![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 250 to 274 of 297. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 10:54:26
In reply to Re: NASA's , SSRI, SNRI, etc.}} SLS » sdb, posted by linkadge on March 5, 2006, at 17:26:45
> Then there is the alternate possability that SSRI's are dammaging the heart in a manner similar to certain serotonergic weight loss drugs, but I won't go there.
>
> LinkadgeLink, I really appreciate your ability to analyze the evidence, but damaging the heart? I feel that's quite a stretch. If you look at incidence and mortality stats, there is no anomaly in the trends for heart disease. I think that over-availability of food is a rather large confound for your hypothesis.
What are you doing to yourself with your cocoa experiments?
In the most detailed analysis, I damage my heart by breathing. Every day, my heart ages a little more. Should I stop breathing?
I really appreciate your precautionary stance. I have done some very demanding thinking based on your conjectures and conclusions. But I see depression itself (correlations with hyperhomocysteinemia, atherosclerosis, et al) as the damaging agent. Depression damages the heart.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 11:01:59
In reply to Re: NASA's , SSRI, SNRI, etc.}} SLS » sdb, posted by SLS on March 5, 2006, at 19:21:41
> > Bad mood means an eventually higher risk for cardiovascular disease
>
> Depression and cardiovascular disease are statistically associated. However, this by itself does not elucidate cause and effect. The article cited misses this important consideration.....> The bottom line is that there is no basis for concluding cause and effect, only a demonstration of a statistical association.
>
>
> - ScottAs the studied population already demonstrates that correlation, it would be necessary to show that there was a change in rate to conclude that SSRIs have an influence on that rate. We don't have data for that, but for brief periods where treated and untreated depressed are observed. Is extrapolation reasonable? No, not in my mind. It simply forces us to look more closely at the management of risk factors, now including one more variable. One which may or may not matter very much, when compared to the degree of influence conferred by other known variables.
Lar
Posted by SLS on March 6, 2006, at 11:03:24
In reply to Re: SSRIs and the heart » linkadge, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 10:54:26
> Depression damages the heart.
This is sad, but I think true.
- Scott
Posted by deniseuk on March 6, 2006, at 11:05:27
In reply to Re: To Meri-Tuuli » deniseuk, posted by linkadge on March 2, 2006, at 8:30:59
Hi again,
I can't help but think that anyone who responds to placebos must either be very suggestable or not that depressed to start with.
But having said that I was watching this programme on telivision when they were looking at Faith Healing and placebo effects. They did a trial on people with parkinsons disease and they found people with parkinsons disease had their tremors reduced after receiving sham treatment. Apparently the power of expectation causes a release of dopamine or something.
Anyway, I've tried many medications, hypnotherapy, rTMS and never got a placebo off any of them. I wish I did.
Kind Regards....Denise
Posted by SLS on March 6, 2006, at 11:22:12
In reply to Re: measuring the brain » SLS, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 10:41:14
> > LPs ain't much fun (unless they're made of vinyl). I had a handful performed on me when I was a research patient at the NIMH. You are right.
> Talk about guinea pig! Sir, your sacrifice in our collective need is genuinely appreciated.
Larry, I think you are the first person to say that to me. I can't help but to shed a few tears. I knew going in that I might end up giving much more than I would receive. That is exactly what happened.
Thank you.
- Scott
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 11:39:24
In reply to To Linkadge, posted by deniseuk on March 6, 2006, at 11:05:27
> Hi again,
>
> I can't help but think that anyone who responds to placebos must either be very suggestable or not that depressed to start with.I think your first argument is correct. I think there is a continuum of suggestability. Some have a great deal of it, and some have very little at all.
What has always amazed me, though, is why hypnotic suggestion isn't front and center. For those suggestable folk, there's no better way to connect with it. Or, am I presuming something without evidence? If placebo works without any other suggestion, then why not hypnosis?
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 11:43:00
In reply to Re: measuring the brain » Larry Hoover, posted by SLS on March 6, 2006, at 11:22:12
> > > LPs ain't much fun (unless they're made of vinyl). I had a handful performed on me when I was a research patient at the NIMH. You are right.
>
> > Talk about guinea pig! Sir, your sacrifice in our collective need is genuinely appreciated.
>
> Larry, I think you are the first person to say that to me. I can't help but to shed a few tears. I knew going in that I might end up giving much more than I would receive. That is exactly what happened.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> - ScottWay back when, Scott, you asked me to love you. I haven't ever forgotten. And, some might argue that I'm not too bad at it.
You're most welcome, sir.
Lar
Posted by sdb on March 6, 2006, at 11:57:33
In reply to Re: SSRIs and the heart » linkadge, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 10:54:26
>>I damage my heart by breathing. Every day, my heart ages a little more. Should I stop breathing?
I am glad that there is oxygen otherwise I would die because of my healthiness.
~sdb
Posted by ed_uk on March 6, 2006, at 13:32:26
In reply to Re: Why did Yxi's post just disappear? » ed_uk, posted by yxibow on March 6, 2006, at 3:25:22
Hi Yxi
>I've seen this happen.
I see your post got redirected to p-babble withdrawal. Funny, since we were no longer discussing withdrawal!
>Any way my point was that diphenyhdramine shouldn't be taken long term particularly for depressed patients because at least by my experience it creates a depressive hangover the next day.
Perhaps your reaction was unusual?
Ed x
Posted by linkadge on March 6, 2006, at 16:33:31
In reply to Re: SSRIs and the heart » linkadge, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 10:54:26
Well, first of all, the cocoa has been a very positive experience. I have a few of my own gold standards; omega 3 is probably at the top followed closely by cocoa.
As far as antidepressants on cardiac function I am not suggesting that I know the answer. We do know that a few studies have linked the TCA's to increased mortality esp. in patients with pre-existing arythmia.
I think it is necessary to keep an open mind to all possabilities. For instance, SSRI's are sometimes used in IBS, but they can also cause increased rates of GI bleeding etc.
Like I mentioned above, SSRI's will eventually lead to an increased release of serotonin. The 5-ht2b receptors have been implicated in fenfluramine induced cardiac events (a metabolite is actualy a 5-ht2b agonist).
Nevertheless, an SSRI increasing agonism at all serotonin receptors, can induce an array of side effects including sexual function (overactivation of 5-ht2c) psychic anxiety (overactivation of 5-ht2a), may indeed increase the likelyhood of cardiac problems (overactivation of 5-ht2b).
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nm/journal/v8/n10/full/nm764.html
As a side note...
Yes, I know. Chocolate may increase PEA, and increased PEA may lead to paranoid psychosis. :)Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on March 6, 2006, at 16:36:38
In reply to To Linkadge, posted by deniseuk on March 6, 2006, at 11:05:27
I think it is probably a combination of things. Life events, drug effects, placebo effect, and dozens of other factors probably come together to determine the likelyhood of response.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on March 6, 2006, at 16:54:14
In reply to Re: suggestability » deniseuk, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 11:39:24
The thing is that if you have a highly suggestble person, it may only requre a very weak drug effect for your mind to create the remainder of the AD effect. Sometimes if the drug just does *something* that is enough to make the paitent believe in the whole system of treatment.
As one progresses in the course of their illness. Suggestability may decrease, in which case a stronger drug effect is acutally required.So, some people may indeed need the active drug insomuch as it creates enough of a biochemical shift for the brain to initiate a psychological shift.
P.S.I've always found that my search for the cure, was the best cure I had. Accordingly, I could never find "the right pill" because that would mean the search was over.
Linkadge
Posted by yxibow on March 6, 2006, at 19:54:12
In reply to Re: Why did Yxi's post just disappear? » yxibow, posted by ed_uk on March 6, 2006, at 13:32:26
Hi Eddy (do you mind this -- I can call you Ed, it just seemed to rhyme with Yxi :)
>
> >I've seen this happen.
>
> I see your post got redirected to p-babble withdrawal. Funny, since we were no longer discussing withdrawal!I know... and as I said, I've rarely gotten any notice. I shall bite my tongue now on a certain individual who is in charge here.
>
> >Any way my point was that diphenyhdramine shouldn't be taken long term particularly for depressed patients because at least by my experience it creates a depressive hangover the next day.
>
> Perhaps your reaction was unusual?
>
> Ed xIt could be... thats why I always say your miles may vary, and by my experience. I'm usually fairly careful not to say absolutes on here. If I were stuck on a desert island with my usual insomnia I suppose I would take it, but its a crude sleep agent and I believe it offers little REM. But it might calm my slightly shaking hands and whatever other EPS.
Posted by sdb on March 6, 2006, at 19:59:33
In reply to Re: NASA's , SSRI, SNRI, etc.}} SLS » sdb, posted by SLS on March 6, 2006, at 8:11:43
Thanks for warming up and your comments to my questions :-)
ah yes, the Phen-Fen problem. I get it.
~sdb
Posted by musky on March 6, 2006, at 22:26:17
In reply to Re: NASA's , SSRI, SNRI, etc. » musky, posted by Phillipa on March 4, 2006, at 16:50:52
> Right , which is exactly my point.. If they cant measure how much you have in your system , then they cant possibly know if you are lacking in this .. also it has never been proven that low levels of serotonin or even the serontonin reuptake inhibitors are directly responsible for mood, or if this is a downstream effect..
this is why I am very skeptical if these drugs do what they do or what people feel is the SECONDARY effect of excess epinephrine that the body will produce to counteract the antidepressant that is screwing up the serotonin in the brain./body.
Im trying to simplify things here... antidepressants block the natural uptake of serotonin supposedly., this then causes and over abundance(which cant possibly be healthy) of serotonin to be available in the system. The brains neuro receptors shut down because they are over loaded with serotonin . That is why we get side effects because once receptors are not functioning, everything else in the body starts to be affected... scary stuff.. sorry to ramble. thanks for the clarification.. but this is curious what you say that serotonin isnt in the blood??musky
Serotonin can't be messured by a blood test. At least the serotonin in your brain. You can test for some TCA's but no blocd test of SSRI ,SNRI. If there were they would know how much and which drug to give you. Correct me if I'm wrong. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by musky on March 6, 2006, at 22:31:37
In reply to Re: NASA's , SSRI, SNRI, etc. » Phillipa, posted by yxibow on March 4, 2006, at 17:23:02
> >
that is very interesting you say that the receptors are in the gut... If you read the literature on how neurorecptors work, they are the ones that signal across the synaptic junction and the antidepressants either affect the signal before or after the synapse..In other words you would first absorb the drug yes in;your gut, but the end effect is in the brain...the neuro transmitter cells. The SNRI's Etc all block the receptors from reabsorbing the serontonin like it should , thereby creating an excess...
muskySerotonin can't be messured by a blood test. At least the serotonin in your brain. You can test for some TCA's but no blocd test of SSRI ,SNRI. If there were they would know how much and which drug to give you. Correct me if I'm wrong. Fondly, Phillipa
>
>
> There is a test for serotonin serum levels. You may be right that it doesn't allow for blood-brain level testing, although of course more than 90% of the serotonin receptors are -not- in your brain, they are in your gut.
>
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003562.htm
>
>
>
Posted by musky on March 6, 2006, at 22:36:58
In reply to Re: NASA's , SSRI, SNRI, etc. » yxibow, posted by Larry Hoover on March 4, 2006, at 19:20:21
i agree larry... there is no proof that serontonin is directly effect the mood or that snri, snras etc. directly affect the mood..
Remember this is all just a theory,, tested in a lab on RATS!!!! pharamaceutacal companies make billions on these drugs that are so called selective .. yet they prescribe them for everything under the sun... figure that one out.. what is supposedly SELECTIVE is now widespreadmusky
Posted by musky on March 6, 2006, at 22:44:45
In reply to Re: NASA's , SSRI, SNRI, etc. » Larry Hoover, posted by yxibow on March 5, 2006, at 17:04:04
sorry i hope Im doing this right.. ha, ha
I just joined this thread and not sure if I am sending the posts to the right people..or getting all the messages screwed up
please be patient with me.. still learning this system
I am struggling to get off this stupid Remeron and I am very shocked at how many people are on some drug or another/.
My acupuncturist told me that i had more chance of crashing if I stayed ON the antidepressant than if I came off of it and let my body heal and balance itself out.. and you know I Believe him
the drs. (not all) but alot scare the patient into believing that they need the drug to function..not true.
I work in a research lab and even the drs here wouldnt touch this stuff!!Good luck to all who are trying to wean off
take your time and be careful and believe in yourself.. PUsh negative thoughts aside..they cannot hurt you.. they are just thoughts.musky
Posted by musky on March 6, 2006, at 22:52:36
In reply to Re: NASA's , SSRI, SNRI, etc.}} SLS, posted by SLS on March 5, 2006, at 19:28:52
> > sheesh after reading this message I really am wondering more about these SNRI's etc!!! which gives me more reason to get off of it(ha, ha). Then again so many things are dangerous.. one must keep this in perspective.. but when it comes to fooling with the neuro receptors in the brain, I would caution anyone to think twice before going on any SNRI, SSRI, etc, etc..
Majority of people are depressed cause of life issues and how they deal with them and think about them.
I believe that the cognitive therapy approach is THE way to go here...no drugs..just use your mind .
Ive been off of ativan for 2yrs now because I learned to manage my anxiety other ways.. and IT works.. no drugs just mind control.. and practice. and Im glad that I have the power to control my anxiety, not have to run around will a pill in my purse or panic to have one on memusky
Then there is the alternate possability that SSRI's are dammaging the heart in a manner similar to certain serotonergic weight loss drugs, but I won't go there.
>
> There's no reason not to go there. You make a very important observation. Of course the main difference between SSRIs and the diet drugs Pondamin and Redux is that the latter two are serotonin releasers and seem to act very differently in the body. I have never seen any evidence for SSRIs producing the same heart valvular pathologies as are seen with the serotonin releasers. However, this possibility should not be overlooked.
>
> Good call.
>
>
> - Scott
>
>
Posted by musky on March 6, 2006, at 23:00:14
In reply to Re: NASA's , SSRI, SNRI, etc. » SLS, posted by TylerJ on March 5, 2006, at 22:43:26
> > oops me again! I think I am responsible for that one the NASA , I was thinking of the drug im on which is both a norepinephrine and serotonin Reuptake antagonists.. I think.. sorry, It affects both chemicals..
Ithink it may be an SNRI but i was sure I saw NASA somewhere in my readings(ha, ha).
sorry
musky
> Scott,
> > > What the Heck is an NASA?
> > >
> >
> > lol
> >
> > I haven't a clue! I was hoping you might tell me!
> >
> > lol
> >
> > Occasionally, you will see the acronym "NARI". It stands for noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor. Noradrenaline is another term for norepinephrine.
> >
> > I guess I'll have to go another sleepless night wondering about "NASA". :-)
> >
> > I'm sure it has a very legitimate meaning that I will come to know with some measure of embarassment.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
>
> LOL...Thanks Scott, Let me know when you figure it out please :) Also Scott, I'm doing very well on Parnate, however I'm trying to learn as much as possible in case a problem occurs. What augmentation strategies do you recommend for Parnate, of course, only if needed? Thanks.
>
> Tyler
Posted by linkadge on March 7, 2006, at 9:39:07
In reply to Re: NASA's , SSRI, SNRI, etc., posted by musky on March 6, 2006, at 23:00:14
That being said, I do agree that certain forms of depressive illness are a result of certain brain abnormalities.
People with severe parkinsons disease can't always just get away with mind over matter.
I do agree with you that most peoples depression is a result of life stress, but there are many other factors such as why two people subjected to the same amount of stress can react very differently.
FOr most people the best solution is probably just talk therapy, exercise etc. but I personally would not extend those treatments to suggest they are everyone's answer, becuase I do believe that brain abnormalities can lead to depression.
Linkadge
Posted by Chairman_MAO on March 7, 2006, at 11:10:57
In reply to Re: oh » Chairman_MAO, posted by linkadge on March 4, 2006, at 9:27:34
You are being duped by purposefully biased science. The reality is much more complex.
I would administer crack cocaine until I died if I were locked in dank cage for life as well. What else is there to do? Self-actualize?
Posted by linkadge on March 7, 2006, at 11:36:28
In reply to Re: oh » linkadge, posted by Chairman_MAO on March 7, 2006, at 11:10:57
I am sitting on the fence on this issue. I know that crappy life circumstances can bring just about anybody down.
But for me, it doesn't take much looking to see that all man was not created equally.
Me an my brother were both raised in the same environment, and had acess to the same diet. He always weighted about twice as much as I did. It is as hard for me to gain weight as it is for him to loose.
Duped, is a pretty strong word. This, too is a fairly unbiased opinion since I have been off drugs for over a year.
I am suprised I am hearing this from somebody who claims to have been depressed from birth. Were you locked in a cage as a child ?
Linkadge
Posted by Chairman_MAO on March 7, 2006, at 11:58:32
In reply to Re: oh » Chairman_MAO, posted by linkadge on March 7, 2006, at 11:36:28
I am not talking about depression; I am talking about the assertion that rats--and humans--will undoubtedly self-administer crack cocaine until death.
Posted by Chairman_MAO on March 7, 2006, at 12:11:42
In reply to Re: oh » Chairman_MAO, posted by linkadge on March 4, 2006, at 9:27:34
Specifically, I am in agreement with the Rat Park investigator, who said:
" The disease model has been "embellished in the news media", to the point, he writes, "where the belief in drug-induced addiction has acquired the status of an obvious truth that requires no further testing." The widespread acceptance of this belief "is a better demonstration of the power of repetition than of the influence of empirical research ..." [9]
See also: http://www.szasz.com/addiction.pdf
and various works by Stanton Peele.Mental illness CANNOT be a medical illness per se because physiological pathologies of the brain are the domain of neurology. A pathology is nothing except that which is identifiable post-mortem. My suffering of depression is irrelevant to this. The suffering in mental illness is real, and there certainly may be undetected abnormalities on a psychobiological level. However, until what such a problem is can even be defined--which it is has not, otherwise antidepressant monographs would not claim that the mechanism of action is unknown--there is no such thing as mental illness as defined by most psychiatrists and other professionals in the field. If you know of an argument to the contrary (especially in a peer-reviewed publication or other scholarly work) I am always interested in hearing it. Despite what you may think I have a very open mind about this, and have never heard anything that vitiates the Szasz argument.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.