![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 18 to 42 of 58. Go back in thread:
Posted by janejane on January 14, 2010, at 6:15:02
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back, posted by bulldog2 on January 13, 2010, at 18:24:58
Yes, anybody can write a book that sounds promising, and desperate people sometimes fall victim to scams. But I don't think it's fair to dismiss all alt therapies just because there happen to be some charlatans out there. There is growing body of evidence for a lot of it, the problem is separating the good from the bad. That's why it's helpful to have people like Bleauberry advise us. It's pretty clear that he's done his homework and isn't promoting things blindly. The guys knows his stuff.
He also never suggested that alt treatments are the only answer. As mentioned before, he also knew a lot about meds and advocated their use. But he also encouraged a larger overall strategy, which I think could be useful for many of us who are not gaining full remission with meds. Here's an example of this viewpoint:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20091227/msgs/931784.html
Using the analogy he used in that post, I don't think he would encourage anyone to place all their money on any single treatment, alt or conventional. It's the idea of looking at the bigger picture that I really appreciated about Bleauberry. I don't think a lot of us do that enough.
Posted by bulldog2 on January 14, 2010, at 7:47:32
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back » bulldog2, posted by janejane on January 14, 2010, at 6:15:02
> Yes, anybody can write a book that sounds promising, and desperate people sometimes fall victim to scams. But I don't think it's fair to dismiss all alt therapies just because there happen to be some charlatans out there. There is growing body of evidence for a lot of it, the problem is separating the good from the bad. That's why it's helpful to have people like Bleauberry advise us. It's pretty clear that he's done his homework and isn't promoting things blindly. The guys knows his stuff.
>
> He also never suggested that alt treatments are the only answer. As mentioned before, he also knew a lot about meds and advocated their use. But he also encouraged a larger overall strategy, which I think could be useful for many of us who are not gaining full remission with meds. Here's an example of this viewpoint:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20091227/msgs/931784.html
>
> Using the analogy he used in that post, I don't think he would encourage anyone to place all their money on any single treatment, alt or conventional. It's the idea of looking at the bigger picture that I really appreciated about Bleauberry. I don't think a lot of us do that enough.There is no way to do all your homework on these therapies. You can read their books. Almost none of these theories have been subjected to double blind testing which is the gold standard of established science.
I have not said they are not true and I know there is a bigger picture!! But rather than wandering aimlessly from alt doc to alt doc and spending money I personally do not have I will wait until some of these theories are subjected to scientific testing and proved.Also I have many more examples which I will not go into where exaggerated claims did not work in the real world. So in the haystack of alt med claims there are a some needles of truth. I guess after 40 years of searching I have given up.
Posted by janejane on January 14, 2010, at 8:36:54
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back, posted by bulldog2 on January 14, 2010, at 7:47:32
I'm sorry that you've had so many bad experiences, bulldog2. It sounds like you feel very frustrated. For me, education is an important and empowering aspect of my treatment, even though the information is difficult to understand sometimes, and a lot of it is just plain over my head. There is so much out there that is probably bunk, and that's the very reason I'm glad there are people like Bleauberry to help us find those needles of truth in the haystack.
As for supporting evidence, I agree that not enough funding is going into alt stuff. There are some exceptions, though. (I find pubmed to be a excellent free source of info in this regard.) Of course, some would argue that there is bad science going on in the drug world too.
Posted by bulldog2 on January 14, 2010, at 10:39:03
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back » bulldog2, posted by janejane on January 14, 2010, at 8:36:54
> I'm sorry that you've had so many bad experiences, bulldog2. It sounds like you feel very frustrated. For me, education is an important and empowering aspect of my treatment, even though the information is difficult to understand sometimes, and a lot of it is just plain over my head. There is so much out there that is probably bunk, and that's the very reason I'm glad there are people like Bleauberry to help us find those needles of truth in the haystack.
>
> As for supporting evidence, I agree that not enough funding is going into alt stuff. There are some exceptions, though. (I find pubmed to be a excellent free source of info in this regard.) Of course, some would argue that there is bad science going on in the drug world too.Based on some of Bleauberry's tangents he is more like the haystack than the needles. Bleauberry to my knowledge has not had a great deal of relief from these treatments. At times he throws the entire kitchen sink out there. To your knowledge can you state that any of his theories has been proven in a double blind study?
Posted by janejane on January 14, 2010, at 10:57:37
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back, posted by bulldog2 on January 14, 2010, at 10:39:03
> To your knowledge can you state that any of his theories has been proven in a double blind study?
Here's a study about an herb he recommended, that I came across recently:
Nord J Psychiatry. 2007;61(5):343-8.
Clinical trial of Rhodiola rosea L. extract SHR-5 in the treatment of mild to moderate depression.Darbinyan V, Aslanyan G, Amroyan E, Gabrielyan E, Malmström C, Panossian A.
Department of Neurology, Armenian State Medical University, Yerevan, Armenia.
Erratum in:
* Nord J Psychiatry. 2007;61(6):503.
The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of standardized extract SHR-5 of rhizomes of Rhodiola rosea L. in patients suffering from a current episode of mild/moderate depression. The phase III clinical trial was carried out as a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study with parallel groups over 6 weeks. Participants, males and females aged 18-70 years, were selected according to DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for depression, the severity of which was determined by scores gained in Beck Depression Inventory and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD) questionnaires. Patients with initial HAMD scores between 21 and 31 were randomized into three groups, one of which (group A: 31 patients) received two tablets daily of SHR-5 (340 mg/day), a second (group B: 29 patients) received two tablets twice per day of SHR-5 (680 mg/day), and a third (group C: 29 patients) received two placebo tablets daily. The efficacy of SHR-5 extract with respect to depressive complaints was assessed on days 0 and 42 of the study period from total and specific subgroup HAMD scores. For individuals in groups A and B, overall depression, together with insomnia, emotional instability and somatization, but not self-esteem, improved significantly following medication, whilst the placebo group did not show such improvements. No serious side-effects were reported in any of the groups A-C. It is concluded that the standardized extract SHR-5 shows anti-depressive potency in patients with mild to moderate depression when administered in dosages of either 340 or 680 mg/day over a 6-week period.
PMID: 17990195 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Posted by bulldog2 on January 14, 2010, at 12:57:14
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back » bulldog2, posted by janejane on January 14, 2010, at 10:57:37
> > To your knowledge can you state that any of his theories has been proven in a double blind study?
>
> Here's a study about an herb he recommended, that I came across recently:
>
> Nord J Psychiatry. 2007;61(5):343-8.
> Clinical trial of Rhodiola rosea L. extract SHR-5 in the treatment of mild to moderate depression.
>
> Darbinyan V, Aslanyan G, Amroyan E, Gabrielyan E, Malmström C, Panossian A.
>
> Department of Neurology, Armenian State Medical University, Yerevan, Armenia.
>
> Erratum in:
>
> * Nord J Psychiatry. 2007;61(6):503.
>
> The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of standardized extract SHR-5 of rhizomes of Rhodiola rosea L. in patients suffering from a current episode of mild/moderate depression. The phase III clinical trial was carried out as a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study with parallel groups over 6 weeks. Participants, males and females aged 18-70 years, were selected according to DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for depression, the severity of which was determined by scores gained in Beck Depression Inventory and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD) questionnaires. Patients with initial HAMD scores between 21 and 31 were randomized into three groups, one of which (group A: 31 patients) received two tablets daily of SHR-5 (340 mg/day), a second (group B: 29 patients) received two tablets twice per day of SHR-5 (680 mg/day), and a third (group C: 29 patients) received two placebo tablets daily. The efficacy of SHR-5 extract with respect to depressive complaints was assessed on days 0 and 42 of the study period from total and specific subgroup HAMD scores. For individuals in groups A and B, overall depression, together with insomnia, emotional instability and somatization, but not self-esteem, improved significantly following medication, whilst the placebo group did not show such improvements. No serious side-effects were reported in any of the groups A-C. It is concluded that the standardized extract SHR-5 shows anti-depressive potency in patients with mild to moderate depression when administered in dosages of either 340 or 680 mg/day over a 6-week period.
>
> PMID: 17990195 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]The problem is most people here are severe trd and most will not respond to st johns wort or rhodelia. Some may respond and some have reported good results. But the severely depressed need big guns. I know there are studies on sjw too. Can you studies that any of these alternative therapies work on the severely depressed trd people?
Posted by janejane on January 14, 2010, at 13:26:06
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back, posted by bulldog2 on January 14, 2010, at 12:57:14
Here's one that supports the use of SJW for severe depression:
BMJ. 2005 Mar 5;330(7490):503. Epub 2005 Feb 11.
Acute treatment of moderate to severe depression with hypericum extract WS 5570 (St John's wort): randomised controlled double blind non-inferiority trial versus paroxetine.Szegedi A, Kohnen R, Dienel A, Kieser M.
Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Eschenallee 3, 14050 Berlin, Germany.
Erratum in:
* BMJ. 2005 Apr 2;330(7494):759. Dosage error in article text.
Comment in:
* Evid Based Ment Health. 2005 Nov;8(4):107.
* Can Fam Physician. 2007 Sep;53(9):1511-3.OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of hypericum extract WS 5570 (St John's wort) compared with paroxetine in patients with moderate to severe major depression. DESIGN: Randomised double blind, double dummy, reference controlled, multicentre non-inferiority trial. SETTING: 21 psychiatric primary care practices in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: 251 adult outpatients with acute major depression with total score > or = 22 on the 17 item Hamilton depression scale. INTERVENTIONS: 900 mg/day hypericum extract WS 5570 three times a day or 20 mg paroxetine once a day for six weeks. In initial non-responders doses were increased to 1800 mg/day hypericum or 40 mg/day paroxetine after two weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in score on Hamilton depression scale from baseline to day 42 (primary outcome). Secondary measures were change in scores on Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale, clinical global impressions, and Beck depression inventory. RESULTS: The Hamilton depression total score decreased by mean 14.4 (SD 8.8) points, corresponding to 56.6% (SD 34.3%) of the baseline value, in the hypericum group and by 11.4 (SD 8.6) points (44.8% (SD 33.5%) of baseline value) in the paroxetine group (intention to treat analysis; similar results were observed in the per protocol analysis). The intention to treat analysis (lower one sided 97.5% confidence limit 1.5 points for the difference hypericum minus paroxetine) and the per protocol analysis (lower confidence limit 0.7 points) showed non-inferiority of hypericum and statistical superiority over paroxetine. The lower limits in both cases exceeded the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -2.5 points and the superiority margin of 0. The incidence of adverse events was 0.035 and 0.060 events per day of exposure for hypericum and paroxetine, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of moderate to severe major depression, hypericum extract WS 5570 is at least as effective as paroxetine and is better tolerated.
PMID: 15708844 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMCID: PMC552808
By the way, there is one often-cited study that people use to show that SJW is no more effective as placebo. Larry Hoover had a great post about all the flaws in that study. You can probably find it if you do a search. One interesting thing was that it also found that zoloft was no more effective than placebo!
Posted by janejane on January 14, 2010, at 13:37:41
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back » bulldog2, posted by janejane on January 14, 2010, at 13:26:06
By the way, speaking of Larry Hoover (someone else who hasn't been around lately and who is also missed), he wrote a lot about amalgam if you want to search the archives. Really well-referenced and everything. There's a lot of scientific evidence behind it. One thing that I've picked up about mercury is that it doesn't affect people equally. I think I remember reading that there is actually a gene that is associated with people who happen to be poor detoxifiers of it. Interesting, isn't it? That might explain why some people don't seem to be affected by silver fillings, etc. so much while others develop problems.
Posted by janejane on January 14, 2010, at 13:40:08
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back, posted by bulldog2 on January 14, 2010, at 12:57:14
Oops. That last post was supposed to be to bulldog2, not myself!
Posted by inanimate peanut on January 14, 2010, at 13:51:11
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back » bulldog2, posted by janejane on January 14, 2010, at 13:26:06
The scientific literature makes claims all the time that aren't based on double-blind studies. In fact, if those were the only studies we looked at, we wouldn't have many of the off-label uses that many of us benefit so much from on meds. For those, we look to placebo-controlled, randomized as our next standard. We have several "alternative" solutions that fall into that category. For example, the study on N-Acetyl Cysteine was placebo-controlled and randomized, which is as much as we can expect from many of the off-label meds we take.
Don't say that people on this board don't care about this, as it was recommended to me by someone prominent in this community and I now take it (and I have very severe depression). Sometimes there are people here who have very severe depression that may be controlled somewhat by medication and are looking for something to control the remainder of the symptoms. They may be interested in some alternatives. Now, I consider myself firmly in the camp that believes in medication, but I think that it's not bad once in a while to hear about alternatives. I don't expect NAC for instance to serve as my major antidepressant, but if it gets me even a millimeter closer to feeling normal, I'll take it!
I don't want to be in some big back and forth and I'm not defending anyone or anything, I just felt the need to add my 2 cents.
Posted by Sigismund on January 14, 2010, at 14:30:38
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back, posted by bulldog2 on January 14, 2010, at 10:39:03
>Bleauberry to my knowledge has not had a great deal of relief from these treatments.
Which one of us has with any treatment (with the obvious exceptions)?
Posted by bulldog2 on January 14, 2010, at 15:57:33
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back, posted by Sigismund on January 14, 2010, at 14:30:38
> >Bleauberry to my knowledge has not had a great deal of relief from these treatments.
>
> Which one of us has with any treatment (with the obvious exceptions)?I think he was doing poorly. I may be wrong. There are some here on meds that do have periods of remission.
Posted by bulldog2 on January 14, 2010, at 16:11:46
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back » bulldog2, posted by janejane on January 14, 2010, at 13:40:08
> Oops. That last post was supposed to be to bulldog2, not myself!
I think the bottom line is we all are just throwing the kitchen sink at this disease and hope that something works or partly work. So you use alt med as part of your arsenal. I use fish oil and sam-e at times to augment and a ton of vitamins and minerals. Trying to upgrade my diet.So I guess that's an alt med approach. But just not that impressed but still do it.
Science needs to crack the code of what causes depression. There are theories but none have been proven. Once there is definitive proof of what causes this disease there is a better chance of a cure be it better meds or whatever. Until than we are all really stumbling around.Sometimes if you are lucky you hit the right combo of things that really work.
Really no need to beat this thing to death. There is no right approach or wrong approach. Whatever works the best for you is the right approach. Bleauberry chose his own path.
I will just reiterate once more. There just was no reason to answer every post and than veer into his pet theories and ramble on. It just seemed that ever post he answered had to veer off onto his path. I think the poster who got pissed off had a right to his feelings. I will just say he was not the only poster who was getting a little upset. Now if you feel that Bleauberry should keep repeating the same things over and over that is your right.
Really time to drop this Janejane. You enjoyed reading his posts over and over and some did not.That's life.
Posted by Sigismund on January 14, 2010, at 16:43:15
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back, posted by bulldog2 on January 14, 2010, at 16:11:46
>It just seemed that ever post he answered had to veer off onto his path
Yeah, you're right, but isn't this true of everyone?
Posted by bulldog2 on January 14, 2010, at 17:20:55
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back, posted by Sigismund on January 14, 2010, at 16:43:15
> >It just seemed that ever post he answered had to veer off onto his path
>
> Yeah, you're right, but isn't this true of everyone?No I don't find that true. Most just answer a question and stop. From being around macrobiotic people years ago he began to sound obsessed with his viewpoint and had an obsessional quality to it. Now it's one thing to bring a variety of viewpoints into your spectrum of possibilities but he was really starting to preach. I think some picked up more of that quality to his posts than others.
Posted by bulldog2 on January 14, 2010, at 17:22:41
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back, posted by Sigismund on January 14, 2010, at 16:43:15
> >It just seemed that ever post he answered had to veer off onto his path
>
> Yeah, you're right, but isn't this true of everyone?Time to put this thing to rest. Some really liked his posts and want him back. Others didn't. I hope he does well on his path. It could be that he was really onto something.
Posted by tea on January 14, 2010, at 17:50:46
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back, posted by Sigismund on January 14, 2010, at 16:43:15
> >It just seemed that ever post he answered had to veer off onto his path
>
> Yeah, you're right, but isn't this true of everyone?
sure is for me. I find it really really hard to stay on any track!(impossible methinks for me, sigh)
Note to self- break into little piecesBTW I like what I saw of blueberry's posts but I haven't read enough to comment I guess,and I am not going to plough through the posts to be able to give an "fully informed" viewpoint. He's definitely never triggered that 'sting' to me that some posters do, and never annoyed me either.
Posted by Phillipa on January 14, 2010, at 19:06:57
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back, posted by bulldog2 on January 14, 2010, at 15:57:33
Not quite true but can not divudge info here that is not my right. And please do not be uncivil about bb posts. I like him and myself not severly depressed. I find this forum has all sorts of conditions. Not just TRD. What about newbies and first meds? Also Many other topics. Bipolar is a very frequent topic here with mood stabalizers. Just my opinion. Phillipa
Posted by janejane on January 14, 2010, at 19:15:03
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back, posted by bulldog2 on January 14, 2010, at 17:22:41
I wouldn't want to feel like I couldn't share things I think might be helpful just because some other babblers might find it repetitive. I know that when I'm able to give a tidbit of info here and there it's often something that someone else here has already said but that the original poster wasn't aware of. I don't think there's anything wrong with that since not everyone is going to go digging through the archives and they may not be exposed to the info otherwise. What may be old news to you might be new to them, and possibly extremely helpful.
I guess part of my rationale is that if you happen not to care for someone's posts, it's easy enough to just skip over them. Same thing with threads that are rehashes of old topics.
But yes, let's drop this. None of this changes the fact that Bleauberry was a well-meaning guy and I feel bad that he might have felt driven away.
Posted by Phillipa on January 14, 2010, at 20:09:48
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back » bulldog2, posted by janejane on January 14, 2010, at 19:15:03
Great idea. Love Phillipa
Posted by bleauberry on January 15, 2010, at 16:48:44
In reply to Blueaberry Please come back, posted by Phillipa on January 11, 2010, at 13:38:31
"Everyone must be their own advocate, because no one else is going to do it for you."
Posted by KaylaBear on January 15, 2010, at 21:28:27
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back, posted by Sigismund on January 14, 2010, at 14:30:38
It seems many of us are biased in some way or another. After all, many of us state our subjective experiences here to try and help one another.
I've been lingering with TRD, though I have not tried "every" drug. My soapbox routine is therapy. I was in therapy for years, but the wrong type. It did nothing for me. Having rentered therapy, I discovered the source of my anxiety and also gained insight into the source of my depression. So, of course I think that some with TRD may also benefit from it, and I will state this because we are all free to contribute our personal knowledge and experiences, and whoever reads about them can take what they want and leave behind what they do not want.
Although I would like to inform others about therapy, I still believe people should take medications. The problem is, taking medications does not always address the underlying cause. Maladaptive behavior, which some experts say changes our brain/cognition patterns (such as the author to the articles below) is not even considered by many.
There is plenty of research on attachment and I think some would benefit by learning about it, as I have. Especially those whose depression emerged either during or after a love relationship. The article below is not just about flashbacks of PTSD-its about patterns of relating. The result of insecure parental attachments can surface years after repression and more functional behavior. But it wears you down-it takes so much mental energy to maintain your psychological defenses. When we get older, we can lose our ability to maintain such defenses, and can experience TRD when the underlying issues are ignored for years.
In reading many of the posts here, largely the more descriptive ones, I sometimes feel the person who is suffering is experiencing this (antecdotally--this is especially true of those who never had depression prior to being in or after the end of a romantic relationship). It practically jumps out on the screen:
http://www.pete-walker.com/fAQsComplexPTSD.html
Psychogenesis of the PTSD Critic:
A flashback-inducing critic is typically spawned in a danger-laden childhood home. When parents do not provide safe enough bonding and attachment, the child flounders in abandonment fear and depression. Many children appear to be hard-wired to adapt to this endangering abandonment with perfectionism. This is true for both the passive abandonment of neglect and the active abandonment of abuse. A prevailing climate of danger forces the maturing superego to cultivate the various psychodynamics of perfectionism and endangerment listed at the end of this article. When anxious perfectionist efforting, however, fails over and over to render the parents safe and loving, the inner critic becomes increasingly hypervigilant and hostile in its striving to ferret out the shortcomings that seemingly alienate the parents. Like the soldier overlong in combat, PTSD sets in and locks the child into hypervigilance and excessive sympathetic nervous system arousal. Desperate to relieve the anxiety and depression of abandonment, the critic-driven child searches the present, and the future, for all the ways he is too much or not enough. The childs nascent ego finds no room to develop and her identity virtually becomes the superego. In the process, the critic often becomes virulent and eventually switches to the first person when goading the child: Im such a loser. Im so pathetic bad... uglyworthlessstupid...defective. One of my clients grief-fully remembered the constant refrains of his childhood: If only I wasnt so needy and selfishif only my freckles would fade...if only I could pitch a perfect game...if only I could stop gagging on the canned peas during dinner...if only I could pray all the time to get moms arthritis cured - then maybe shed stop picking on me, and then maybe dad would play catch with me.
Thoughts As Triggers In extremely rejecting families, the child eventually comes to believe that even her normal needs, preferences, feelings and boundaries are dangerous imperfections justifiable reasons for punishment and/or abandonment. In the worst case scenarios - where parents use childrens words as ammunition against them - the mere impulse to speak sometimes triggers intense feelings of panic. How could anything the child says not reveal his stupidity and worthlessness...not get him deeper into trouble and rejection? As ongoing neglect and abuse repetitively strengthen the critic, even the most innocuous, self-interested thought or musing can trigger a five alarm fire of intense emotional flashback. To maintain the illusive hope of someday winning parental approval, the childs anxious striving escalates, and may even become a perfectionism that is truly obsessive/compulsive.
Complex PTSD as an Attachment Disorder:
Polarization to a fight, flight, freeze or fawn response is not only the developing child's unconscious attempt to obviate danger, but also a strategy to purchase some illusion or modicum of attachment. All 4F types are commonly ambivalent about real intimacy because deep relating so easily triggers them into painful emotional flashbacks (see my article in The East Bay Therapist (Sept/Oct 05): "Flashback Management in the Treatment of Complex PTSD". Emotional Flashbacks are instant and sometimes prolonged regressions into the intense, overwhelming feeling states of childhood abuse and neglect: fear, shame, alienation, rage, grief and/or depression. Habituated 4F defenses offer protection against further re-abandonment hurts by precluding the type of vulnerable relating that is prone to re-invoke childhood feelings of being attacked, unseen, and unappreciated. Fight types avoid real intimacy by unconsciously alienating others with their angry and controlling demands for the unmet childhood need of unconditional love; flight types stay perpetually busy and industrious to avoid potentially triggering interactions; freeze types hide away in their rooms and reveries; and fawn types avoid emotional investment and potential disappointment by barely showing themselves - by hiding behind their helpful personas, over-listening, over-eliciting or overdoing for the other - by giving service but never risking real self-exposure and the possibility of deeper level rejection. Here then, are further descriptions of the 4F defenses with specific recommendations for treatment. All types additionally need and benefit greatly from the multidimensional treatment approach described in the article above, and in my East Bay Therapist article (Sept/Oct06): "Shrinking The Inner Critic in Complex PTSD", which describes thirteen toxic superegoic processes of perfectionism and endangerment that dominate the psyches of all 4F types in varying ways.
http://www.pete-walker.com/fourFs_TraumaTypologyComplexPTSD.htm
Posted by KaylaBear on January 15, 2010, at 22:03:46
In reply to Re: Blueaberry Please come back » janejane, posted by Phillipa on January 14, 2010, at 20:09:48
The DSM was created for the military years ago and is basically just a classification of symptoms. It does not help identify the underlying causes of depression, anxiety, or TRD. Most psychiatrists seem to be trained to treat symptoms. Hopefully understanding potential underlying causes of depression and anxiety can bring new awareness to some who are suffering from TRD.
I posted the wrong article-this is the article I meant to post:
What may I have been misdiagnosed with?
Renowned traumatologist, John Briere, is said to have quipped that if Complex PTSD were ever given its due that is, if the role of dysfunctional parenting in adult psychological disorders was ever fully recognized, the DSM [The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders used by all mental health professionals] would shrink to the size of a thin pamphlet. It currently resembles a large dictionary. In my experience, many clients with Complex PTSD have been misdiagnosed with various anxiety and depressive disorders, as well as bipolar, narcissistic, codependent and borderline disorders. Further confusion arises in the case of ADHD [Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder], as well as obsessive/compulsive disorder, which is sometimes more accurately described as an excessive, fixated flight response to trauma. This is also true of ADD [Attention Deficit Disorder] and some dissociative disorders which are similarly excessive, fixated freeze responses to trauma. [See my article A Trauma Typology.]
This is not to say that those so diagnosed do not have issues that are similar and correlative with said disorders, but that these labels are incomplete and unnecessarily shaming descriptions of what the client is afflicted with. Calling complex PTSD panic disorder is like calling food allergies chronically itchy eyes; over-focusing treatment on the symptoms of panic in the former case and eye health in the latter does little to get at root causes. Feelings of panic or itchiness in the eyes can be masked with medication, but all the other associated problems that cause these symptoms will remain untreated. Moreover most of the diagnoses mentioned above imply deep innate characterological defects rather than the learned maladaptations to stress that children of trauma are forced to make adaptations, once again that were learned and can therefore usually be extinguished and replaced with more functional adaptations to stress.
In this vein, I believe that many substance and process addictions also begin as misguided, maladaptations to parental abuse and abandonment early adaptations that are attempts to soothe and distract from the mental and emotional pain of complex PTSD.
Posted by bleauberry on January 16, 2010, at 5:05:42
In reply to clarification, posted by KaylaBear on January 15, 2010, at 22:03:46
Well, the first article you posted hit the nail on the head for me. I've been through lots of psychotherapy and during that time the issue of abandonment was uncovered to be the big underlying issue of my life. It began in the first 2 years of my life...much abandonment in that timeframe. And it didn't really show its ugly head until the first longterm love relationship broke up. Even with all the therapy and understanding, this is still an issue today and is without question a big player. Heck, even the wrong meds can set it off bigtime. The right meds tame it down, but are so hard to find.
And then your second article takes it further. I like the analogy of the itchy eye. I guess that makes the point I try to make here all the time. Treat the symptoms of depression, yes, but don't stop there. Take a more comprehensive approach than merely a prescription pill. Focus on the obvious big players, such as mercury, lead, food or other sensitivities, thyroid, adrenal, fungal and bacterial pathologies. It's hard though, because the trials and failures of psych meds in our effort to resolve symptoms usually takes away most of our drive to gather the wisdom and plans we need. We get stuck in psychmed toolbox.
All much easier said than done. And little research or facts involved, so each is on his/her own to be their own advocate. The choice of doctors, tests, protocols, meds, and supplements, are all ultimately the job of the patient.
But we are fortunate to live in a country and a time of history where we have these choices.
Posted by Jeroen on January 16, 2010, at 5:15:32
In reply to Re: clarification » KaylaBear, posted by bleauberry on January 16, 2010, at 5:05:42
hey you're back
i'm starting Glycine therapy next week
i've read it calms down people with manic depression
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.