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

Re: Hey Linkadge! linkadge

Posted by Marty on July 3, 2008, at 14:14:15

In reply to Re: Hey Linkadge!, posted by linkadge on July 2, 2008, at 23:42:28

Wow! Never thought you would reply me with such 'interest' in the subject... what a vigorous reply :)

And you know what ? I just deleted about 50 lines of argumentations I had wrote in the last couple minutes in reply to your reply ... because while writing them I somehow changed my opinion about the subject to a point where, while it doesn't 100% embrace yours, what I just wrote wasn't representative enough of what I now think ! ... I guess it's positioning me between my yesterday opinion and yours.

I dont have the motivation today to start from zero and expose you all my fresh and more moderated arguments but I can summarize with:

1- You're right about the fact that, as being at the edge of the neuroscience research subject, we're not sure of ANYTHING related to depression<->neurogenesis<->antidepressants and friends. And yes Tianeptine is the most studied and 'agreed on' at this point.

2- I'm not convince of the quality of some (high majority) of your argumentations which lay upon the fact that some says "No" and some says "Yes"... if it only takes about this level of "Nayers" to discredit a theory, well I can't think of ANY neuroscience theory which would be considered by you as being credible.

MUCH MORE (70% + ?) results IN THE LAST COUPLES YEARS point to the theory that most AD drugs induce/stimule SOME KIND OF BRAIN PLASTICITY MECHANISM/PHENOMENON and that it would be that effect which brings *MOST* -ALLIVIATED- DEPRESSED PATIENT out of their misery. While this is not quite what I would call a scientific concensus (!!) it's seems this theory is already as good as the other ! .. and at this pace, will surpass the infamous monoamine theory and others in the next decade. In fact, it's already a more respected/elegant theory that any other.

Btw, Here's how I see the whole thing: (oversimplified version)

Depression is a biological mechanism which kicks in when the brain evaluate (RIGHTFULLY OR WRONGLY !) solely based on HIS PERCEPTION OF RESULTS (which has MANY point-of-failure and evoluated in a world QUITE DIFFERENT that the one we are living in in 2008 ! and so is often maladapted) that the organism, which he's part of, behaviours/strategies are badly performing to the point where it become a viable/acceptable risk, from a evolutionism point of view, TO FORCE THE ORGANISM TO ADOPT A "SICKNESS BEHAVIOURS" STRATEGY (WITHDRAWAL AND AVOIDANCE, ECONOMY OF RESOURCES ETC ETC) TO PROTECT ITSELF WHILE HE PROGRESSIVELY *UNBUILD/UNLINK* IN A *BRUTEFORCE* KIND OF WAY SOME NEUROLOGICAL COMPONENTS (neurons, intraneuronal Unknows, dentrites, glials etc etc) IN SOME BRAIN ORGANS (ie. hypotalamus. hypocampus, amygdala etc) WHICH ARE SUITABBLE/VIABLE TARGETS FOR POSSIBLY INHIBITING, IN THIS *BRUTEFORCED* MATTER (some randomness/luck, some more somehow calculated moves), THE PROBLEMATIC UNVIABLE BEHAVIOURS/STRATEGIES.

Now 1 of 2 things could happen and both are viewed from OKAY to BEST from this strategy point of view:

1- BEST = the brain evaluated (again, RIGHTFULLY or WRONGFULLY by the up mentioned, PARTLY OBSOLETED by mordern day, "Organism objectives/results evaluation mechanism") that ENOUGH UNVIABLE behaviours/strategy are OUT and/or ENOUGH NEW (Coping? Adapting?) VIABLE behaviours/strategy came IN .. and so the brain GRADUALLY STOP (fadeout) this mecanism to start another one (fadein) which kick in to REBUILD to some extent the implicated (and so impaired) neurological organs base on NEW experiences...

2- OKAY= the operation has failed and the organism die OR doesn't reproduce (at all, or as much) because of the unviable/failing behaviours/strategy + the sickness behaviour induced by the 'depression' mechanism. And the whole thing is OKAY from an evolutionary point-of-view because it STATISTICALLY serves well the familly/clan by allowing the resources to go to the 'stronger' member AND serves well the species by helping getting pulling some unviable/inferior genes out of the species pool. Species > Clan > Organism (member) .. what's important is the GENES survival at the biggest scale, a single organism entity/instance (and his genes) has not much value in the big scheme.. in doubt one can spread some bad genes (combinaison etc) -> sacrifice is OKAY.


So.. at least 3 strategy/mechanisms is involved in this obviously oversimplified theory:

1- Sickness behaviour : kicks in, in part, for a safer depression.

2- Depression : WANTED Partial-Bruteforce (semi-dumb, random) neurodegeneressance in some brain organs well suited (evoluated/ready for this operation)

3- Growth : increased but prudent neurological growth (structural, operational, etc etc.. neurogenesis is of the bunch) to the organs implicated in the depression. That mechanism COULD BE activated at the same time as the 'depression' in order to help find some coping/adaptating strategy ? .. kicks in from the start VERY WEAKLY and then goes from prudent to confident as the depression fadeout ?

Now where does the AD fits in this theory ? What about:
1- SOME would initially increase mechanism #1(sick.Behav) + #2(depres) and somehow after ~2 weeks forces the brain to promote #3 (Growth)in order to compensate or something ? (Increased Turnover Link ?) Prozac and Cie (SSRIs/SNRIs etc)

2- SOME would just promote #3(Growth) and leave the other alone... but after awhile indirectly (by way of recovery) inhibits #2 and so #1 ? SSRE like Tianeptine ?

3- SOME would JUST kill the pain of the process and so in 'adjusted relieving' would allow the organism to NOT be paralized too much by the sickness behaviour and so find more easily what's working for him .. completing the process with success .. AND so in 'TOO MUCH relieving' would deprive the organism of some helpful (to some extent) CUES IN FORM OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PAIN and so would leave the organism with LESS CHANCES of completing succesfully the process than a more 'adjusted relieving' .. or not relieving at all in case of not-paralyzing-already-okay psychological pain... (Benzo style? .. which are, of course, not ADs in the strict sense)


Anyway this whole theory (which Neurogenesis is part of and support) makes ALOT of senses from an engineering/evolutionist point of view.. don't you think ?

Any toughts ? .. wow what happened to the "I dont have the motivation today to start from zero and expose you all my fresh and more moderated arguments but I can summarize with" from the beginning of this post ? XD


/\/\arty


Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

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
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

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

poster:Marty thread:836811
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20080626/msgs/837854.html