Psycho-Babble Medication | about biological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Correcting an Imbalance or getting high? huxley

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


Some see things as they are and ask why.
I dream of things that never were and ask why not.

- George Bernard Shaw

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Medication | Framed

poster:SLS thread:1021755
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120718/msgs/1021923.html