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


Posted by paulbwell on July 11, 2005, at 0:51:09

In reply to Regarding the whole Chemical Imbalance thing, posted by Racer on July 8, 2005, at 19:26:04

> This is prompted by a thread above, which really bothered me. In that thread, several links were posted to a series of websites that are biased against the theory of chemical imbalances as the cause of mental illness, and are oriented away from medications as treatments for mental illness, including depression. I really want to say a few things about web sites like those, and to offer a few pieces of advice about reading such sights.
> First of all, because the web sites in question have a very strong anti-medication/anti-"chemical imbalance" theory viewpoint, whatever they write on those sites will support that stance. They are only choosing to write what supports their stance -- or seems to support it. Here's a little secret: much of the information such sites publish is offering half-truths, rather than giving you the full story. Read this sort of thing critically, and you can see that they leave out hard facts and figures, and they also leave out anything that might possibly support other views.
> For example, the first site posted above spent several paragraphs expressing the idea that no one can offer up the idea chemical levels of the MAOs in the brain. OK. That's true, the only way to check the levels directly is to slice up the brain in question, which will only show the levels at the time of death.
> That site did not mention that you can get a pretty good estimate of those levels by metabolites in the blood stream, or from a spinal tap, etc. And it also neglected another little bit of information: the drugs that are known to raise the levels of the monoaminic neurotransmitters in the brain ACTUALLY WORK! They relieve depression. They don't do much of anything for normal people, but for people with depression, they make a difference!
> I didn't look at the date of that site, but I'll be generous and assume that when it says that there is absolutely no evidence for a genetic or inheritible cause of any mental illness, it's because they did not see the article from New Zealand that showed exactly that: an allele directly passed on in a Mendelian pattern that causes vulnerability to depression.
> I'm also betting, though, that they're unwilling to recognize family studies that show relationships between family members with related disorders. After all, that's only anecdotal, when you come right down to it, right? There's no hard science there, right?
> Weeeellll....
> Actually, that is still science, and the studies taht have been done really do show that there's a genetic trait involved in most of these disorders. They just haven't got a specific gene -- or even a specific chromosome -- to point to for it. What's more, it's likely that many of these disorders are multi-genetic, or are caused by a number of related genetic patterns. And most everyone says that having the genes will make you vulnerable to an affective disorder -- NOT that the genes will cause it directly. Environment plays a key role, as does support structures in that environment. If a child suffers a major stressor, but has adequate social and familial support, that child may develop resistance to depression -- no matter what his or her genetic heritage.
> So, please, when you read what's written on the web, or in magazines or newspapers, or anyplace -- please question what is written. Many times there is a bias, and many times that bias will affect what information is offered. Don't just read and believe. Use your mind. As well as reading what is said, try to read what isn't said: are they offering hard facts? Numbers are great, although often the percentages that are offered only tell part of the story. Is there a clear bias? That needs to tell you something.
> In the case of the web site offered above, the sneering tone in which several paragraphs were written would have tipped me off to a problem -- why sneer, unless you're sure you're making your point? And in science, you're just not supposed to start out with a point in mind.
> Besides, this is the medication related board, so I'm guessing most of us here haven't given up on finding a medication that helps us, right? That doesn't mean that we won't also be giving therapy a go, which has been shown to be optimal in most studies -- combination of medications and psychotherapy -- it just means that we're taking a medication. I guess I think it's a bit thoughtless -- at best -- to post links to the scare-mongering anti-medication sites on this board.
> OK. I'm done ranting now. Please forgive me for muddying up the board.

The Ozz man has no brain chemical imballance, only a family inhereted tremble-YER RIGHT

You don't do over 1000 LSD trips, snort Cocaine daily, and remain almost constantly drunk (4 bottles of Congac daily at worst) for 25 years and expect the brains chemistry to return to normal when you quit the drugs n Booze?





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 www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

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

poster:paulbwell thread:525148