Posted by linkadge on January 3, 2007, at 11:24:03
In reply to Re: Has anyone here had a remssion for long?, posted by mindevolution on January 2, 2007, at 21:01:48
>sure, but I said you can't cure or prevent >mental illness with drugs. thyroid problems, >cancers, viruses, etc can all cause mental >illness symptoms, but they have a physical cause >and therefore and not considered mental >illnesses, well at least that's how I understand >it. :)
I've heard this kind of logic before, but never understood it. Perhaps the words "mental illness" should not be used for many of the cases presented here. We have decades of research showing that there are real, physical abnormalities in the brains of many patients with "mental illness". So call it what you like, but for many, there could be something pysically wrong.
>why don't they force mental illness patients to >have therapy as a front line treatment and then >if that fails hit the meds????
Perhaps thats true.
My arguement is that *despite* the fact that there is no proof that current drugs fix any underlingy biochemical problem, there may actually indeed be a underlying biochemical problem.
>but even anti depressants cause an antipsychotic >side effect of akathisia which increases suicide >potential, they even put warnings on ssris and >snris.
Well there are warnings that benydryl can cause psychosis, but that doesn't mean that all things taken into consideration, it is not appropriate for some people.
>akathisia is generally linked to damage to the >cholinergic system in particular (bad damage = >Alzeimers), nerve toxins such as vx or sarin gas >or pesticides kill via damaging the cholinergic >system. with less damage it shows up as >akathisia, insomnia, and anxiety.
I agree with you. I believe that potential exists. However, some people are much more susceptable to drug induced akathesia than others. Furthehrmore, I don't know if the evidence exists that these drugs are highly neurotoxic in the absence of signific adverse events.
>so starting on an antidepressant may lead to >suicide or physical damage to the cholinergic >system creating a physicl disease in the patient >in the form of physically based chronic anxiety, >and once physical damage is incurred, the >patient is no longer able to make as high a >level recovery.Thats one possability. There is data painting a slightly different picture however. For instance, depression has properties of a degeneritive illness. The more episodes a person has, the more likely the illness is to return, and with greater sevarity. There is some evidence that if depression can be brought to remission early enough, the lifetime inscidence relapse is reduced. Suicide is only a possable side effect, and so is toxicity.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for better drugs. If deprenyl were a better antidepressant, then that would be a prototype of how patients should be treated. Tianeptine is also highly neuroprotective.
>also they may trigger mania requiring >antipsychotics and before you know it the >patient is on a one way path to severe disease >and illness.
I agree these are possabilities.
>i still think that many can benefit from the >drugs, and i am in no way anti-drugs in any way >shape or form, I just think due to the risks >they should be seen as second line treatments, >if you know what i mean?
I agree that treatment protocol should start with the safest.
>thumbs up, therapy can cure, but doesn't work >for everyone. but those that get cured with >therapy make a complete recoveries of the >highest level. so that's why i think it should >be front line rather than forcing drugs on >people.
People simply need to be better informed. Thats what pages like this are all about. When I was in remission, it was with a small dose of antidepressant, a lot of alternative therapies etc.
>sure, but it is impossible to separate those >with things like pathological depression from >depression from choosing the wrong wife or the >wrong job, or childhood issues, etc. can't we >try everyone on therapy first then send those >that still have problems to get some meds?I woudn't say it is impossable. Situations depression may responds to therapy, lifestyle changes, etc, wherase other forms of depression may not.
There are two prototype cases:
Case 1:
Patient takes all the pills right up to ECT, and is still depressed when simply getting a different job would clear the depression right up.
Case 2:
Patent wracks his mind on a daily basis for the key to his depression. He questions everything in his life. He changes jobs, leaves the house, gets remaried, tries being gay, quits drinking, joins a church, becomes a missionary, gives all his money to the poor, exercises, eats right, gets better friends, becomes a pastor, vaulneteers regularly, gets excorcised, attends Benny Hinn, steps over the cracks, wins the lottery, becomes a movie star, becomes a monk, medates 24/7, practices deep breaking, yoga, aromatherapy, acupuncture, bathing in oatmeal, goes on long vaccations, fufulls his dreams, climbs mount everest, but yet still feels like sh*t all the time.
>by sending them all to meds introduces >unnecessary disease in many patients that could >have otherwise made a full recovery.Don't categorize all treatments as a whole. For instance, I would think that Tianeptine is much safer than high doses of thorazine. Maybe we'll learn more about it as time progresses. But sometimes time does more to uncover the safety and utility of a med. Ie, life extending properties of deprenyl?
>I don't know enough about epilepsy to be able to >comment, is it a mental illness or a physical >disease?
Thats what I am trying to say. Some things that are classified as mental illness ARE phyiscal disease. Neural functioning and psychologial state of mind are inseperable. Mind is matter.
It doesn't matter what the term implies, lets just focus on what the disease is.
Linkadge
poster:linkadge
thread:718547
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070101/msgs/718880.html