Posted by linkadge on August 14, 2007, at 9:31:48
In reply to Re: Vicodin and Percocet for Depression » linkadge, posted by Quintal on August 14, 2007, at 4:06:38
>I wondered if it might be a form of distraction. >I was confused by most of it to be honest, >because it seemed to have little bearing on the >central theme we were discussing, which I >thought was tolerance.
I thought the general theme was on "opaites and depression". Everything I said was within that topic.
>You see, no matter what mechanisms are behind >the therapeutic response, the fact that most >people do develop tolerance to opiates (and >often very quickly) means that tolerance also >develops to those esoteric mechanisms,
Not necessarily. You can easily develop tollerance to one effect of a drug yet not develop tollerance to another effect. "Nardil Euphoria" is a prime example. I am simply arguing that some people apparently do find that they can treat depression long term with opiates. Whenever refering to opiates for depression, people always begin to think of the junkie, or others trying to get high. There is a long history of using opiates to treat depression despite such tollerances. If everybody became a junkie in a week, I think this remedy would not have lasted quite so long.
Most doctors would agree that the painkilling properites of the opiates, and the euphoriant effects are two totally separate mechanisms.
Euphoria is not a prerequisite for analgesia.Along the same lines, there are researchers who believe that opiates effect on mood might be separable from the effect on depression. Like I mentioned the effects of opiates on neurotransmitter systems are diverse.
Consider the effects of ketamine. The current theories are that the euphoriant effects are indeed "side effects", and not responsable for the theraputic effect in clinical depression.
Will you develop tollerance to the euphoriant effects of ketamine? Probably. Does this mean we scrach Ketamine off our litst of potentially usefull drugs for depression? No.
Perhaps the reason you thought my comments were incoherant or off topic was because I failed to draw together my points.
My whole arugment is that you nor I am fully aware of the complexities of the neurobiological effects of opiates. "Stay away from them", may be a good rule of thumb it does not account for individual variences in long term responce.
>I've seen less confident posters withdraw from >debate with you on several occasions when >presented with esoteric mechanisms like this, >and I wondered if you might have learned that >this could be a way of getting your opponent to >back down, so that you could 'win' the debate, >even if it became clear that your original >assertions were on shaky ground.
I am not trying to introduce these mechanisms to "proove a point" or to "win". Like I said before, I am trying to open up discussion. This isn't about winning or loosing.
Do you think that I believe I have prooven anything here? Obviously I havn't proven anything at all. I'm not even trying to prove anything. My main reason for mentioning such "mechanisms" was to suggest that there may be mechanisms destinct from the euphoriant effects of the drugs which are responsable for some individuals ability to use the drugs to treat mood disoders semi-long term.
>I think I may have omitted qualifiers like 'can' >on occasion due to haste, rather than making >absolute statements, because as I showed, and as >we both agree, cognitive impairment and amnesia >at therapeutic doses of benzodiazepines is very >common.
Lets keep threads separate.
>yet you seemed to persist in finding sentences >where, by accident, I had omitted the >qualifier 'can', even where I had used sentences >containing the qualifier 'can' in the same post. >I found that quite challenging.
Sometimes it is necessary to be over clear (IMHO) online as text often does not convey the mood of the idea.
>I really wasn't trying to diagnose you link, but >I remember you saying that you thought you had >ADHD, and that you had been prescribed Ritalin >at one point, but I can't remember why. Recently >you seem to have changed you mind on the ADHD >issue, and, because I noticed that your posts >seemed quite disorganized, I thought that this >might be a valid diagnosis after all.
>I think I may have omitted qualifiers like 'can' >on occasion due to haste
I rest my case.
>I remember you querying it as an alternative to >the bipolar diagnosis that you have often said >you disagree with. Again this was just a >suggestion, and of course I don't know you in >real life so am in no position to diagnose.
No worries.
Linkadge
poster:linkadge
thread:775567
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070808/msgs/776176.html