Posted by DSCH on August 30, 2003, at 15:01:30
In reply to Re: SSRIs, what's your opinion ? » DSCH, posted by Francesco on August 30, 2003, at 13:57:21
>Maybe the article you posted explains something (people react in different ways because are different) but it doesn't explain to me why there must be so many "supporters" (for or against) and so few unpassionate observers.
The objective observers are not flooding the media with diatribes. They are out there, publishing research that usually doesn't attract much public notice. Thus the objective ones are lost from the signal-to-noise ratio of public discourse being so low.
>The first time I went to a pdoc he told me that I need ADs and so on, three days I went to another one who told me I was just a bit pessimistic and that meds were "crap". Maybe my doubts are a sign of DOC but maybe most of them don't know what they're talkin'about. Sorry again for my complains but some time I really don't know if I am taking care of myself or I am damaging me.
Psychiatry is in a primitive state relative to the rest of medicine because it rarely images or undertakes chemical diagnostics of brain function [these capabilities are either here yet new and rare and expensive (SPECT, fMRI, PET, SQUID-MEG, QEEG, etc.) or out on the horizon (nanobot monitors)]. Also the brain is whole lot more complex than all the other organs of the body and is not as well understood. Practioners without neuroscientific knowledge and the support of brain imaging and diagnostics are in the position of having to rely on "pharmocologic dissection" by having patient response to medications define what was "really" wrong with them. This has been the theme of mainstream psychiatry since Cade and lithium. Basically it means as a patient that you are on what I think of as the "drug roulette wheel". Some people get good outcomes, others get bad outcomes.
poster:DSCH
thread:255513
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030828/msgs/255685.html