their doctor. If you are stage 4, it would be wise to get your affairs in order. Cancer will kill you so doctors are learning as they go.
>
> Mental illness will kill you too. But like oncologists, the medical profession can only develop new meds on what little is known about the brain. Unlike oncology, some patients, not all by far, despise their doctors, meds, psychiatry in general. Not despise, hate.
>
> Anyone that forgets that in many areas of medicine you are dealing with risk/benefit situations. If a surgeon says I think you will die if we don't amputate that leg, what's one to do?
>
> Once again I'm leaving this place. It used to be people cussing and discussing meds but most got along pretty well. They wanted to hear about possible help, not seething hatred of anything to do with psychiatry. And people really wanted to share their experience.
>
> Since it seems anti-psychiatry is back in full bloom here and they aren't going anywhere, I'll be glad to. Why stay on a site designed to help and support that's turned into an alligator pit of bitter people that forgot to read the fine print.
Posted by SLS on July 20, 2012, at 15:22:14
In reply to Re: Correcting an Imbalance or getting high? » Phil, posted by SLS on July 20, 2012, at 15:13:36
> I was going to say more, but I deleted what I wrote. I do not wish to promote any more conflicts at this time.
Okay. That was pretty dumb of me to say that.
Sorry.
- Scott
Posted by sleepygirl2 on July 20, 2012, at 16:45:56
In reply to Re: Correcting an Imbalance or getting high? » huxley, posted by Phil on July 20, 2012, at 14:46:02
Hey,
Don't go.
I think a theoretical discussion won't do much good when we might be trying to do the best we can, with treatment that can never be perfect. But it's something.I'm sorry for your losses :-(
I'm sorry things are difficult.
Take care,
sleepy
Posted by ron1953 on July 20, 2012, at 18:18:12
In reply to Correcting an Imbalance or getting high?, posted by huxley on July 19, 2012, at 7:22:53
The comparison depends, I suppose, on the reason one gets high. If it's for recreation, then I'd say it's different. But if it's to avoid or escape discomfort, I don't think there's any substantial difference, regardless of the chemicals used. I think there is a high percentage of drug use, licit and illicit, that serves the end of alleviating simple discomfort, and in many cases doctors prescribe perhaps a bit too freely for patients who are simply uncomfortable, not debilitated.
Posted by huxley on July 21, 2012, at 3:45:21
In reply to Re: Correcting an Imbalance or getting high? » huxley, posted by Phil on July 20, 2012, at 14:46:02
> So, the big picture, 60 years ago you may have forcibly had a hole drilled in your head, had ECT the hard way, or been strapped to a table 23 hours a day. Not counting being in an asylum for life.
> Are things better now? I'm sure there will be no's out there.
>
> Oncology, which many people hate but are willing to almost die to almost get well, is in the dark ages. Oncologists go from chemo to chemo with worse and worse side effects and most people like their doctor. My brother, mother and others liked their doctor. If you are stage 4, it would be wise to get your affairs in order. Cancer will kill you so doctors are learning as they go.
>
> Mental illness will kill you too. But like oncologists, the medical profession can only develop new meds on what little is known about the brain. Unlike oncology, some patients, not all by far, despise their doctors, meds, psychiatry in general. Not despise, hate.
>
> Anyone that forgets that in many areas of medicine you are dealing with risk/benefit situations. If a surgeon says I think you will die if we don't amputate that leg, what's one to do?
>
> Once again I'm leaving this place. It used to be people cussing and discussing meds but most got along pretty well. They wanted to hear about possible help, not seething hatred of anything to do with psychiatry. And people really wanted to share their experience.
>
> Since it seems anti-psychiatry is back in full bloom here and they aren't going anywhere, I'll be glad to. Why stay on a site designed to help and support that's turned into an alligator pit of bitter people that forgot to read the fine print.You don't have to be anti-psychiatry to question there methods.
I don't mind a risk benefit situation as long as the risks are properly conveyed. Which they are not in many cases.
Medications are bundled up in cherry picked studies and sold based on lies.
You are not carefully treating your illness. No one here is. These meds are not precision lasers, they are a shotgun blast.
If your illness is so serious that you feel thats what you need and you are prepared to take the risk then thats fine. I have no problem with that and wish you well.
But,
If a doctor is going to give you amphetamines, they should warn you of the risk 10 years down the track.
If they are going to give you anti psychotics they should warn you of the tardive syndromes, the brain shrinkage, the liver failure, weight gain and the diabetes.
If they are going to give you anti depressants they should warn you of the sexual dysfunction, the discontinuation syndromes which can last years and cause suicides and violent crimes.
etc....
All very real problems with these drugs.
But they are not conveyed. They are hidden away behind lies.
Posted by SLS on July 21, 2012, at 6:38:47
In reply to Re: Correcting an Imbalance or getting high?, posted by huxley on July 21, 2012, at 3:45:21
> You don't have to be anti-psychiatry to question there methods.
Very true. However, it is productive to know their methods before questioning them.
> I don't mind a risk benefit situation as long as the risks are properly conveyed. Which they are not in many cases.
Very true. This is probably true in more cases than not.
> Medications are bundled up in cherry picked studies
From what I understand, this is true. I think a drug company must produce at least two positive clinical trials in order to be granted approval for a new drug or new indication for an old drug. Certainly, more than two trials are conducted. I would like to see each clinical trial that is to be conducted by a drug company be registered with the FDA before the trial begins.
> and sold based on lies.
Can you name any one lie in particular?
> You are not carefully treating your illness. No one here is.
This is not true in my estimation. The careful use of imperfect treatments is pervasive in modern medicine. Anyway I don't think it is helpful to speak in such absolutes.
> These meds are not precision lasers, they are a shotgun blast.
The same can be said of many of the treatments that represent the foundations of other fields of medicine. Is there any reason in particular why psychiatry should be exempted from such tolerance? Besides, at this point in history we need to make use of all of what we have to work with.
In the absence of lasers, do you have a proposition of how to treat mental illnesses?
> If your illness is so serious that you feel thats what you need and you are prepared to take the risk then thats fine. I have no problem with that and wish you well.
Thanks.
>
> But,
>
> If a doctor is going to give you amphetamines, they should warn you of the risk 10 years down the track.Which is?
> If they are going to give you anti psychotics they should warn you of the tardive syndromes, the brain shrinkage, the liver failure, weight gain and the diabetes.
Yes.
> If they are going to give you anti depressants they should warn you of the sexual dysfunction,
Yes.
> the discontinuation syndromes which can last years
I am still unsure about these syndromes lasting for such extended periods of time. I don't see that this is conceptually impossible, though.
> and cause suicides and violent crimes.
I would say that this is true, although infrequent, during treatment. I think that these things could also occur during acute withdrawal. They certainly happen often enough for a doctor to be explicit in educating their patients about these possibilities and what they should do if these symptoms emerge. Just as important, I think a doctor should see a patient on a weekly basis early in treatment with a new drug to closely monitor for negative reactions.
> etc....
>
> All very real problems with these drugs.
> But they are not conveyed.Unfortunately, I think this is true more often than not.
> They are hidden away behind lies.
What lies?
- Scott
Posted by huxley on July 21, 2012, at 23:37:35
In reply to Re: Correcting an Imbalance or getting high? » huxley, posted by SLS on July 21, 2012, at 6:38:47
> > You don't have to be anti-psychiatry to question there methods.
>
> Very true. However, it is productive to know their methods before questioning them.
>
> > I don't mind a risk benefit situation as long as the risks are properly conveyed. Which they are not in many cases.
>
> Very true. This is probably true in more cases than not.
>
> > Medications are bundled up in cherry picked studies
>
> From what I understand, this is true. I think a drug company must produce at least two positive clinical trials in order to be granted approval for a new drug or new indication for an old drug. Certainly, more than two trials are conducted. I would like to see each clinical trial that is to be conducted by a drug company be registered with the FDA before the trial begins.
>
> > and sold based on lies.
>
> Can you name any one lie in particular?
>
> > You are not carefully treating your illness. No one here is.
>
> This is not true in my estimation. The careful use of imperfect treatments is pervasive in modern medicine. Anyway I don't think it is helpful to speak in such absolutes.
>
> > These meds are not precision lasers, they are a shotgun blast.
>
> The same can be said of many of the treatments that represent the foundations of other fields of medicine. Is there any reason in particular why psychiatry should be exempted from such tolerance? Besides, at this point in history we need to make use of all of what we have to work with.
>
> In the absence of lasers, do you have a proposition of how to treat mental illnesses?
>
> > If your illness is so serious that you feel thats what you need and you are prepared to take the risk then thats fine. I have no problem with that and wish you well.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> > But,
> >
> > If a doctor is going to give you amphetamines, they should warn you of the risk 10 years down the track.
>
> Which is?
>
> > If they are going to give you anti psychotics they should warn you of the tardive syndromes, the brain shrinkage, the liver failure, weight gain and the diabetes.
>
> Yes.
>
> > If they are going to give you anti depressants they should warn you of the sexual dysfunction,
>
> Yes.
>
> > the discontinuation syndromes which can last years
>
> I am still unsure about these syndromes lasting for such extended periods of time. I don't see that this is conceptually impossible, though.
>
> > and cause suicides and violent crimes.
>
> I would say that this is true, although infrequent, during treatment. I think that these things could also occur during acute withdrawal. They certainly happen often enough for a doctor to be explicit in educating their patients about these possibilities and what they should do if these symptoms emerge. Just as important, I think a doctor should see a patient on a weekly basis early in treatment with a new drug to closely monitor for negative reactions.
>
> > etc....
> >
> > All very real problems with these drugs.
> > But they are not conveyed.
>
> Unfortunately, I think this is true more often than not.
>
> > They are hidden away behind lies.
>
> What lies?
>
>
> - ScottWhat lies?
All of the above. My whole point for this thread.The lie that we are carefully tuning the brain to 'rebalance' certain things. When the doctors are clearly not in control of what they are doing.
This is fine, but they should tell people this.
Also the drugs are presented as a safe treatment.
When they are not. Yes they come with some literature of side effects (which are again cherry picked) but I think more should be done to inform people of the risks.I don't know how about sharks with lazer beams on their head?
The long term side effects of ADHD drugs is that they induce psychotic episodes. Have seen it first hand.
Posted by SLS on July 22, 2012, at 9:28:40
In reply to Re: Correcting an Imbalance or getting high?, posted by huxley on July 21, 2012, at 23:37:35
Hi Huxley.
> > What lies?
> All of the above. My whole point for this thread.
> The lie that we are carefully tuning the brain to 'rebalance' certain things.
How do you know that this is a lie? Balance applies to things other than the storage pools and amounts released of neurotransmitters. What do you think about the balance that must be maintained between postsynaptic G-coupled protein neurotransmitter receptors, second messengers, protein kinase C, cFOS, nuclear gene transcription, mitochondrial support for endoplasmic reticulum, and the ultimate set points of the depolarization voltage necessary to propogate an action potential. I hope that stuff dazzles you. It does me. Scientists do a lot more than just measure serotonin levels. My best guess is that their level of sophistication in approach, amount of data collected, knowledge and understanding surpass my own by a degree that I cannot fully appreciate. Neuroscience is a pretty amazing field of study, and continues to yield information that is likely to make it unnecessary for doctors to tell "lies" about simple chemical imbalances.
> When the doctors are clearly not in control of what they are doing.
Is this just psychiatrists? Oncologists, too? Oncologists use shotgun approaches with their drugs, don't they? I hope you give oncologists more time to get it right than you seem willing to give psychiatrists.
> This is fine, but they should tell people this.
I believe we concur that more information should be conveyed from physician to patient, although I don't think the dynamics of second messenger systems should be a critical topic.
> Also the drugs are presented as a safe treatment.
>
> When they are not.For what percentage of patients are antidepressants unsafe?
> Yes they come with some literature of side effects (which are again cherry picked) but I think more should be done to inform people of the risks.
Yeah, we've already been there, Huxley. I agree with you...
> I don't know how about sharks with lazer beams on their head?
How very novel. Do you think it would work?
How about using microarrays to ascertain gene activity to help choose antidepressant treatments that are most likely to work for a given individual. Perhaps using biological probes and imaging the results with PET scans is a way to go. Already, genotyping can help predict side effects and responsivity to some degree. It's a great big world out there.
> The long term side effects of ADHD drugs is that they induce psychotic episodes. Have seen it first hand.
They can also produce tics and other nice things. The question is, for what percentage of people do these things occur? Peanuts kill. For what percentage of people with ADHD do these drugs give a quality of life that most people take for granted?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 22, 2012, at 11:51:42
In reply to Re: Correcting an Imbalance or getting high? » huxley, posted by SLS on July 22, 2012, at 9:28:40
Oops.
For the sake of accuracy, I would like to correct a mistake.
I wrote, "postsynaptic G-coupled protein neurotransmitter receptors"
I should have wrote, "postsynaptic G-protein coupled neurotransmitter receptors"
Sorry. My memory is still not what it should be.
- Scott
Posted by Phillipa on July 22, 2012, at 20:57:19
In reply to Re: Correcting an Imbalance or getting high?, posted by SLS on July 22, 2012, at 11:51:42
If I'd known then what I know now about meds I'd be like my ex-mother-in-law and never take a pill she is celebrating her 90th BD next week. She is out nights at the huge Bingo places in Southern Florida and regularily is traveling. And she has traveled a hard road as her husband was the classic manic depressive. Didn't take his meds til cut down all the trees in a home they were renting for the winter in Fla. I lived in CT then. Her health is supurb. Phillipa
Posted by phidippus on July 26, 2012, at 21:20:07
In reply to Correcting an Imbalance or getting high?, posted by huxley on July 19, 2012, at 7:22:53
I certainly don't feel high...Except for when I take my oxy, haha!
We are healing depression and entering into drug induced states.
Eric
Posted by Brainbeard on July 31, 2012, at 16:17:55
In reply to Re: Correcting an Imbalance or getting high? » huxley, posted by phidippus on July 26, 2012, at 21:20:07
I don't see a fundamental difference between using drugs for treating mental disorders and using drugs recreationally. People WITH mental disorders are not so very different from people WITHOUT them, did you know that?
I think SSRIs work because they make people hypomanic. It's obvious if you look at the 'anecdotal' (= 'real life') evidence: normally anxiously dependent people start living rebelliously independent, throwing their partners away like old pieces of fruit; people no longer feel insecure, because they now are great; even not being able to get to the finish in bed doesn't make them feel like losers now. It's just an impression.
There is a significant difference between drugs of abuse and pharmacotherapeutical drugs though: the latter stroke the pleasure and reward center in the brain with a feather; the former bang it with a hammer till you see stars. Sweet, sweet stars.
Posted by Brainbeard on July 31, 2012, at 16:20:40
In reply to can u snort human beings? -- wanna get high, posted by Brainbeard on July 31, 2012, at 16:17:55
See also: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120718/msgs/1022490.html
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.