![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 22 to 46 of 46. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on August 1, 2016, at 15:56:37
In reply to Re: mercola, posted by Hello321 on August 1, 2016, at 14:58:11
Mercola has been around peddling his charlatanry for a long time. I'm glad that someone had the insight and energy to expose him in a civil manner.
What is your motivation for rejecting psychopharmacology?
Why did you choose Mercola in particular?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on August 1, 2016, at 16:06:39
In reply to Re: What is your point? » Lou Pilder, posted by linkadge on August 1, 2016, at 15:49:24
> Lou,
> In one succinct paragraph, can you explain your key point here?
That's a great request. Mr. Pilder is very capable of expository writing that is coherent and readable. He demonstrates this on the Social board. The question becomes, why does he not do this on the Medication board? I will be very surprised if your request is acceded to.
- Scott
Posted by Hello321 on August 1, 2016, at 16:53:23
In reply to Re: mercola » Hello321, posted by SLS on August 1, 2016, at 15:56:37
> Mercola has been around peddling his charlatanry for a long time. I'm glad that someone had the insight and energy to expose him in a civil manner.
>
> What is your motivation for rejecting psychopharmacology?
>
> Why did you choose Mercola in particular?
>
>Scott, ive posted on this board a couple of years now and every few months you act thoroughly surprised about any negative view i have of psychiatry or its treatments.
But i will sum it up for you. I suppose my view of treatments for any condition can be described as libertarian, as long as informed consent is given. Id even love to see that we have access to many treatments that have failed clinical trials, but had helped even 5 percent of the participants. As long as we aere made aware of other treatments as well, natural or chemical.
Just because ive realized the benefits of natural healing, does not mean im agai st someone having a psychiatric treatment for an optio, with informed consent. As ive posted on many times, ive experienced severe longterm effects from psychiatric medications that i really had no idea about when i started on them. Ive gone into details on this many times.
What specific things written about on Mercola do you object to? Any of it proven 100 percent false? Such as things that arent up for debate. You might see some things you find a bit sketchy, but you also can say the promotion that a chemical imbalance is the cause of psychiatric disorders. As well as many other things about psychiatric treatment.
Posted by SLS on August 1, 2016, at 19:01:35
In reply to Re: mercola, posted by Hello321 on August 1, 2016, at 16:53:23
> > Mercola has been around peddling his charlatanry for a long time. I'm glad that someone had the insight and energy to expose him in a civil manner.
> >
> > What is your motivation for rejecting psychopharmacology?
> >
> > Why did you choose Mercola in particular?> Scott, ive posted on this board a couple of years now and every few months you act thoroughly surprised about any negative view i have of psychiatry or its treatments.
What makes you think that I am surprised? Well, I guess I am, but growing less so. We might have something in common, though. I think each of us wants to help people and prevent harm.
> But i will sum it up for you. I suppose my view of treatments for any condition can be described as libertarian
What is this? Politics? Regarding treatments for illness, I am all for novel treatments, whether it be synthesized in a lab or extracted from a botanical. It might be reasonable, though, that science should be applied to drugs and devices to demonstrate efficacy and establish a safety profile.
> Just because ive realized the benefits of natural healing,
Okay. What is it that needed healing? What natural healing has brought you to remission? Is it something you learned from Mercola?
> What specific things written about on Mercola do you object to?
Every third word.
Seriously, I think Tabitha did a great job of giving some examples. They are good enough for me, anyway.
> Any of it proven 100 percent false?
It is first the responsibility of someone to prove something as being true.
> Such as things that arent up for debate.
Everything is always up for examination and reexamination
> You might see some things you find a bit sketchy
Very.
> but you also can say the promotion that a chemical imbalance is the cause of psychiatric disorders.
I don't even know what a chemical imbalance is. This is a primitive conceptualization that has served well to educate the public in the 1980s and 1990s. Few, if any, neuroscientists adhere to such a simple explanation.
Chemical imbalance -> not a sufficient model
Biological dysfunction -> supported by scientific evidenceI am sorry if you have been hurt by doctors and their drugs. I am sure you have already described your experiences in detail. You must be tired of repeating yourself. I hope you have gained the health that you formerly lacked.
- Scott
Posted by Tabitha on August 1, 2016, at 19:31:01
In reply to Re: mercola, posted by Hello321 on August 1, 2016, at 14:58:11
>
> I never notice any advertisements trying to get folks to buy products from Mercola.I see three links to his shop on every article. The "Shop" tab and the "Shop for Health Products" link at the top, and a picture ad saying "Celebrating our 19th Anniversary, take 10% off sitewide plus receive a FREE organic cotton bag with purchase" at the side. I also get two invitations to add myself to his mailing list-- one at the top of each page, and one that appears frequently as a pop-up. When I click over to his shop, it's a full-fledged store with hundreds of items for sale. It's very clearly a commercial site.
I also notice a link labeled "why am I seeing these ads?" which links to an article and video in which he tries to justify his selling of products. (No doubt he is aware of the ethical problems with physicians selling health products, which is why he feels a need to justify it.)
There were also a couple of Amazon affiliate links in the first article I read. I don't have a problem with sites (such as this one) using affiliate links for income, particularly when they have a disclaimer about it, but here we have someone recommending popular books as health interventions in place of standard medical care, using the weight of his credential as a doctor. That is a whole different thing and IMO highly unethical for a physician.
Besides the Amazon links, the article included a link to another site promoting EFT. It's a commercial site offering some free content mixed in with sales of books, DVDs, consultations with practitioners, and practitioner training. Most likely he's financially affiliated with any other commercial sites he links.
Posted by Tabitha on August 1, 2016, at 20:02:04
In reply to Re: mercola » Hello321, posted by SLS on August 1, 2016, at 19:01:35
> I am all for novel treatments, whether it be synthesized in a lab or extracted from a botanical. It might be reasonable, though, that science should be applied to drugs and devices to demonstrate efficacy and establish a safety profile.
This. Very well put.
> I don't even know what a chemical imbalance is. This is a primitive conceptualization that has served well to educate the public in the 1980s and 1990s. Few, if any, neuroscientists adhere to such a simple explanation.
>
> Chemical imbalance -> not a sufficient model
> Biological dysfunction -> supported by scientific evidence
>Chemical imbalance = popular straw man argument against anti-depressants
Honestly I think I could come up with a better anti-anti-depressant argument than the chemical imbalance spiel. All I would have to do is describe the side effects in vivid detail and leave out the part where the soul-sucking misery finally stops.
Posted by Hello321 on August 2, 2016, at 7:00:34
In reply to Re: mercola » SLS, posted by Tabitha on August 1, 2016, at 20:02:04
> > I am all for novel treatments, whether it be synthesized in a lab or extracted from a botanical. It might be reasonable, though, that science should be applied to drugs and devices to demonstrate efficacy and establish a safety profile.
>
>
>I see. Well, maybe the experts working for organizations like the FDA will one day point everyone on psychobabble in the right direction. Until then, good luck!
Posted by Hello321 on August 2, 2016, at 7:05:24
In reply to Re: mercola, posted by Hello321 on August 2, 2016, at 7:00:34
Posted by Christ_empowered on August 2, 2016, at 7:50:30
In reply to Re: mercola, posted by Hello321 on August 2, 2016, at 7:05:24
I kinda like Mercola. He interviews people from the alt health field, and that's cool. I don't buy his products, but I do think bringing in different ideas about healthcare to the masses is probably a good thing.
Posted by SLS on August 2, 2016, at 7:56:25
In reply to Re: mercola, posted by Hello321 on August 2, 2016, at 7:00:34
> > > I am all for novel treatments, whether it be synthesized in a lab or extracted from a botanical. It might be reasonable, though, that science should be applied to drugs and devices to demonstrate efficacy and establish a safety profile.
> I see. Well, maybe the experts working for organizations like the FDA will one day point everyone on psychobabble in the right direction. Until then, good luck!I don't need luck. I need science.
- Scott
Posted by Hello321 on August 2, 2016, at 8:50:26
In reply to Re: mercola, posted by Christ_empowered on August 2, 2016, at 7:50:30
> I kinda like Mercola. He interviews people from the alt health field, and that's cool. I don't buy his products, but I do think bringing in different ideas about healthcare to the masses is probably a good thing.
My thoughts exactly. We need to be looking at alk of the options. There is science behind much of what is written about this on his site.
Posted by Tabitha on August 2, 2016, at 11:33:34
In reply to Re: mercola, posted by Christ_empowered on August 2, 2016, at 7:50:30
> I kinda like Mercola. He interviews people from the alt health field, and that's cool. I don't buy his products, but I do think bringing in different ideas about healthcare to the masses is probably a good thing.
It sounds good, if you think that effective treatments are sort of evenly distributed between conventional medicine and alternative medicine. Or even if you think there might be a few good treatments in alternative medicine that haven't yet been embraced by conventional medicine. However, controlled testing on alternative methods consistently shows their effectiveness is not better than placebo. The NCCIH has spent $1.3 billion on alternative medicine research since 2000, and has not produced a single successful intervention that is better than placebo or conventional care. Examples of their research results:
- Tai Chi works as well as physical therapy
- CBT and mindfulness are better for back pain than no intervention (as is any placebo)
- acupuncture provides benefits, whether or not you stick needles into acupuncture points, stick needles into arbitrary points, or just pretend to be sticking needles into the skin. (The reasonable conclusion is that all three methods "work" through placebo effect.)
- many reports describing the prevalence of use of alternative medicine, without speaking to its effectiveness at all.Wouldn't you expect some more impressive results after $1.3 billion?
Worse, when there are numerous studies showing that treatments don't work (e.g. homeopathy, acupuncture), alternative medicine practitioners don't abandon the techniques. Contrast to medicine, which, despite all its flaws, does pick up new treatments and drop ineffective ones in response to new research.
I think if people understood the following, alternative medicine would lose most of its appeal:
- it's actually very difficult to come up with effective treatments. most ideas that seem initially plausible never translate into successful treatments
- things often seem to work due to common cognitive biases. controlled testing is necessary, and results often will contradict human instincts
Posted by Hello321 on August 2, 2016, at 14:19:52
In reply to Re: different ideas about healthcare, posted by Tabitha on August 2, 2016, at 11:33:34
I don't know about some of the treatments you pointed out. But I know exercise and a ketogenic diet has helped my mood more than any psychiatric treatment has. There are different causes behind each person's illness, and different treatments can be helpful. If you run out of options with psychiatric treatments, or just want to avoid them, then there may be a helpful alternative treatment.
Posted by Christ_empowered on August 2, 2016, at 14:30:38
In reply to Re: different ideas about healthcare, posted by Hello321 on August 2, 2016, at 14:19:52
I dunno. My big thing is Orthomolecular. The 1970s-era studies that supposedly de-bunked OM were poorly designed and seem designed to fail, honestly.
Part of the appeal of alt health for me is personal autonomy. I order my vitamins online, take doses I can tolerate, cobble together a lil protocol...good times. I do mine w/ meds and counseling and an increasingly nutritious diet. Mercola, oddly enough, doesn't do a whole lot w/ Orthomolecular, but I do sometimes enjoy reading articles on his website.
I think Hello has a point. I ran out of options beyond "more antipsychotic!" "a different antipsychotic?," so OM seemed like just the ticket. 6ish years in, I've made a miraculous recovery. Was it/is it OM? Possibly, at least in part. There hasn't been a whole lot of research on OM, especially the full cocktails, so...no one can say for certain.
Posted by SLS on August 2, 2016, at 15:20:54
In reply to Re: different ideas about healthcare, posted by Christ_empowered on August 2, 2016, at 14:30:38
> I dunno. My big thing is Orthomolecular. The 1970s-era studies that supposedly de-bunked OM were poorly designed and seem designed to fail, honestly.
>
> Part of the appeal of alt health for me is personal autonomy. I order my vitamins online, take doses I can tolerate, cobble together a lil protocol...good times. I do mine w/ meds and counseling and an increasingly nutritious diet. Mercola, oddly enough, doesn't do a whole lot w/ Orthomolecular, but I do sometimes enjoy reading articles on his website.
>
> I think Hello has a point. I ran out of options beyond "more antipsychotic!" "a different antipsychotic?," so OM seemed like just the ticket. 6ish years in, I've made a miraculous recovery. Was it/is it OM? Possibly, at least in part. There hasn't been a whole lot of research on OM, especially the full cocktails, so...no one can say for certain.EACH proposed treatment or change in lifestyle must be examined through one scientific method or another. I don't think one can make a blanket statement about all alternative treatments or all mainstream psychiatric treatments.
The substances you take might very well be necessary to produce your improved condition. If I'm not mistaken, you have used critical thinking to experiment clinically with vitamins and supplements. I am very supportive of your methods and applaud you on your success. What does Mercola recommend for people with your condition compared to what you discovered for yourself?
- Scott
Posted by Christ_empowered on August 2, 2016, at 17:04:11
In reply to Re: different ideas about healthcare » Christ_empowered, posted by SLS on August 2, 2016, at 15:20:54
OK...Mercola is big on something called EFT, which I don't know much about and also...EFT doesn't much interest me. I don't wanna knock it off hand, but it strikes me as on the more pseudo-scientific end of things.
With Orthomolecular...what bothers me is that there have been studies, which obviously cost $$$, that simply did not follow Hoffer's protocol. At all. Which raises the question...why bother?
The deal with OM is you're flooding your body with massive doses of C, B-complex, B-3 of some sort...usually b-6, high dose vitamin E of some sort...its not necessarily that one component is the It Vitamin, its that the massive doses for a long time (often indefinitely) mixed with carefully selected, skillfully dosed psych medication(s), sometimes also using shock treatments...will produce very good outcomes for a lot of people on the more severe end of the mental illness spectrum.
The OM psychiatry literature is really interesting...they're big on careful dosing with neuroleptics because of what they term the "tranquilizer psychosis," which I imagine was more of an issue with heavy-handed use of the older neuroleptics. In addition...they used niacin in most male patients from the early days because of its protective cardio effects. I just think its interesting...now, there's research on individual components of the old school Hoffer cocktails, but nobody (as far as I know...) has put the whole combo together with an appropriately dosed atypical and studied it long term. Shame, shame, shame.
Posted by Tabitha on August 2, 2016, at 18:49:46
In reply to Re: different ideas about healthcare, posted by Christ_empowered on August 2, 2016, at 17:04:11
> I just think its interesting...now, there's research on individual components of the old school Hoffer cocktails, but nobody (as far as I know...) has put the whole combo together with an appropriately dosed atypical and studied it long term. Shame, shame, shame.
It just seems like reaching. After enough negative trials that all the major medical associations reject the therapy, does it make sense to keep thinking they just didn't quite test it right? How did Hoffer even choose his specific protocol in the first place, given that he wasn't using controlled testing? Are we supposed to think he just had really, really, really good intuition?
I just compare it to something like the development of chemotherapy, which happened in the same time-frame. It wasn't someone coming up with elaborate, individualized drug combos. It was trial and error on individual drugs, then adding more agents in combination with existing successes. We ended up with some treatments that have stood the test of time and passed large controlled trials.
Thus I just think if high dose vitamin therapy was really effective, we would have very different data by now.
Posted by Hello321 on August 2, 2016, at 19:34:31
In reply to Re: orthomolecular, posted by Tabitha on August 2, 2016, at 18:49:46
Doesnt matter so much ifna treatment failed in cal trial after clinical trial, if that treatment still helps you. When you dont know the cause of a condition, you wont know the fix, either. But sometimes youre lucky enough to stumble upon it. Medication wise.
The best treatment for my depression had been Periactin until it stopped working. But a mental health professional would likely never even consider prescribing periactin if i didnt specifically ask for it. Its not even a typical off label treatment for any psychiatric symptoms. But it is the best medication ive ever tried. I wouldnt doubt that if periactin were put through clinical trials for depression, that it could fail. It might help only 10 percent of those who try it. So there is a problem with saying a treatment isnt worth bringing to market for an illness even if it had only helped less than half who tried it. What really needs to be looked at is the biological effects of a med, and not what condition it is designated for. Addyi is a 5ht1a agonist that i wouldnt doubt could be very help for certain psychiatric conditions, but it only approved for Female Sexual Dysfunction. This medication probably doesnt even cross the mind of many psychiatrists.
Posted by SLS on August 3, 2016, at 1:09:09
In reply to Re: orthomolecular, posted by Hello321 on August 2, 2016, at 19:34:31
Has Periactin stopped working entirely? How long did it work for, and at what dosage? Was it sedating? I am considering using Periactin it myself. Thank you.
Periactin (cyproheptadine) is a 5-HT2a/b/c receptor antagonist. I believe that Remeron and nefazodone are 5-HTa/c antagonists. I'm thinking that if Remeron and nefazodone are without effect, perhaps it is important that you get some 5-HT2b action going on. Trintellix (vortioxetine) is a partial agonist, so it might act to stabilize 5-HT2b activity. If it is necessary to get all three 5-HT2a/b/c, you might have to take Remeron to complement Trintellix. Unfortunately, a pure 5-HTa/b/c antagonist named ritanserin is not available, even though it is perfectly safe. Of course, there may be other of properties of Periactin that made you feel better.
I am not suggesting that you give up all of your other therapeutic experiments (pharmaceutical or nutriceutical). However, I would keep Trintellix (possibly with Remeron or nefazodone) in mind if you have not yet tried it.
- Scott
Posted by Tabitha on August 3, 2016, at 7:28:57
In reply to Re: orthomolecular, posted by Hello321 on August 2, 2016, at 19:34:31
> Doesnt matter so much ifna treatment failed in cal trial after clinical trial, if that treatment still helps you. When you dont know the cause of a condition, you wont know the fix, either. But sometimes youre lucky enough to stumble upon it. Medication wise.
Well sure, it's always possible a treatment will help, even if it failed multiple trials. It's just a lot less likely. If people were so biologically unique that large trials (thousands of people) didn't detect any responders, then I think it would be very difficult to find any effective medications at all. We wouldn't have all the ones that we do have. Plus I think you'd have a very unlikely time stumbling on something. You just wouldn't have time to try enough things.
>
> I wouldnt doubt that if periactin were put through clinical trials for depression, that it could fail. It might help only 10 percent of those who try it. So there is a problem with saying a treatment isnt worth bringing to market for an illness even if it had only helped less than half who tried it.I don't think that's correct. If a treatment helps 10 percent of people, trials would reveal that. They typically take a sample of the population, try the medication on them, and compare results to a similar group taking placebo. Better trials use a larger group of people. If ten percent responded, that would definitely register.
Just as an example, I used a treatment for cancer that gave me an 8 percent survival advantage. That means that of 100 people with similar conditions to mine, 8 more in a treatment group survived 5 years (on average) than 100 that didn't get the treatment. It's not a very big difference, but it was seen in trials, thus the medication became part of standard care.
> What really needs to be looked at is the biological effects of a med, and not what condition it is designated for.
I agree, and medical research does this.
Anyway, I'll quit banging my drum on this topic. I do appreciate you engaging with me. It helps me understand how other people think. Best wishes with your treatment.
Posted by Hello321 on August 3, 2016, at 17:25:16
In reply to Re: orthomolecular, posted by SLS on August 3, 2016, at 1:09:09
I had figured it was either periactins 2a or 2c action. Particularly its 2c inverse agonism. I think the inverse agonism, as opposed to just typical antagonism at that receptor that really made the difference. Im in the process of trying to get the new med known as Nuplazid. My pdoc prescribed it last week and im hoping to get on its patient assistance program, because at the pharmacy it is over $1,000 for a 30 day supply. But its strong inverse agonism at the 2a and 2c receptor makes me hopeful it might do the trick.
With cyproheptadine, a dose of it would stop working after just a few days. Id raise the dose and get more benefit. Over time as i did this i slowly went from having severe anhedonia to feeling so much better. But i eventually got to too high a dose and had to stop taking it. That was 5 years ago and since then anhedonia has very slowly crept back up over this time. Ive tried it again at normal doses recently and it still wont work for me. But i do believe Nuplazid is much stronger at the 2a/2c receptor. So maybe i can work something out with it.
Posted by SLS on August 4, 2016, at 0:10:40
In reply to Re: orthomolecular » SLS, posted by Hello321 on August 3, 2016, at 17:25:16
> I had figured it was either periactins 2a or 2c action. Particularly its 2c inverse agonism. I think the inverse agonism, as opposed to just typical antagonism at that receptor that really made the difference. Im in the process of trying to get the new med known as Nuplazid. My pdoc prescribed it last week and im hoping to get on its patient assistance program, because at the pharmacy it is over $1,000 for a 30 day supply. But its strong inverse agonism at the 2a and 2c receptor makes me hopeful it might do the trick.
>
> With cyproheptadine, a dose of it would stop working after just a few days. Id raise the dose and get more benefit. Over time as i did this i slowly went from having severe anhedonia to feeling so much better. But i eventually got to too high a dose and had to stop taking it. That was 5 years ago and since then anhedonia has very slowly crept back up over this time. Ive tried it again at normal doses recently and it still wont work for me. But i do believe Nuplazid is much stronger at the 2a/2c receptor. So maybe i can work something out with it.
Thanks! I didn't know about this drug. I would be interested in this drug for myself. I hope you are able to get it at a reduced price. I took a quick look at primavanserin. Supposedly, it is 40 times more potent at the 5-HT2a receptor than at 5-HT2c. I don't know the significance of this. Is primavanserin an inverse agonist at 5-HT2c receptors?
- Scott
Posted by Hello321 on August 4, 2016, at 16:52:37
In reply to Re: orthomolecular » Hello321, posted by SLS on August 4, 2016, at 0:10:40
I do believe it is an inverse agonist at both the 2a and 2c receptor.
From the drugs website:
https://www.nuplazid.com/hcp/mechanism-of-action/
Posted by SLS on August 4, 2016, at 17:43:21
In reply to Re: orthomolecular, posted by Hello321 on August 4, 2016, at 16:52:37
> I do believe it is an inverse agonist at both the 2a and 2c receptor.
>
> From the drugs website:
> https://www.nuplazid.com/hcp/mechanism-of-action/
That would be perfect. I hope your method of attacking your illness is successful.
- Scott
Posted by Hello321 on August 5, 2016, at 9:07:19
In reply to Re: orthomolecular » Hello321, posted by SLS on August 4, 2016, at 17:43:21
Thanks. I am kinda nervous tho, that it could have been cyproheptadines 5ht2b antagonism that was beneficial, since it does look to be potent at that receptor and Nuplazid has no effect on that receptor. Not sure why, I've just never given much thought to that receptor having much robefeficialthe befefi effect thwt cyproheptadine had on me. But we will see.
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.