![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 50 to 74 of 95. Go back in thread:
Posted by olivia12 on September 22, 2010, at 20:54:15
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged?, posted by huxley on September 22, 2010, at 20:27:30
Most people DO benefit from the efforts of psychology. However, it's a tandem effort--with the larger effort on your part. It's very hard work to get well. You need to work with the meds and the side effects and want to feel better/have a better life. A little pill is not a "cure-all". Whenever I have been involved in good therapy, I found it to be very hard work. When it was no longer difficult, I knew I was done:)The point is, no matter how flawed you might find modern day medicine, nobody's gonna fix what's wrong with you without some serious effort on your part. Again, this is just IMO.
Posted by SLS on September 23, 2010, at 0:35:27
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged?, posted by olivia12 on September 22, 2010, at 20:54:15
Hi Olivia.
I am curious about your perspective on medication.
> A little pill is not a "cure-all".
I have two questions:
1. If it doesn't cure all, then what DOES it cure?
2. If it doesn't cure all, then what does it NOT cure?
- Scott
Posted by olivia12 on September 23, 2010, at 7:09:31
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged? » olivia12, posted by SLS on September 23, 2010, at 0:35:27
I'm not sure if you're joking, Scott, but I believe meds to be an adjunct to therapy. At best, they may round out the rough edges of MI. I don't really understand your comment?
Posted by SLS on September 23, 2010, at 7:25:34
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged?, posted by olivia12 on September 23, 2010, at 7:09:31
> I'm not sure if you're joking, Scott, but I believe meds to be an adjunct to therapy. At best, they may round out the rough edges of MI. I don't really understand your comment?
I was sincere in my inquiry.
I am trying to understand what people mean when they say that a pill is not sufficient to produce a remission of depression. So, my question is:
What will a pill NOT do?
The more specific you can be, the better I will be able to understand. I think something productive may come from this discussion.
Thanks. I appreciate it.
- Scott
Posted by huxley on September 23, 2010, at 18:36:30
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged? » olivia12, posted by SLS on September 23, 2010, at 7:25:34
Hi Scott,
You seem to be pretty switched on and have a good insight into the field of psychiatry. Maybe you can help me out here.
Why do a large majority of doctors deny that there is withdrawal from medications. Even when the evidence is staring them right in the face.
I and many other have experienced horrible withdrawal from SSRI/NIs and Neuroleptics. I have read horror stories about TCAs, MAOIs and mood stabalisers.
Why do doctors continue to deny this and cling to the line that it is our original symptoms returning.
There are many cases where people have been put on SSRIs for pain relief or other off label reasons.
Once these people quit they are struck down with severe depression and anxiety even though they have never experienced it before.
Could it be the case, that many of us would not be in a better place mentally if we never took medication? I think that there could be some merit to that claim.
Most of us have a similar story. We take an SSRI for our original problem. It works great at first. 2-3 years down the track it stops working and we are often worse of than we were before we started. Doctors claim that this is the illness progressing. But is it? What is to say that the SSRI has not thrown our brains out of balance?
Have there been any long term studies done comparing people who get treatment with meds vs people who don't?
Will this 'illness progressing' theory be as valid as the 'chemical imbalance' theory?
If someone is on a neuroleptic, (which I think are quite dangerous medications)and they try to stop only to me met with horrible physical and mental withdrawal syndromes. They are then told that this is their original condition returning. This is what they are like without their medication and are hence condemmed to a life on neuroleptics when in fact they could be fine without them.
Interested on your insights into this. Why are doctors so stubborn with refusing to believe that people suffer serious withdrawal. Who is educating them? I just am totally bamboozeled by their denial of withdrawal even when faced with overwhelming evidence.Doctors are not stupid people, they are often highly intelligent, the cream of the academic crop. How can they be so blind in this instance? Is it an ego or personality thing? Or is it something more sinister and they are being taught to deny it?
Also you mentioned in an earlier post that they can see the damage to the brain from depression through brain scans.Is this a new development? Can they take an image of 10 peoples brains, 5 who have depression and 5 who don't and identify the ones with depression?
I thought the signs of depression they could identify were not consistant and contradicted others findings.I thought that it was a pretty fledgling science and nothing conclusive had come out of it yet.
Posted by olivia12 on September 23, 2010, at 19:21:27
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged? » olivia12, posted by SLS on September 23, 2010, at 7:25:34
Scott, I was merely referring to the idea that many people hold re: anti-depressants and the like. They often times consider it a magic bullet--a utopia that only requires one to swallow a pill. From my own experiences, the meds only serve to take the edge off so that I am more able to help myself to feel better. A friend of mine described her experience when on Paxil as this "it helps me to have more good days than bad". For me, this is the best explanation of why I still bother with them. I try to find the one with the fewest side effects and just suck up the nasty withdrawal, as I know that this is only temporary payback. They allow me to be a bit less tempermental and negative and just kinda tweak my vantage point. Hope I answered your question and thanks for asking:)
Posted by huxley on September 23, 2010, at 19:28:30
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged?, posted by olivia12 on September 23, 2010, at 19:21:27
> Scott, I was merely referring to the idea that many people hold re: anti-depressants and the like. They often times consider it a magic bullet--a utopia that only requires one to swallow a pill. From my own experiences, the meds only serve to take the edge off so that I am more able to help myself to feel better. A friend of mine described her experience when on Paxil as this "it helps me to have more good days than bad". For me, this is the best explanation of why I still bother with them. I try to find the one with the fewest side effects and just suck up the nasty withdrawal, as I know that this is only temporary payback. They allow me to be a bit less tempermental and negative and just kinda tweak my vantage point. Hope I answered your question and thanks for asking:)
Olivia I think the distinction needs to be made that some people get withdrawal that lasts for years and completly derails their lives where they end up physically and mentally debilitated. A little hard to just suck that up. Others like yourself can come and go off the meds with no problems.
Posted by olivia12 on September 23, 2010, at 19:40:28
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged?, posted by huxley on September 23, 2010, at 19:28:30
Huxley, I can only speak from my own experience. I can't say if my withdrawal was better or worse than your own. I do know that the 1st time I went off a drug I was blown away by how horrible I felt--both physically and emotionally. I called the doc and he had little to say--he sounded like I was the 1st patient with side effects! And so, I researched and found that my symptoms were normal. Luckily, they did go away and so I can't respond to your comment re: years of withdrawal effects. I do think the psych community is a bit irresponsible in discussing the probable withdrawal effects though. Maybe they don't want to deter their patients from pursuing a medical regime? When getting off of some of the AD's that I have tried, I have felt crazier than I ever did before ever taking anything. However, my experiences have never been so awful that I have regetted my choice to take the drug(s).
Posted by SLS on September 23, 2010, at 22:00:09
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged? » SLS, posted by huxley on September 23, 2010, at 18:36:30
Hi Huxley.
> You seem to be pretty switched on and have a good insight into the field of psychiatry.
Not nearly enough to speak intelligently about psychiatry as a whole.
> Maybe you can help me out here.
> Why do a large majority of doctors deny that there is withdrawal from medications. Even when the evidence is staring them right in the face.It wasn't my intention to debate the competency of psychiatry. I was just curious what people mean when they say that a pill won't do everything.
> Also you mentioned in an earlier post that they can see the damage to the brain from depression through brain scans.
Yup.
> Is this a new development?
No. As early as 1992, PET scans revealed differences in brain activity between those affected by depression (MDD and BD) and healthy volunteers.
> Can they take an image of 10 peoples brains, 5 who have depression and 5 who don't and identify the ones with depression?
Yes.
> I thought the signs of depression they could identify were not consistant and contradicted others findings.
There is debate regarding some details. There is less so regarding the existence of phenotypic differences.
> I thought that it was a pretty fledgling science and nothing conclusive had come out of it yet.
Fledgling, perhaps. Nothing conclusive? I disagree. I guess it is a matter of perspective. The most important perspective to me is that I was born much too early. This is probably true of most of the people who post here. I have been watching the evolution of biological psychiatry since 1982. There has been a relative explosion in data, but not sufficient understanding as to how all the pieces of the puzzle fit.
What will a pill do?
What will a pill not do?
- Scott
Posted by olivia12 on September 23, 2010, at 22:05:36
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged? » huxley, posted by SLS on September 23, 2010, at 22:00:09
A pill will not do the work of living for you. A pill will only act as an assist--you will need to pick up the slack.
Posted by SLS on September 23, 2010, at 22:27:19
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged?, posted by olivia12 on September 23, 2010, at 19:21:27
Hi Olivia
> They often times consider it a magic bullet--
When I was responsive to antidepressants and before I was inadvertantly mistreated, pills were absolute magic for me. When I respond, it feels like the whole world changes and that I become more functional in it. My perceptions change. My thoughts become clearer, more energetic, more efficient, and less negative.
> a utopia that only requires one to swallow a pill.
I believe that drugs, when they work, facilitate and allow one to build their own utopia, or at least make the most of what they have available to actualize with. This is what the pills won't do: They won't build a life for someone who has none. That's work that anyone must do for themselves, whether an MI is present or not. Psychotherapy can serve many purposes to help one to recover from depression, including attending to those elements of an individual's psyche that may contribute to its precipitation and persistence.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 23, 2010, at 22:34:41
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged?, posted by olivia12 on September 23, 2010, at 22:05:36
> A pill will not do the work of living for you.
We are obviously in agreement here.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by olivia12 on September 23, 2010, at 22:47:36
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged? » olivia12, posted by SLS on September 23, 2010, at 22:27:19
"before I was inadvertantly mistreated"
Yes, we do agree--minus this point...how were you mistreated? I will need to respond to you tomorrow as it is very late here and I need some sleep. Take care:)
Posted by SLS on September 23, 2010, at 22:56:35
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged?, posted by olivia12 on September 23, 2010, at 22:47:36
> "before I was inadvertantly mistreated"
>
>
> Yes, we do agree--minus this point...how were you mistreated? I will need to respond to you tomorrow as it is very late here and I need some sleep. Take care:)"Mistreated" may not have been the best choice of words. I just can't come up with a better one right now.
Long story. 20 years ago, doctors made treatment decisions that I believe led to a more treatment resistant depression. Of course, they thought that they were doing the right thing according to the treatment protocols popular at the time.
- Scott
Posted by Jeroen on September 24, 2010, at 8:56:28
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged? » olivia12, posted by SLS on September 23, 2010, at 22:56:35
yes mi brain is damaged from the lamictal,
cognitive, as well as a manic psychosis
Posted by olivia12 on September 24, 2010, at 18:39:01
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged? » olivia12, posted by SLS on September 23, 2010, at 22:56:35
Can you be more specific, Scott? What did they do that messed with your chemistry? How awful to be dealing with MI at such a young age. If we were talking present day, I would not have said that, but 20 years ago, kids were more rarely treated with meds. So, what happened?
Posted by olivia12 on September 24, 2010, at 21:06:08
In reply to Lou's request-pstralmahnn, posted by Lou Pilder on September 22, 2010, at 8:57:53
Lou, you still confound me. Despite your explanations, why do you post in the same manner every time? No disrespect meant, but I do not get your references to strange videos. You seem like a pretty well-read guy and so, what?
Posted by SLS on September 25, 2010, at 4:58:42
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged?, posted by olivia12 on September 24, 2010, at 18:39:01
> Can you be more specific, Scott? What did they do that messed with your chemistry?
I had become manic on Nardil. So, the Nardil was removed and both Thorazine and Prolixen added. Within a week, they put me back on Nardil. My manic reaction to this exposure was more severe than the original mania. I never responded to previously successful treatments again.
- Scott
Posted by Jeroen on September 25, 2010, at 9:00:31
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged?, posted by SLS on September 25, 2010, at 4:58:42
Q: Do psychiatrist gives us mania by accident?
is it because some psychiatrist are incompetent, or say lets try, we get in trouble and our brains damagedk, thats what happened to me, and i ve seen it happen to others aswell
Posted by huxley on September 26, 2010, at 2:29:55
In reply to Q: Do psychiatrist gives us mania by accident?, posted by Jeroen on September 25, 2010, at 9:00:31
> Q: Do psychiatrist gives us mania by accident?
>
> is it because some psychiatrist are incompetent, or say lets try, we get in trouble and our brains damagedk, thats what happened to me, and i ve seen it happen to others aswell
>
>Haven no doubt in my mind that meds cause mania in people that otherwise would not get it.
But what is mania? Drs seem to think anything is mania these days.
Posted by Jeroen on September 26, 2010, at 2:35:52
In reply to Re: Q: Do psychiatrist gives us mania by accident?, posted by huxley on September 26, 2010, at 2:29:55
mania = drug induced psychosis
Posted by Conundrum on September 26, 2010, at 10:26:50
In reply to Re: Q: Do psychiatrist gives us mania by accident?, posted by huxley on September 26, 2010, at 2:29:55
My pdoc thinks I was "slighty below hypomanic" when I was on prozac. A relative of mine said the thoughts she had on 60 mg of nardil were psychotic and her husband recommended that she stop it. She went back to 30mg and everything was fine. Dumb doc started her at 60mgs. Most docs would say the patient had latent BP disorder. DO THEY EVER THINK THAT THEY ARE GIVING PEOPLE DRUGS!??!?! DRUGS INDUCE MIND ALTERING STATES. DUH! ITS CALLED "TOO HIGH A DOSE" OR "THE DRUG WORKING TO WELL," NOT BP II.
Posted by olivia12 on September 27, 2010, at 12:37:58
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged?, posted by SLS on September 25, 2010, at 4:58:42
Maybe it was not the meds--maybe it was just you evolving into more pronounced version of what prompted the docs to medicate you? You did poorly on the original meds, but then switched to something more compatible to your chemistry--do you mean to say your brain chemistry was forever altered? I'm no trying to be argumentative or otherwise difficult, but I have never bought into the belief that brain structure/chemistry is changed forever after a medication is ceased. Enlighten me, Scott--why do you think this to be the case? You have a lot more insight than me here and I am only responding from my own experiences. Take care:)
Posted by olivia12 on September 27, 2010, at 12:40:17
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged?, posted by Jeroen on September 24, 2010, at 8:56:28
Perhaps that is not the best drug for you? Did you find something that did not cause you these awful side effects then?
Posted by SLS on September 27, 2010, at 15:44:35
In reply to Re: Have our brains been permanently damaged? » SLS, posted by olivia12 on September 27, 2010, at 12:37:58
> Maybe it was not the meds--maybe it was just you evolving into more pronounced version of what prompted the docs to medicate you?
What is the "it" you are referring to? I don't understand.
> do you mean to say your brain chemistry was forever altered?
Unfortunately.
As an example, neuroleptics can produce as a side effect irreversible tardive dyskinesia. You give someone Haldol, they develop a characteristic movement disorder, you stop the Haldol, and the movement disorder persists.
It may be that neuroplasticity tends to occur in one direction over another - downhill rather than uphill. My responsivity to antidepressants has decreased over the years. The drugs that worked 25 years ago do not work now. Something has changed. It seems that my responsivity to antidepressants has deteriorated over the years rather than being enhanced. How does one explain tachyphylaxis (poop-out), the phenomenon wherein an individual responds to drug treatment for only a short period of time? They seem to develop a resistance to ever responding to that drug again. It is the exposure of the brain to medication that is the stimulus for this to occur.
Scientists have been permanently altering (damaging) mouse and rat brains with chemicals as experiments for decades. They can even be selective in terms of the systems and regions of the brain they damage.
Does chronic alcohol consumption produce permanent changes in the brain? What prevents an antidepressant from doing the same thing?
Not only can chemicals produce permanent changes in the brain, but so can experiences. PTSD is a good example of how this can occur. Even experiences in the womb can determine many of the persistent behavioral traits that an individual will demonstrate for the rest of their lives.
- Scott
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.