Psycho-Babble Medication Thread 46914

Shown: posts 17 to 41 of 52. Go back in thread:

 

Re: SLS...more psychiatry vs jensen

Posted by JohnL on October 26, 2000, at 6:20:44

In reply to Re: SLS...more psychiatry vs jensen, posted by SLS on October 25, 2000, at 19:34:33

Scott,
Ok, I agree to disagree, since we're both trying to do so in a friendly manner. I like that. Since the jensen method does actually make a lot of sense...to those of us who have read the book...I welcome critique and rebuttals. After all, every critique and rebuttal aimed at me is most likely one I had myself before I read the book! :-)

One area I disagree with jensen is the 5 day trial thing. I really like 2 weeks better. That's because it meshes with conventional psychiatry. Even conventional psychiatry agrees that IF a medicine is going to work, it should show some sign within two weeks. As I browsed through www.mentalhealth.com studying scientific data, most of the studies say Effexor, and tricyclics, work in as little as 4 days to 2 weeks, but full effects aren't felt until 4 weeks. I think a 2 week trial period is more realistic than 5 days. It also is a closer match to conventional psychiatry.

Should someone stay on a medicine past 2 weeks if there is zero improvement? Personally I don't think so. I think they should try another one. There is almost always a favorite, but the patient will never discover a favorite without a chance to do comparisons. I think it is extremely important that if it looks like someone might be on medication for a long time, we want to be very sure they are on the best one for them. Comparisons is the only way to do that. Of course, if someone has a real good response to a med within 2 weeks, then the whole search ends right there. Mission accomplished.

As to the Serzone example, can a medication work if it hasn't worked in 2 weeks? Of course it can. It's up to each individual to decide if they want to stick it out. But if they don't want to, there are so many other fine choices. Our ancestors had no choice. We do. This is important....jensen himself says if his method isn't working, then he reverts to conventional psychiatry....if conventional methods aren't working then he reverts to his method. He uses both interchangeably or mixed. Each patient is different. But that's the whole point of the jensen thing...each patient is different. This is especially evident when we consider that many of his toughest patients were cured with drugs that had no clinical justification.

When jensen's website is up again, you might email him questions you may have. He's good at answering emails. I would be curious to see what info he provides you too. Not that it would change my opinions or anything, but just curious. He really is...and I can't state this with enough emphasis...a real authentic expert on brain chemistry. This man understands brain chemistry and medicine reactions to an amazing degree. Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil as just one example. Do you know which is better statistically if suicide has been attempted once? Twice? How does each affect dopamine, if at all? How are Prozac and Celexa actually very similar (besides being SSRIs)? Is Tenuate a substitute for Wellbutrin? If so, why? If not, why not? Ionamine for ADD? Yes? No? Why? Why not? Statistically, which is better across a broad spectrum of illnesses...Lithium? Depakote? Tegretol? Which is 2nd place? Which is least effective? On and on...it's endless! Detailed knowledge like this can make all the difference in the world. Even if Jensen didn't have any particular method, just his grasp of medication and chemistry knowledge is awe inspiring.

John

 

Re: SLS...more psychiatry vs jensen(For John L.)

Posted by David Newhouse on October 26, 2000, at 9:13:56

In reply to Re: SLS...more psychiatry vs jensen, posted by JohnL on October 26, 2000, at 6:20:44

>John,
You wrote me about two weeks ago regarding Dr. Jensens book. You said you could help find some pharm. sights that I would be able to order from. Well, I've got the book and I'm ready to roll. Write back if you get a chance.

Thanks,

Dave
Scott,
> Ok, I agree to disagree, since we're both trying to do so in a friendly manner. I like that. Since the jensen method does actually make a lot of sense...to those of us who have read the book...I welcome critique and rebuttals. After all, every critique and rebuttal aimed at me is most likely one I had myself before I read the book! :-)
>
> One area I disagree with jensen is the 5 day trial thing. I really like 2 weeks better. That's because it meshes with conventional psychiatry. Even conventional psychiatry agrees that IF a medicine is going to work, it should show some sign within two weeks. As I browsed through www.mentalhealth.com studying scientific data, most of the studies say Effexor, and tricyclics, work in as little as 4 days to 2 weeks, but full effects aren't felt until 4 weeks. I think a 2 week trial period is more realistic than 5 days. It also is a closer match to conventional psychiatry.
>
> Should someone stay on a medicine past 2 weeks if there is zero improvement? Personally I don't think so. I think they should try another one. There is almost always a favorite, but the patient will never discover a favorite without a chance to do comparisons. I think it is extremely important that if it looks like someone might be on medication for a long time, we want to be very sure they are on the best one for them. Comparisons is the only way to do that. Of course, if someone has a real good response to a med within 2 weeks, then the whole search ends right there. Mission accomplished.
>
> As to the Serzone example, can a medication work if it hasn't worked in 2 weeks? Of course it can. It's up to each individual to decide if they want to stick it out. But if they don't want to, there are so many other fine choices. Our ancestors had no choice. We do. This is important....jensen himself says if his method isn't working, then he reverts to conventional psychiatry....if conventional methods aren't working then he reverts to his method. He uses both interchangeably or mixed. Each patient is different. But that's the whole point of the jensen thing...each patient is different. This is especially evident when we consider that many of his toughest patients were cured with drugs that had no clinical justification.
>
> When jensen's website is up again, you might email him questions you may have. He's good at answering emails. I would be curious to see what info he provides you too. Not that it would change my opinions or anything, but just curious. He really is...and I can't state this with enough emphasis...a real authentic expert on brain chemistry. This man understands brain chemistry and medicine reactions to an amazing degree. Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil as just one example. Do you know which is better statistically if suicide has been attempted once? Twice? How does each affect dopamine, if at all? How are Prozac and Celexa actually very similar (besides being SSRIs)? Is Tenuate a substitute for Wellbutrin? If so, why? If not, why not? Ionamine for ADD? Yes? No? Why? Why not? Statistically, which is better across a broad spectrum of illnesses...Lithium? Depakote? Tegretol? Which is 2nd place? Which is least effective? On and on...it's endless! Detailed knowledge like this can make all the difference in the world. Even if Jensen didn't have any particular method, just his grasp of medication and chemistry knowledge is awe inspiring.
>
> John

 

Re: SLS...more psychiatry vs jensen, JohnL, Scott

Posted by TomV on October 26, 2000, at 10:53:01

In reply to Re: SLS...more psychiatry vs jensen, posted by JohnL on October 26, 2000, at 6:20:44

>We need more debate just like this. Bring it on Babblers!

 

Re: SLS...more psychiatry vs jensen » SLS

Posted by MichaelF on October 26, 2000, at 12:13:55

In reply to Re: SLS...more psychiatry vs jensen, posted by SLS on October 25, 2000, at 19:34:33

Scott,

I have been following this debate with interest as I myself have been under Jensen's care.

I was first "introduced" to Jensen during a television interview. I was intrigued enough to order his book.

I must admit that if I had seen his website, I probably would have written him off and not bothered with his book. I'm glad I did not see that site!

I am enjoying this debate and I am sure others are as well. The only thing I would like to add at this point is you really should try to get a copy of his book. I believe it will make for some interesting reading and would serve to make this debate all the more intriguing!

All the best,

Michael

 

Re: SLS...more psychiatry vs jensen(For John L.)

Posted by JohnL on October 26, 2000, at 16:41:42

In reply to Re: SLS...more psychiatry vs jensen(For John L.), posted by David Newhouse on October 26, 2000, at 9:13:56

David,
So you're ready to rock 'n' roll, eh? Cool. You're on the road to gettin' better, brotha.

Seriously, try reading the book all the way through. Let some of it sink in. Then read some more a second time, at random. I think what you will find is little tid bits here and there will jump out at you and you'll say, "hey, I think that applies to me". Try to get a feel for what chemistry you think you need to look at. You'll be able to start making sense out of your earlier medications. Pieces of the puzzle will start to come together. There is so much in the book though, and so many important details, that I think it is important to reread it again and again until it really sinks in.

When you have a good grasp on the situation and think you know where you want to go, then there are places to get the medications. For example, do you think you need to look at the serotonin chemistry? If so, you'll probably want to compare any of Paxil, Zoloft, Prozac, Effexor. Or maybe its NE/dopamine instead. If so, you'll want to try Wellbutrin or a tricyclic. After reading the book you think maybe it's electrical instability instead? (just an example) If so, then you'll want to get your hands on Tegretol, Depakote, and Lithium, and maybe Phenytoin. Maybe an antipsychotic? They're all available. You could order just small amounts of each, sample them and see how it goes. Some will be lousy right from the get-go, and you'll know it. Some will be pretty cool, right from the get-go, and you'll know it. Then, with the book, you can make sense of it all and know what to do.

John

 

Re: SLS...more psychiatry vs jensen

Posted by SLS on October 26, 2000, at 17:23:33

In reply to Re: SLS...more psychiatry vs jensen » SLS, posted by MichaelF on October 26, 2000, at 12:13:55

> Scott,
>
> I have been following this debate with interest as I myself have been under Jensen's care.
>
> I was first "introduced" to Jensen during a television interview. I was intrigued enough to order his book.
>
> I must admit that if I had seen his website, I probably would have written him off and not bothered with his book. I'm glad I did not see that site!
>
> I am enjoying this debate and I am sure others are as well. The only thing I would like to add at this point is you really should try to get a copy of his book. I believe it will make for some interesting reading and would serve to make this debate all the more intriguing!
>
> All the best,
>
> Michael


I would just like to extend to everyone my appreciation for the affirmation that matters such as the one being discussed here is a healthy and desirable exercise on Psycho-Babble.

I am embarrassed whenever I begin to discuss Dr. Martin Jensen's book because I have never read it. Unfortunately, I don't have the mental capacity to read such a volume. My only 2 exposures to Jensen's ideas at this point is the months and months of reading JohnL's posts, which have been detailed enough to convey most of Jensen's tenets and explanations, and the examples and explanations detailed by Dr. Jensen that can be found on his website.

I am just short of infuriated that someone talks about the way the brain works as if it were well established fact, when in *fact* almost none of what I have read about Jensen's promulgations has any basis in the current body of knowledge and understanding of the world's cumulative investigation into neuroscience. In other words, it doesn't matter to me how much detail I am missing by not reading his book. His suppositions are wrong to begin with.

Unless JohnL or anyone else is prepared to discuss and debate things like the details of how lithium affects the cascade of postsynaptic second-messenger events through adenylate-cyclase regulated protein-kinase, including c-FOS directed gene transcription, its measurement by assaying mRNA and the resulting changes in membrane-bound g-proteins, I don't feel any obligation to at this point justify why Jensen's simple "circuit" models are ludicrous.

I also don't need to read in its entirety the treatises of Ptolemy and understand his brilliant model of planetary epicycles to explain retrogade motion to know that his supposition that the Earth is the center of the solar system was off by 93 million miles - the distance to the sun.

The only thing that matters is if conducting 3-4 day trials of antidepressants yields successful long-term remission. This is an exciting idea and would be one of greatest breakthroughs in the treatment of affective disorders were it true.

JohnL, you don't have the respect for the expertise and brilliance of Dr. Jensen that you proclaim. You have exercised your right to make changes in his 3-4 day protocol. Don't you think that as a scientist, Dr. Jensen would base such a protocol on many different methods to verify his hypothesis? Don't you think that he has concluded 3-4 days are enough based upon years of clinical investigation and parsing of statistics? When you first introduced Dr. Jensen to us, you said that if a drug were a "good match", it would produce an improvement of some sort within 3-4 days. Such a response would warrant adding the drug to a list of potentially successful treatments. The object is to find the "best match". Many of us took exception to this and described the currently accepted notion that in most cases, at best, improvements take about two to begin to show themselves. Now, you have increased from 3-4 days to 1 week to 2 weeks. Either you agree with Jensen or you don't. Right now, you don't.

Now, I want to take advantage of what might be an unrelated coincidence and betray my unjustifiably inflated ego. I'm sure I'm wrong, but let me fantasize for a few days here. After a year of www.drjensen.com being available on the web, it all of a sudden goes offline two days after I wrote my letter, which was more than a one-sentence question by the way. It's probably nothing.

I still want to know the names of the three medical schools that are supposed to include Jensen in their curriculum. JohnL, is this information available in his book?

- Scott

 

Re: SLS...more psychiatry vs jensen(For John L.)

Posted by SLS on October 26, 2000, at 18:39:02

In reply to Re: SLS...more psychiatry vs jensen(For John L.), posted by JohnL on October 26, 2000, at 16:41:42

Dear John,

Please forgive me if I have misread this post. Are you encouraging someone to appropriate drugs from overseas without a prescription and describe how to self-medicate and perform experiments on themselves? No physician?

Wow.


- Scott

 

I found it myself ;)...the OLD edition, anyway...

Posted by Sandi* Pantalon on October 26, 2000, at 18:57:37

In reply to **John L** - HOW to get Dr. Jensen's Book?, posted by Sandi* Pantalon on October 25, 2000, at 8:10:13


...of Dr. Martin L. Jensen's book, "The Successful Treatment of Brain Chemical Imbalance", ISBN 0787205915 - Copyright 1996 -
Softcover Edition, at http://www.ecampus.com, for
$21.60 USD with FREE Standard Shipping in the Continental US.

I have not been able to access Dr. Jensen's website, http://www.drjensen.com, to ask about a forthcoming edition.

Just thought those interested in this book might want to know of a lower price :)

Sandi*

 

Re: SLS...more psychiatry vs jensen - Proofreading

Posted by SLS on October 26, 2000, at 20:04:50

In reply to Re: SLS...more psychiatry vs jensen, posted by SLS on October 26, 2000, at 17:23:33

Sorry... Important correction:

I forgot to place the word "weeks" in a very important place.

"...described the currently accepted notion that in most cases, at best, improvements take about two WEEKS to begin to show themselves.


- Scott


> JohnL, you don't have the respect for the expertise and brilliance of Dr. Jensen that you proclaim. You have exercised your right to make changes in his 3-4 day protocol. Don't you think that as a scientist, Dr. Jensen would base such a protocol on many different methods to verify his hypothesis? Don't you think that he has concluded 3-4 days are enough based upon years of clinical investigation and parsing of statistics? When you first introduced Dr. Jensen to us, you said that if a drug were a "good match", it would produce an improvement of some sort within 3-4 days. Such a response would warrant adding the drug to a list of potentially successful treatments. The object is to find the "best match". Many of us took exception to this and described the currently accepted notion that in most cases, at best, improvements take about two WEEKS to begin to show themselves. Now, you have increased from 3-4 days to 1 week to 2 weeks. Either you agree with Jensen or you don't. Right now, you don't.

 

Re: I found it myself ;)...the OLD edition, anyway...

Posted by Shell on October 26, 2000, at 21:35:42

In reply to I found it myself ;)...the OLD edition, anyway..., posted by Sandi* Pantalon on October 26, 2000, at 18:57:37

>
> ...of Dr. Martin L. Jensen's book, "The Successful Treatment of Brain Chemical Imbalance", ISBN 0787205915 - Copyright 1996 -
> Softcover Edition, at http://www.ecampus.com, for
> $21.60 USD with FREE Standard Shipping in the Continental US.
>
> I have not been able to access Dr. Jensen's website, http://www.drjensen.com, to ask about a forthcoming edition.
>
> Just thought those interested in this book might want to know of a lower price :)
>
> Sandi*

Thanks, that is the best price I have seen (and I LOVE places with free shipping!).

I actually got Dr. Jensen's book at the library. My neighborhood branch didn't have it, but they ordered it from another branch that did have it and sent it to mine. If your library doesn't have a copy at any of its branches, many libraries will check with other library systems to borrow one of their copies for you.

I'd go broke if I bought every book I wanted to read on depression!

Shell

 

Re: SLS...more psychiatry vs jensen

Posted by JohnL on October 27, 2000, at 13:41:09

In reply to Re: SLS...more psychiatry vs jensen, posted by SLS on October 26, 2000, at 17:23:33


Scott,
You bring up good points and I'll try to address them. I'm not nearly as good with words as I would like to be. Dr Jensen is superb with wording, and his explanations are a million miles better than mine.

I don't recall anyone claiming Jensen's methods to be fact. Every doctor has their own favorite way of doing things. There are no useful facts in psychiatry that I'm aware of that pertain to treatment. If there were, this board wouldn't exist. To each his own.

The simplistic views of brain systems in his book I believe are intended to be simple on purpose. They actually aren't as simple as it sounds. Far more scientific than I'm making it sound. It is user friendly for the patient and the patient's doctor to understand. It's a roadmap, not a Bible. After all, knowing how Lithium affects c-FOS is no closer to getting the patient well than is poking a hole in a piece of cheese. Obviously it's more complicated. He knows it, you know it, and I know it. But what purpose does it serve in treatment, other than academia posturing?

Why do some people respond quickly? I'm not sure. According to Jensen, and I tend to believe after witnessing it in other people, it is a factor of two things combined...1)the medicine directly targets whatever is really awry in the brain, or at least sets into motion a cascade of events that does; 2)the medication molecule is a good match for the person, biochemically and metabolically. A good fit. A lucky choice. Jensen's whole approach is to increase the odds of finding that lucky choice. It does exist. Scientifically? No. Why not? Beats me. You'd think scientists would want to figure this out instead of studying c-FOS. But the patient will never find the lucky hit if they're stuck on unlucky choices month after month, year after year. My own interpretation, not stated in the book.

I agree with Jensen. I only modify it to 2 weeks instead of 5 days for purposes of this board. People here are not likely to have a doctor willing to do 5 day trials. Why spin my wheels? Two weeks is within reach. Better still, it jives better with conventional psychiatry people are used to. It's a fair and reasonable hybrid, from either side of the fence.

I regret not stating previously the true purpose of the book. More than being one man's method of healing, more than a systematic structure of figuring out what's awry, more than finding the right medicine, it's a book about hope. The whole book overflows with hope. There are real life cases of people, page after page, who suffered lifetimes with multiple doctors, endless medications, who finally got well. What's amazing is Jensen never draws attention to himself, never takes credit. Very humble. The book shares their stories. And what medication it was that eventually got them 100% well. The book is not scientific, it is not fact, but it is without a doubt something more useful to the patient than either of those. It is hope.
Regards,
John

 

Re: SLS...self medicating

Posted by JohnL on October 27, 2000, at 14:26:45

In reply to Re: SLS...more psychiatry vs jensen(For John L.), posted by SLS on October 26, 2000, at 18:39:02

Scott,
You're too funny. Experiments on ourselves? Funny. What do you think doctors are doing to us? We're all experiments. Only, they get to experiment on us instead of themselves! As someone recently said, doctors are practicing medicine...yeah, practicing on us. Something like that.

Am I encouraging self medication? No. Will I help if asked questions? Yes. I won't abandon, no matter what someone's choice is.

A person has made a conscious decision to do so. Their decision, not mine. I'm a veteran of both sides of the fence. That is, I was your standard garden variety psychiatric patient for half a decade, and then I was also a take-charge self medicating patient after that. I'm not at all qualified from a scholastic or legal point of view, but from an experience point of view it's a different story. Been there. Done that. Still do. I can be there with real life experience for anyone else who chooses for themselves the same path.

So someone wants to self medicate. Whoopie. They've obviously been disappointed by standard treatment. More power to them as far as I'm concerned. If asked, I'll do whatever I can to help them figure out how to get well. Am I qualified to do that? No. Capable? Yes.

Self medication does have risks that I think everyone should be aware of. 1)Know what early liver toxicity symptoms look like so it can be stopped promptly. 2)Know firmly what the risks are with the particular medication. 3)Know what side effects are normal, which are serious. 4)Know what can be combined, what can't, and how combinations affect concentrations of each other. 5)Know how to titrate on and off wisely.

You know, if all of a sudden there were no prescriptions needed for anything, and no doctors, I'm perfectly capable of managing my own affairs. I could pick out my own medication at the store. I know how to administer it and manage it safely. So would anyone else here who's been around the block. St James, Andrew, just a couple examples. In a world with no doctors, and all former prescription meds are now OTC, they would do fine regardless. They know what they're doing. (excluding scheduled controlled substances of course, which aren't available to a self medicator anyway)

Self medication isn't the almighty taboo voodoo sin you make it sound like it is. Average people who don't know a darn thing do it all the time, with SJW, aspirin, ginkgo, ma huang. These things can, and do, kill people, spark mania, cause heart attacks, eye bleeding, and more. Not a word on their self medicating. In comparison, some of these psychiatric drugs are far safer if for no other reason, we know more about them. Key word...'some'...not 'all'. Again, it's important the person knows the drug they're taking. One can't just haphazardly start popping pills. That applies equally to OTC and herbs, not just prescriptions. Someone would have to try real real hard to hurt themselves with Paxil. On the other hand, they could do serious damage fairly easily with careless dosing of aspirin or ma huang.

No big deal. If someone wants help, and I'm asked, I'll help. I treat myself the way I want, and someone else can do the same. If I can help them avoid some common pitfalls, I will try. In this case, the person has an awesome medical manual and roadmap to follow and won't likely need much help. More power to them as far as I'm concerned. I'm not encouraging, but not discouraging either. We're all different.
John

 

(np). self medicating. Well said! Very True! » JohnL

Posted by pullmarine on October 27, 2000, at 17:22:40

In reply to Re: SLS...self medicating, posted by JohnL on October 27, 2000, at 14:26:45

> Scott,
> You're too funny. Experiments on ourselves? Funny. What do you think doctors are doing to us? We're all experiments. Only, they get to experiment on us instead of themselves! As someone recently said, doctors are practicing medicine...yeah, practicing on us. Something like that.
>
> Am I encouraging self medication? No. Will I help if asked questions? Yes. I won't abandon, no matter what someone's choice is.
>
> A person has made a conscious decision to do so. Their decision, not mine. I'm a veteran of both sides of the fence. That is, I was your standard garden variety psychiatric patient for half a decade, and then I was also a take-charge self medicating patient after that. I'm not at all qualified from a scholastic or legal point of view, but from an experience point of view it's a different story. Been there. Done that. Still do. I can be there with real life experience for anyone else who chooses for themselves the same path.
>
> So someone wants to self medicate. Whoopie. They've obviously been disappointed by standard treatment. More power to them as far as I'm concerned. If asked, I'll do whatever I can to help them figure out how to get well. Am I qualified to do that? No. Capable? Yes.
>
> Self medication does have risks that I think everyone should be aware of. 1)Know what early liver toxicity symptoms look like so it can be stopped promptly. 2)Know firmly what the risks are with the particular medication. 3)Know what side effects are normal, which are serious. 4)Know what can be combined, what can't, and how combinations affect concentrations of each other. 5)Know how to titrate on and off wisely.
>
> You know, if all of a sudden there were no prescriptions needed for anything, and no doctors, I'm perfectly capable of managing my own affairs. I could pick out my own medication at the store. I know how to administer it and manage it safely. So would anyone else here who's been around the block. St James, Andrew, just a couple examples. In a world with no doctors, and all former prescription meds are now OTC, they would do fine regardless. They know what they're doing. (excluding scheduled controlled substances of course, which aren't available to a self medicator anyway)
>
> Self medication isn't the almighty taboo voodoo sin you make it sound like it is. Average people who don't know a darn thing do it all the time, with SJW, aspirin, ginkgo, ma huang. These things can, and do, kill people, spark mania, cause heart attacks, eye bleeding, and more. Not a word on their self medicating. In comparison, some of these psychiatric drugs are far safer if for no other reason, we know more about them. Key word...'some'...not 'all'. Again, it's important the person knows the drug they're taking. One can't just haphazardly start popping pills. That applies equally to OTC and herbs, not just prescriptions. Someone would have to try real real hard to hurt themselves with Paxil. On the other hand, they could do serious damage fairly easily with careless dosing of aspirin or ma huang.
>
> No big deal. If someone wants help, and I'm asked, I'll help. I treat myself the way I want, and someone else can do the same. If I can help them avoid some common pitfalls, I will try. In this case, the person has an awesome medical manual and roadmap to follow and won't likely need much help. More power to them as far as I'm concerned. I'm not encouraging, but not discouraging either. We're all different.
> John

 

Re: SLS...self medicating » JohnL

Posted by SLS on October 27, 2000, at 22:48:31

In reply to Re: SLS...self medicating, posted by JohnL on October 27, 2000, at 14:26:45

Me from my previous post:

"Dear John,

"Please forgive me if I have misread this post."

SEE: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20001022/msgs/47449.html

"Are you encouraging someone to appropriate drugs from overseas without a prescription and describe how to self-medicate and perform experiments on themselves? No physician?

Wow."

See end of post for JohnL's reply to the above.


Dear John,

Please don't take my unwillingness to continue to discuss things with you as capitulation.

Consider it an attempt at self-restraint.

(Advisement: The following 5 sentences are inappropriate, provocative, and a display of my tendency to take the coward's way out by making things personal. But I figured "what the hell." The hell with accountability. For those motivated to defend, please show me some mercy.)

I really don't want to embarrass you any more than you have already embarrassed yourself in my eyes. You have given me plenty of material to work with. I would only suggest that you consider toning-down your, what I consider to be, tendency to prescribe treatments without a license. After all, an M.D. pays good money for malpractice insurance. It doesn't seem fair that you shouldn't.

You stated that you had a "purpose". I can't imagine what this purpose might be.

> The last thing I wanted to do was stir up some discord. That's not my purpose here. I don't see this board as a place for that.

I understand that it is currently your privilege to tell people whatever you want to. Your privilege is not unique.

Let me describe to you my "purpose" for having posted along this thread by simply restating something I said in a previous post.

If you are so inclined to continue to tell people that it is senseless to continue an antidepressant beyond two weeks if they have felt nothing, I will be inclined to disagree with you. That will probably entail more than just my saying "I disagree".

John, do I have to ask *you* a million times? Or did you understand my question the first time.

In your attempt to sell Dr. Jensen, you have cited for these last six months the existence of three medical schools that include Jensen in their curriculum.

Q: What are the names of these three medical schools?

I doubt you have anything to fear. I'm sure your claims are legitimate. Actually, you shouldn't have anything to fear to begin with. Your reputation isn't being called into question, is it? Let's just work on Dr. Martin Jensen.

If your friend doesn't get his website back on line soon, I may have to take a trip to the library. Help save me some gasoline and just name these three schools - at least the one that I vaguely recall you specifying in a previous post.

Thank you. I appreciate your attention in this matter, as it will help educate Psycho-Babble as to the respect that the medical community affords Dr. Jensen.

Regarding c-FOS. I did not indicate that I felt it necessary for Dr. Jensen to discuss it in his book written primarily for the layman. However, it will be necessary for you to discuss it if you want to defend Jensen's assertions on how the human brain works, how drugs work, and the pathophysiology of affective disorders. Otherwise, I'm not sure it is indicated that you should try. You've had enough time to look up c-FOS, so I guess you are off to a good start.


- Scott


* For those following this thread, I would like to offer an opinion:

If I were you, I would not listen to either JohnL or SLS (me) if you want consistently accurate facts and well-tempered judgment. There are quite a few intelligent (and brilliant), educated, informed, and caring people on this board without some sort of agenda of "purpose". I know I'm putting some people on the spot, and I will be forgetting so many, but... If I were me, I would pay particular attention to folks like Cam W., Sunnely, Danf, Noa, Medlib, AndrewB, Adam, stJames, Elizabeth (Shapere), PeterJ, and anyone who is kind enough to share their personal experiences with specific drugs and other treatment modalities.

Have I kissed enough butts?

Why things work is not nearly so important as what does work. I currently don't see any evidence that 3-4 day trials of a sequence of antidepressants works. I can think of a few reasons why it could be counterproductive. It might actually prevent someone from being as responsive to any one of the medications once the medication has been introduced a second time to what had previously been a drug-naive brain. In addition, I can't help to be fearful that a "pulsing" of so many antidepressants will precipitate mania in vulnerable individuals and induce an extremely difficult to treat rapid-cycling course. FACT: These things do happen. They are well documented. QUESTION: Will they happen using the Jensen 3-4 day protocol? I don't know. NOT FACT: I think they might.

I'm not sure it makes sense to "rock 'n' roll" when it comes to using such potent drug treatments for such a serious and debilitating illness.

Everyone be well, get well, and stay well. God bless all of us.


- Scott


-----------------------------------------------------------

By the way, John. I am definitely not too funny.

I also want to make it clear that I am not to be included in the word "we" that you have become so fond of using. I'm not sure the rest of psychoneuropharmacological psychiatry would want to be either.

What are the names of the three medical schools?

If you can believe it, this has been restraint.

-----------------------------------------------------------


JohnL's reply to encouraging self-experimentation without the need for the consult or awareness of a physician or prescriptions:


"Scott,
You're too funny. Experiments on ourselves? Funny. What do you think doctors are doing to us? We're all experiments. Only, they get to experiment on us instead of themselves! As someone recently said, doctors are practicing medicine...yeah, practicing on us. Something like that.
Am I encouraging self medication? No. Will I help if asked questions? Yes. I won't abandon, no matter what someone's choice is.

A person has made a conscious decision to do so. Their decision, not mine. I'm a veteran of both sides of the fence. That is, I was your standard garden variety psychiatric patient for half a decade, and then I was also a take-charge self medicating patient after that. I'm not at all qualified from a scholastic or legal point of view, but from an experience point of view it's a different story. Been there. Done that. Still do. I can be there with real life experience for anyone else who chooses for themselves the same path.

So someone wants to self medicate. Whoopie. They've obviously been disappointed by standard treatment. More power to them as far as I'm concerned. If asked, I'll do whatever I can to help them figure out how to get well. Am I qualified to do that? No. Capable? Yes.

Self medication does have risks that I think everyone should be aware of. 1)Know what early liver toxicity symptoms look like so it can be stopped promptly. 2)Know firmly what the risks are with the particular medication. 3)Know what side effects are normal, which are serious. 4)Know what can be combined, what can't, and how combinations affect concentrations of each other. 5)Know how to titrate on and off wisely.

You know, if all of a sudden there were no prescriptions needed for anything, and no doctors, I'm perfectly capable of managing my own affairs. I could pick out my own medication at the store. I know how to administer it and manage it safely. So would anyone else here who's been around the block. St James, Andrew, just a couple examples. In a world with no doctors, and all former prescription meds are now OTC, they would do fine regardless. They know what they're doing. (excluding scheduled controlled substances of course, which aren't available to a self medicator anyway)

Self medication isn't the almighty taboo voodoo sin you make it sound like it is. Average people who don't know a darn thing do it all the time, with SJW, aspirin, ginkgo, ma huang. These things can, and do, kill people, spark mania, cause heart attacks, eye bleeding, and more. Not a word on their self medicating. In comparison, some of these psychiatric drugs are far safer if for no other reason, we know more about them. Key word...'some'...not 'all'. Again, it's important the person knows the drug they're taking. One can't just haphazardly start popping pills. That applies equally to OTC and herbs, not just prescriptions. Someone would have to try real real hard to hurt themselves with Paxil. On the other hand, they could do serious damage fairly easily with careless dosing of aspirin or ma huang.

No big deal. If someone wants help, and I'm asked, I'll help. I treat myself the way I want, and someone else can do the same. If I can help them avoid some common pitfalls, I will try. In this case, the person has an awesome medical manual and roadmap to follow and won't likely need much help. More power to them as far as I'm concerned. I'm not encouraging, but not discouraging either. We're all different.
John"


 

Re: Dr. Jensen

Posted by Cecilia on October 27, 2000, at 23:45:17

In reply to Re: Remeron + Wellbutrin - Remeron + Neurontin = ?, posted by JohnL on October 21, 2000, at 5:44:27

The one thing I found conspicuously absent from Dr. Jensen`s book was statistics on the percent of patients who follow all his protocols and still fail to improve. Hope is nice but doesn`t cure.

 

Re: JohnL

Posted by AndrewB on October 28, 2000, at 2:33:58

In reply to Re: Dr. Jensen, posted by Cecilia on October 27, 2000, at 23:45:17

John,

You have helped this board in your ability to encourage people to keep working towards their treatment and providing people with easily understandable suggestions on how to do so. Don't however, in your efforts to make things understandable and to give people hope, neglect to give people the essential details and cautions that should come with your advice.

Specifically, be clear with people that you are not a trained medical expert. More importantly, tell people that it is in their best interest, even when making your own medication choices, to be working with an experienced psychopharmocologist. Such a person can go over one's medical history in detail and monitor for side effects or drug interactions of possibly serious consequences.

BTW, please stop touting this two week rule! You and I know that there are just too many exceptions to this rule of thumb for it to be useful. For example, trials with stimulants can be much shorter. On the other hand, someone just wrote me that they had received the desired effect from low dose selegiline, but only after taking it for the 6 weeks. It isn't out of the norm for selegiline take this long (or longer) to kick in. An adequate trial period varies from med. to med.

John, I appreciate that you have given some much of time to help others on the board. A lot of people respect you on this board. Some, I suspect, take your advice verbatim. I suggest that you continually envision the potential consequences of your advice and, with this in mind, temper your postings with reminders for people to act with prudence and caution.

Maybe we don’t have guardian angels looking over our shoulders to save us from the trouble we get into. All the more reason to remind people to care for themselves with great care. Many people often want to hear of miracle cures and quick solutions. What we need to be told though is that there are no guaranteed easy solutions. Finding our way towards recovery can be a journey that can be both time consuming and filled with dead-end runs with treatments that don’t work out.

John thanks so much for encouraging us to never lose our hope or persistence in finding effective treatment. When we as posters are able to make some contribution towards somebody’s recovery, doesn’t it feel like we have shared in a miracle. I know how it feels to find recovery, I didn’t merely gain my health with my recovery, I feel I was given my very life. A future filled with dread fell away and I now know what it feels like to be truly human. On the other hand, I truly fear that my advice will someday precipitate a tragedy in someone’s life. We must never forget the potential consequences of our words.

AndrewB


 

Re: SLS...self medicating

Posted by JohnL on October 28, 2000, at 6:10:25

In reply to Re: SLS...self medicating » JohnL, posted by SLS on October 27, 2000, at 22:48:31

READERS PLEASE NOTE. CAPITAL LETTERS ARE NOT SCREAMING. THEY ARE MEANT MERELY FOR EASIER READING IN A TWO-WAY CONVERSATION. THE TONE IS QUIET AND CALM. IT'S JUST EASIER READING.

> Please don't take my unwillingness to continue to discuss things with you as capitulation.
> ....OOOKKK.

> Consider it an attempt at self-restraint.
> ....HUH? FROM WHAT?

> (Advisement: The following 5 sentences are inappropriate, provocative, and a display of my tendency to take the coward's way out by making things personal. But I figured "what the hell." The hell with accountability. For those motivated to defend, please show me some mercy.)
> ....ALWAYS HAVE, ALWAYS WILL.

> I really don't want to embarrass you any more than you have already embarrassed yourself in my eyes. You have given me plenty of material to work with. I would only suggest that you consider toning-down your, what I consider to be, tendency to prescribe treatments without a license. After all, an M.D. pays good money for malpractice insurance. It doesn't seem fair that you shouldn't.
> ....I'M NOT EMBARRASSED. I DO NOT AND CANNOT PRESCRIBE, ONLY SUGGEST FOR CONSIDERATION. AMMUNITION TO WORK WITH? WHAT, ARE YOU OUT TO AMBUSH? I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DRUGS.

> You stated that you had a "purpose". I can't imagine what this purpose might be.
> ....TO HELP PEOPLE SEE THEIR OPTIONS. PEOPLE HELPED ME THE SAME, AND I LIKED IT. ANOTHER PURPOSE IS TO GET HELP AND IDEAS WHEN I NEED THEM. I WOULDN'T BE AS WELL AS I AM WITHOUT THE THOUGHTFUL DIRECTION OF OTHERS HERE.

> I understand that it is currently your privilege to tell people whatever you want to. Your privilege is not unique.
> ....I'M NO MORE AND NO LESS UNIQUE THAN ANYONE ELSE HERE.

> If you are so inclined to continue to tell people that it is senseless to continue an antidepressant beyond two weeks if they have felt nothing, I will be inclined to disagree with you. That will probably entail more than just my saying "I disagree".
> ....FINE WITH ME. PEOPLE CAN DECIDE ALONG WITH THEIR DOCTOR WHAT'S BEST.

> John, do I have to ask *you* a million times? Or did you understand my question the first time.
> ....ALRIGHT, A MILLION AND ONE TIMES. SORRY.

> In your attempt to sell Dr. Jensen, you have cited for these last six months the existence of three medical schools that include Jensen in their curriculum.
> ....JENSEN DOESN'T NEED ANY HELP SELLING. I DON'T MAKE COMMISSION. HE'S A DOCTOR WITH HIS OWN OFFICE AND MORE PATIENTS THAN CAN GET IN, NOT A VENDOR. I DON'T TRY TO SELL. SOME PEOPLE TAKE IT THE WRONG WAY. I OFFER A DIFFERENT APPROACH IN CASES WHERE STANDARD ONES ARE FAILING.

> Q: What are the names of these three medical schools?
> ....DON'T REMEMBER. IT'S NOT RELEVENT TO MY TREATMENT. LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU FIND OUT.

> I doubt you have anything to fear. I'm sure your claims are legitimate. Actually, you shouldn't have anything to fear to begin with. Your reputation isn't being called into question, is it? Let's just work on Dr. Martin Jensen.
> ....OK. WHATEVER. IF YOU SAY SO.

> If your friend doesn't get his website back on line soon, I may have to take a trip to the library. Help save me some gasoline and just name these three schools - at least the one that I vaguely recall you specifying in a previous post.
> ....MY 'FRIEND'? I DON'T EVEN HARDLY KNOW THW GUY. I KNOW HOW HE PRACTICES MEDICINE, I KNOW HIS IMPRESSIVE CREDENTIALS, I KNOW HE WAS REAL HUMBLE AND PRO WHEN I TALKED WITH HIM, BUT 'FRIEND' HE'S NOT. I DID HAVE THE NAMES OF SCHOOLS AT ONE TIME WRITTEN DOWN. APOLOGIZE FOR LOSING THEM AND FORGETTING. IT JUST WASN'T RELEVENT TO ME AND I LOST THE STUFF.

> Thank you. I appreciate your attention in this matter, as it will help educate Psycho-Babble as to the respect that the medical community affords Dr. Jensen.
> ....I THINK YOUR 'RESEARCH' WOULD BE BETTER SPENT TRACKING DOWN EX-PATIENTS OF HIS. THAT WILL PROVIDE A TRUE MEANINGFULL SENSE OF CREDIBILITY OR LACK OF.

> Regarding c-FOS. I did not indicate that I felt it necessary for Dr. Jensen to discuss it in his book written primarily for the layman. However, it will be necessary for you to discuss it if you want to defend Jensen's assertions on how the human brain works, how drugs work, and the pathophysiology of affective disorders. Otherwise, I'm not sure it is indicated that you should try. You've had enough time to look up c-FOS, so I guess you are off to a good start.
> ....HALF THE BOOK IS FOR THE LAYMAN. HALF IS FOR THE PHYSICIAN. IT'S PROBABLY OVER THE HEADS OF MOST LAYMEN. IT'S A TWO PART BOOK DESIGNED TO HELP BOTH PATIENT AND DOCTOR DECIDE ON THEIR ROADMAPS IN TREATMENT. I DON'T CARE HOW THE BRAIN WORKS. ALL I CARE IS THAT WE HAVE A LOGICAL ORGANIZED SYSTEM OF GETTING SUFFERING PEOPLE WELL. SCIENCE DOESN'T DO THAT. THE BRIGHTEST SCIENTIFIC MINDS IN THE NEOROLOGICAL WORLD HAVE NO MORE ABILITY TO HEAL A PATIENT QUICKLY THAN DOES JENSEN. IF ANYTHING, PROBABLY LESS.
>
>
>
> * For those following this thread, I would like to offer an opinion:
>
> If I were you, I would not listen to either JohnL or SLS (me) if you want consistently accurate facts and well-tempered judgment. There are quite a few intelligent (and brilliant), educated, informed, and caring people on this board without some sort of agenda of "purpose". I know I'm putting some people on the spot, and I will be forgetting so many, but... If I were me, I would pay particular attention to folks like Cam W., Sunnely, Danf, Noa, Medlib, AndrewB, Adam, stJames, Elizabeth (Shapere), PeterJ, and anyone who is kind enough to share their personal experiences with specific drugs and other treatment modalities.
> ....SORRY YOU FEEL THAT WAY. EVERYONE KNOWS HOW INACCURATE, UNINFORMED, UNEDUCATED, UNINTELLIGENT, AND UNCARING I AM. I DON'T KNOW A DARN THING AND COULD CARE LESS ABOUT ANYONE. YEAH RIGHT. BOY DID YOU HIT A FOUL BALL ON THIS ONE.

> "Your reputation isn't being called into question, is it?"
> ....SURE LOOKS THAT WAY TO ME. AT LEAST BY ONE BITTER SOUL ANYWAY. WHERE DO YOU GET THIS BITTERNESS? WHY? MAY I SUGGEST A PROTOCAL TO TREAT IT (just kidding :-0)

> Have I kissed enough butts?
> ....LOOKS THAT WAY TO ME. TALK ABOUT AGENDAS AND PURPOSE. WHOA. YOURS ARE OK, BUT MINE AREN'T? IS THAT IT?

> Why things work is not nearly so important as what does work. I currently don't see any evidence that 3-4 day trials of a sequence of antidepressants works. I can think of a few reasons why it could be counterproductive. It might actually prevent someone from being as responsive to any one of the medications once the medication has been introduced a second time to what had previously been a drug-naive brain. In addition, I can't help to be fearful that a "pulsing" of so many antidepressants will precipitate mania in vulnerable individuals and induce an extremely difficult to treat rapid-cycling course. FACT: These things do happen. They are well documented. QUESTION: Will they happen using the Jensen 3-4 day protocol? I don't know. NOT FACT: I think they might.
> ....FLIP FLOP. IN ADDITION, YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK AND YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW THE PROCEDURE WORKS. YOUR ABOVE SCENARIO WOULD NOT AND COULD NOT HAPPEN. DON'T MAKE FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ON SOMETHING YOU DON'T KNOW. NOT THAT IT'S IMPORTANT, BUT 3-4 DAY RESPONSES DO OCCUR. THEY'RE ON RECORD IN THE ARCHIVES. SINCE YOU ARE ENGROSSED IN RESEARCH AND DETECTIVE WORK, GO FIND THEM. THEY ARE THERE. "What's this six week wait thing? I feel better my first day on Wellbutrin." JUST ONE EXAMPLE. THE REST OF YOUR STATEMENT IS WAY OUT IN LEFT FIELD, WHICH IS UNDERSTANDABLE NOT HAVING STUDIED TTHE PROCEDURE.

> I'm not sure it makes sense to "rock 'n' roll" when it comes to using such potent drug treatments for such a serious and debilitating illness.
> ....GOOD MOOD AT THE TIME. BAD CHOICE OD WORDS MAYBE. SORRY IF I OFFENDED. THAT'S WHAT MY FAMILY PHYSICIAN SAID TO ME WHEN HE GAVE ME A SAMPLE OF PROZAC...'LET'S ROCK N ROLL'. SINCE A DOCTOR SAID IT TO ME, IT JUST KINDA STUCK. I THOUGHT IT WAS OK.

> Everyone be well, get well, and stay well. God bless all of us.
> ....FLIP FLOP. CONTRADICTION. YOU SHOULDN'T BRING THE DEVINE'S NAME INTO SUCH WRATH AS THIS POST.
>
> - Scott
> - John
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> By the way, John. I am definitely not too funny.
> ....LOL. YOU'RE SO OFF BASE SOMETIMES I CAN'T TELL IF YOU'RE SERIOUS OR JOKING.

> I also want to make it clear that I am not to be included in the word "we" that you have become so fond of using. I'm not sure the rest of psychoneuropharmacological psychiatry would want to be either.
> ....I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY WORLD, BUT FOR YOUR SAKE, OK.

> What are the names of the three medical schools?
> ....DUNNO. LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU FIND OUT.

> If you can believe it, this has been restraint.
> ....MY MY, FROM WHERE DO YOU GET THIS BITTER SOUL? BASED ON YOUR TONE, YOU WOULD ALMOST THINK I BURNED YOUR HOUSE, RAPED YOUR SISTER, STOLE YOUR CAR, AND GOT YOU FIRED FROM WORK. AND TO THINK ALL THIS STARTED WHILE TALKING ABOUT DRUGS. WHEW. BOY DID THIS GET OFF TOPIC, OR WHAT?

WHAT DID I EVER DO TO YOU TO BE THE TARGET OF SUCH WRATH???
> -----------------------------------------------------------

 

Re: Andrew, Everyone, Apology, Disclaimer

Posted by JohnL on October 28, 2000, at 6:47:18

In reply to Re: JohnL, posted by AndrewB on October 28, 2000, at 2:33:58

Andrew,
You're right. You know, this same exact scenario happened a few months ago. First, I started introducing Jensen techniques. Then, someone from left field came in and attacked me. Then I got into a rebuttal type conversation, which ended up in a whirlpool of wrath directed at me. Same exact pattern here. I could have, and should have, recognized the attacker early on and politely bowed out.

One clarification though. In several medication labels I've looked at, and also in several abstracts, it is stated that benefits may be felt as soon as four days, but may take 2 to 3 weeks for the full effect. So whether we're talking about Jensen's ways or standard ways, two weeks really isn't unreasonable. For full efficacy, yeah it's unreasonable. For purposes of evaluating medication choice, I think two weeks is reasonable. I wouldn't mention it except that that is what some labels say.

I do not claim that efficacy is achievable in two weeks. Though I must admit, there is proof available that it does happen sometimes. What I will claim however, is that it is possible to determine in two weeks whether a medication is going to work or not. Even traditional psychiatry agrees there should be at least a 20% improvement of symptoms in two weeks. I just really don't think using two weeks as a decision making period is out of line. Even some antidepressant medication labels specify 4 days to 2 weeks. It goes without saying that improvement, or lack of, will continue if given longer than two weeks. And it's possible a drug that has no response in two weeks can go on to work completely given longer. That happens too. I just happen to feel a person's time is better invested in another medication that might work sooner. That's all. From my stance, I tend to think in terms of finding a superior medication, versus an inferior one. Both can work well in 8 weeks. But I prefer the one that shows a hint of promise in two weeks.

Disclaimer to all: My name is John. I'm a blue collar worker. I'm not a doctor. I've been treated by 4 psychiatrists and 2 GPs for treatment resistant depression over 10 years. I am now well. Standard psychiatry didn't work all that well for me. I heard of a Dr Jensen who basically allows patients to try medications they've never tried before, medications that might not have any clinical justification. That's because he has noticed his treatment resistant patients over the decades often get well that way. I sometimes speak from a traditional point of view. I sometimes speak from a Jensen point of view. I sometimes speak from a hybrid of the two combined. Each post, each thread, each question, and each person is different. But in no case should it be assumed I am a trained professional. I'm not. I have probably ingested and tried whatever drug you are on, or are considering. So when I speak about a drug, at least you know I have actually tried it myself.

My heartfelt apologies to all if I stepped out of bounds. That's the last thing I wanted to do. Please accept my apologies. Friends here offered me guidance when I needed it. Now that I'm feeling better, I do the same, but sometimes go a little overboard. I cherish everyone here, even more so than friends I see in person every day, and I deeply apologize.
Sincerely,
John

 

Re: my two cents

Posted by coral on October 28, 2000, at 7:34:31

In reply to Re: Andrew, Everyone, Apology, Disclaimer, posted by JohnL on October 28, 2000, at 6:47:18

Isn't this whole discussion about finding out what works best for each individual??? This isn't a debate about whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun. We KNOW the answer to that one. It's about options, ideas, exploring, seeking, learning, helping in the most complex area of the human being - the brain/mind/psyche/soul.
In my case, with my first depressive episode, the tri's not only didn't work, they made me worse. The first SSRI which was Zoloft did work, but only when I hit 150 mgs daily. I am so grateful that I didn't stop taking it early. With my second depressive episode, the Zoloft started working on the THIRD day. So there! I'm living proof that both methodologies work - giving a med sufficient time and a prompt response when the right med is given. I think I know why it took the Zoloft so long to work the first time --- I was SEVERELY clinically depressed for three and a half years, with NO abatement. So, the brain chemistry had gone awry for so long, it took longer and higher dosages to connect and correct. Like silver mining - the deeper the vein is buried, the longer it takes to reach it, as well as changing as necessary to find the right tool. With the second episode, my brain "knew" that Zoloft was the "right" messenger and guide to the light and said "YEAH, BABY! Bring it on!!!" As simplistic as my description may be, I truly believe there is an innate drive to be healthy and hence the body responds when it recognizes help.
I also used psychotherapy both times which was also invaluable.
If you want to look at "sides" to this argument, I'm living proof that both sides are "right."

 

Re: John L.

Posted by Shirley on October 28, 2000, at 8:33:20

In reply to Re: Andrew, Everyone, Apology, Disclaimer, posted by JohnL on October 28, 2000, at 6:47:18

John L,

In my opinion, you don't owe anybody an apology.
But maybe you want to be careful because we live in a society where everyone wants someone else to blame instead of taking personal responsibility for their own situation. I am not referring to anybody on this board but just in general.

However, it is because of your posts, that I knew to ask my psychiatrist to switch to Prozac from Zoloft. So far, so good.

Even before I knew who Dr. Jensen was, I thought it was ludicrous to stay on a drug for six weeks if I all I was getting were miserable side effects in the first few weeks and no benefits. Yes, maybe it would have gotten better but I wasn't willing to take use up all my sick leave to find out.

Just so you all know that I'm not an alternative medicine radical, I have always been the person who in response to alternative medical ideas usually said, where are the double bind studies? But occasionally, when I felt that traditional medicine wasn't helping me with my problems, I ventured from my main beliefs.

As a result, I cured my eating disorder by embracing an anti dieting philosophy called Overcoming Overeating. Bags of cookies in my apartment don't seem to scare me like they do with alot of people.

Regarding psychiatric drugs, I was getting very tired of my continous monthly agiation problems with my meds that always occured for a few days after the beginning of the wonderful female monthly cycle. My psychiatrist didn't have any answers other than bandaid approaches and I saw nothing on the internet. I was also extremely tired of the having to buy clothes once a month because of the weight gain from Zoloft that was showing no signs of stabalizing.

That's how I came to this board. To those of you who say that John didn't put in enough disclaimers, I would say that anybody who is inelligent and most people on this board are would realize immediately that John was not a medical professional. But because of my previous beliefs about the 6 week rule, I felt it made alot of sense.

If you disagree, that is your right but how is what John is doing any different than the post by St. James on this board advocating the carbohydrates diet which may not be be in someone's best medical interest. St. James, I don't mean to be picking on you as I think alot of your posts make alot of sense. But I am just pointing out how people aren't consistent in their viewpoints. I know I am not.

About Dr. Jensen - This definately doesn't proof that he is right but I find it interesting that he suggests that Zoloft is the best antidepressant drug at stopping suicide and my suicidal ideas permanently vanished when I was put on Zoloft and Adderall.

Also, my psychiatrist at my last session said that he realizes there are patients who respond very quickly to medication and it's not a placebo effect because the good effect is longer than three days. He went on to say that those people will do the best on the medication.

Of course, I am not implying that his statements are an endorsement of Dr. Jensen. But it does say to me that Dr. Jensen's philosophies aren't as far fetched as alot of people seem to think.

To those of you who say, check with your doctor, generally I would agree with you but you're also assuming that the medical professional is competent. I went through 7 psychiatrists during my serious depression before I found the one that I'm still with. I could take up your time for hours with horror stories.

What I am trying to say is alot of people are not as fortunate as I am and either don't have access to any psychiatrist or are stuck with HMOS that make them take drugs off a formularly list that definately are not appropriate. If were in that situation, I would want to read the type of posts that John has written.

In summary, John L, as a CYA, you might want to put a disclaimer at the beginning of your posts. But apologize, no way as it is because of your advice that things are looking up for me.

Shirley

Shirley

 

Re: Remeron + Wellbutrin - Remeron + Neurontin = ?

Posted by allisonm on October 28, 2000, at 8:46:37

In reply to Remeron + Wellbutrin - Remeron + Neurontin = ?, posted by allisonm on October 20, 2000, at 19:33:09

My original post began as a rant, and ended with some questions about refractory depression, MAOIs, washout, Neurontin, etc. Scott and JohnL, you were kind enough to take the time to answer as best you could. I appreciate the time you both took and your thoughts. I have valued your research, your personal experiences, and your opinions for more than a year now. When I see your names on threads, they are among the first I read. You have helped me a lot over this time, in my own posts and through others. Your hearts are in the right place.

That said, I'm sorry that my post restarted this controversy. You obviously both have strong differences of opinion. I have my own opinions, but have no intention of siding with anyone as I don't care to contribute to the fire. I'd like to suggest, since it was my post to begin with, that the discussion stop here and we all move on.

Thanks.

Allison

 

Re: Another Thought

Posted by Shirley on October 28, 2000, at 8:49:00

In reply to Re: John L., posted by Shirley on October 28, 2000, at 8:33:20

Co-Babblers,

This discussion just made me think about Dr. Mark S. Gold, who wrote the book "The Good News about Depression" I have never read the book but I do remember skimming through it and being astounded that he seemed to be able to have an idea about how a patient would respond without alot of trial and error.

Can't remember exactly what his techniques were but he did seem to share the trait with Dr. Jensen in being able to pinpoint the right medications very quickly. Interestingly, on Amazon's web site, the second person who reviewed his book said there was alot of relief from depression after the second day.

Again, this proves nothing but it's further proof that maybe Jensen's technique isn't entirely off the wall.

Shirley

 

Re: Allison

Posted by Shirley on October 28, 2000, at 9:01:56

In reply to Re: Remeron + Wellbutrin - Remeron + Neurontin = ?, posted by allisonm on October 28, 2000, at 8:46:37

Allison,

I agree with you totally and I'm sorry if I am coming across as adding fuel to the fire. I had refrained from saying anything because I hoped the dicussion would die.

But when I see John apologizing for giving advice that caused me to ask for a drug that is working great, I had to say something.

However, I do understand Scott and Andrew's concerns but I was just trying to point out that things aren't as clear cut as one might think. Anyway, I know you may not have even been referring to my post but let me apologize just in case my message came across as flaming. I tried very hard not to but as we all know, sometimes our intent doesn't jive with what really happened and we have to be accountable for that.

I second your motion and say let's move on.

Shirley

 

Re: Allison » Shirley

Posted by allisonm on October 28, 2000, at 9:40:30

In reply to Re: Allison, posted by Shirley on October 28, 2000, at 9:01:56

Shirley,
No apology necessary. It was not your post that prompted me to write. Thanks.
Allison

 

Re:recommending meds

Posted by shellie on October 28, 2000, at 12:06:54

In reply to Re: Allison » Shirley, posted by allisonm on October 28, 2000, at 9:40:30

Sorry Allison, but once you start a post in motion you no longer have control over it.

The one thing that I want to say is that I feel that John is being unfairly singled out as providing advise without sending someone back to their pdoc. There are other people on the board who have advocated both american and european meds, without worrying about whether the person's pdoc was at all involved. So, I think it is probably a good thing for everyone who recommends any drug, to suggest that perhaps this should be checked with their pdoc, or to find a pdoc who is more flexible. Or say "Do this at your own risk". People are writing on this board for suggestions. And I hope they will still be able to get them. I don't believe that John needs to produce his credentials (or non-credentials) any more than anyone else. Nor do I feel (as shirley already stated) that he owes any more of an apology than many others. Shellie


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.