![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 18 to 42 of 42. Go back in thread:
Posted by Squiggles on November 5, 2004, at 11:01:24
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 10:58:46
Your general approach is appreciated.
Notice, though, that nobody gets
political over ingrown toenails.Squiggles
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 11:10:27
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Squiggles on November 5, 2004, at 10:57:39
I would not refer to statistics, because I would not let statistics guide my life. If statistics show that it's a bigger chance that I get cured for lets say depression by taking antidepressives, I would still like to know about other treatments..... and if I could successfully be cured from something else that has no side effects I would like to try that first, even though there is slightly less chance that that will work.
You know, there is even statistics lead over people who has been cured of psychotherapy only. Just because MORE people get cured from medicines, doesn't mean that should be the only cure tried, or the only cure available. There are many studies showing that both depression, anxiety, certain sleeping disorders, personality disorders and hypomania has been cured by pure psychodynamic therapies. Just because the statistics show that less is cured by psychodynamic therapies than medical therapies doesnt mean that psychotherapy is invaluable.
I don't think there is statistics lead over schizofrenics cured by psychotherapy only, becaus ethere isn't many cases. I just used is an an example from the extreme. But it DOES exist references to cases of schizofrenics who has gotten cured by pure psychodynamic therapies in scientific litterature, so it does exist even if it is rare. I think it is important to keep thing slike that in mind, because truly it would be better if psychotherapy could be developed into a stage higher up than it is now.
Do also keep in mind that studies has shown that depressed people that are cured of psychotherapy only shows the exact same changes in the brains as people who are cured by SSRI. For me that means that psychotherapy must be good for something.
I think people would take horrid drugs anyway, otherwise: why are so many people still taking the horrid drugs when they have no or little effect on their mental disease or give side effects that is just as bad as the original mental disease?
Posted by Squiggles on November 5, 2004, at 11:20:16
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology » Squiggles, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 11:10:27
..........
> I think people would take horrid drugs anyway, otherwise: why are so many people still taking the horrid drugs when they have no or little effect on their mental disease or give side effects that is just as bad as the original mental disease?Sad Sara,
I hope that you are successful in trying something
like psychotherapy. I don't know what your
diagnosis or depression is like.
You ask above why are people still taking the
horrid drugs when they have- little
- no
- or worse effects than the disease;
And I think it's because, once you are on the
drugs,- you will be worse getting off
- your doctor cannot or will not get you off
- your biochemical state has become so used to
being on the drugs that it's risky to get off- or you may get off only to find that you were
sick after all, and become very ill;Good reasons to stay on if your dr.
had reason to put you on them, right;Squiggles
Posted by Squiggles on November 5, 2004, at 11:27:59
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Squiggles on November 5, 2004, at 11:20:16
> Sad Sara,
>
Sorry, One more reason to take and stay
on your drugs:- IF YOU DO SUCCEED IN WITHDRAWING, GETTING
BACK ON SOME DRUGS (e.g. Lithium) may no work
again the same way. Playing with drugs like
this all your life, is not only tiresome but
dangerous and very stressful. Stability is
the best that medicine can offer now.Squiggles
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 11:55:33
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Squiggles on November 5, 2004, at 11:20:16
>
> ..........
> > I think people would take horrid drugs anyway, otherwise: why are so many people still taking the horrid drugs when they have no or little effect on their mental disease or give side effects that is just as bad as the original mental disease?
>
> Sad Sara,
>
> I hope that you are successful in trying something
> like psychotherapy. I don't know what your
> diagnosis or depression is like.
>
>
> You ask above why are people still taking the
> horrid drugs when they have
>
> - little
>
> - no
>
> - or worse effects than the disease;
>
> And I think it's because, once you are on the
> drugs,
>
> - you will be worse getting off
>
> - your doctor cannot or will not get you off
>
> - your biochemical state has become so used to
> being on the drugs that it's risky to get off
>
> - or you may get off only to find that you were
> sick after all, and become very ill;
>
> Good reasons to stay on if your dr.
> had reason to put you on them, right;
>
> Squiggles
Good reason to try something else than medicines first, I think.
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 11:59:30
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Squiggles on November 5, 2004, at 11:27:59
BTW
If you contact Leigh McCullough Vaillant at Harvard University I am sure she can give you an overview over psychotherapies effects contra medical effects. She has cured a lot of depressed people that did NOT have any positive effects of their medication. She has also made a lot of people so well that they don't need their medication anymore.
Posted by Squiggles on November 5, 2004, at 12:01:33
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 11:55:33
Hindsight is very powerful.
I hope you succeed without meds.
Squiggles
> Good reason to try something else than medicines first, I think.
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 12:15:30
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Squiggles on November 5, 2004, at 12:01:33
Please don't misunderstand me Squiggles, I do believe that for a lot of people there is no other option than medicine, I just say that we shouldn't forget that there exist other options that are good. I'm not saying at all that I would never use medications, or anything in that direction. Some people that has been healed from psychotherapy alone might feel hurt, or feel that they are accused of lying, or feel that their mental disease is not important if your words are picked up as "medication is the only thing valuable enough to be used for treating mental disease", if you understand what I mean.
Posted by Squiggles on November 5, 2004, at 12:17:56
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 11:59:30
> BTW
>
> If you contact Leigh McCullough Vaillant at Harvard University
...........Thank you. I wish i had the nerve. I take
only 3 drugs, only one of which is truly
a psych drug, and i almost killed myself
trying to get off the anxiolytic.I've been on lithium for 25 years. I think
that presents a challenge to any doctor.Perhaps others can benefit from your support.
Squiggles
Posted by Squiggles on November 5, 2004, at 12:25:13
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 12:15:30
> Please don't misunderstand me Squiggles, I do believe that for a lot of people there is no other option than medicine, I just say that we shouldn't forget that there exist other options that are good. I'm not saying at all that I would never use medications, or anything in that direction. Some people that has been healed from psychotherapy alone might feel hurt, or feel that they are accused of lying, or feel that their mental disease is not important if your words are picked up as "medication is the only thing valuable enough to be used for treating mental disease", if you understand what I mean.
Now you know i didn't say or mean that;
to the contrary i said, I hope that psychotherapy
works for you; moreover, i said that if it
does work, it's better than putting up with
the side effects of drugs that many people
experience.I wish I were in your fresh position to try it
without meds.To your health;
Squiggles
Posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2004, at 13:52:35
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 10:48:58
> You are mixing a bit here... "Psychiatry" is a branch in medicine, I think you are thinking of Psychology.
Nope, I meant psychiatry. The DSM is a psychiatric classification system that lists different mental disorders according to syndrome. There is dispute around whether the current disorders / syndromes are discrete and valid. Some people prefer a symptom approach, so that the focus of research is individual symptoms such as delusions or hallucinations rather than greater syndromes which are diagnosed on the basis of a patients meeting some prescribed threshold for displaying a certian number of symptoms. There is a concern that by taking syndromes as the basic unit of research the clinical samples are too heterogeneous as different people may meet criteria on the basis of displaying different symptoms. A consequence of this may be that we miss interesting generalisations that apply to subjects with the same symptom, such as hallucinations or delusions.
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 14:18:24
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology » Sad Sara, posted by Squiggles on November 5, 2004, at 12:25:13
> > Please don't misunderstand me Squiggles, I do believe that for a lot of people there is no other option than medicine, I just say that we shouldn't forget that there exist other options that are good. I'm not saying at all that I would never use medications, or anything in that direction. Some people that has been healed from psychotherapy alone might feel hurt, or feel that they are accused of lying, or feel that their mental disease is not important if your words are picked up as "medication is the only thing valuable enough to be used for treating mental disease", if you understand what I mean.
>
>
> Now you know i didn't say or mean that;
> to the contrary i said, I hope that psychotherapy
> works for you; moreover, i said that if it
> does work, it's better than putting up with
> the side effects of drugs that many people
> experience.
>
> I wish I were in your fresh position to try it
> without meds.
>
> To your health;
>
> Squiggles
>Ah oki ;)
I think I'm getting too paranoid of being misunderstood, hehe.Sara
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 14:24:23
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology » Sad Sara, posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2004, at 13:52:35
> > You are mixing a bit here... "Psychiatry" is a branch in medicine, I think you are thinking of Psychology.
>
> Nope, I meant psychiatry. The DSM is a psychiatric classification system that lists different mental disorders according to syndrome. There is dispute around whether the current disorders / syndromes are discrete and valid. Some people prefer a symptom approach, so that the focus of research is individual symptoms such as delusions or hallucinations rather than greater syndromes which are diagnosed on the basis of a patients meeting some prescribed threshold for displaying a certian number of symptoms. There is a concern that by taking syndromes as the basic unit of research the clinical samples are too heterogeneous as different people may meet criteria on the basis of displaying different symptoms. A consequence of this may be that we miss interesting generalisations that apply to subjects with the same symptom, such as hallucinations or delusions.
>
Ok, then I understand what you mean too. Though both DSM IV-R and ICD are both used among psychiatrists and psychologist, and a lot of poeple seem to think that because psychologists don't have a medical background they are more a pseudo science than psychiatry. Which at some apsects could be true, and on other aspect could be false.There is lamost the same amount of cons as pros in using a diagnostic manual as DSM, but it is important to keep that discussion up so its a greater chance that a better diagnositc manual can be made.
I think I misunderstood you because the beginning of the thread was mixing psychology with psychiatry, I apologize correcting something that was not wrong :-)
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 14:58:35
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Squiggles on November 5, 2004, at 12:17:56
>
> Thank you. I wish i had the nerve. I take
> only 3 drugs, only one of which is truly
> a psych drug, and i almost killed myself
> trying to get off the anxiolytic.
>
> I've been on lithium for 25 years. I think
> that presents a challenge to any doctor.
>
> Perhaps others can benefit from your support.
>
> SquigglesI don't know if you get lithium for mania, but if you do, I must say that with some diseases relieving symptoms quick is more important than searching for a cure without side effects. If you enter a manic state, it can be devastating to just try psychotherapy and no medications, and that is of course also valid for other mental problems.
You know yourself best (at least one usually know oneself best), you have to choose what is best for you from the options you have...
But I still HAVE to come with the argument that studies have shown that the absolute most efficient therapy is a combination of medications and psychotherapy, I hope you don't feel like I am nagging now.
If you want, I can tell you a small part of my own story with anxiety... (later I found out I had the diagnose GAD with panick attacks).
When my father died went into major depression, with it came anxiety, that stayed just as intense whether my depression was major or minor the next years. It paralyzed me. I did not understand what it was, I thought I had a physical disease. But I didn't manage to go to the doctor to ask. I couldn't go outside the door. I mostly sat in the corner of my apartemnet and stared out in the room, terrified thatsomeone would call, look in my window or knock on my door. I was simply deadly scared that someone would notice that I existed, I don't know why (but who said that you have to understand your madness to be mad- I really felt that I was mad, though I don't like that word). This lasted for almost a year. It intruded my studies, my relationships, my social world. I could not think about getting the mail (30 second walk away from my door), if I had to go shopping food I would need six hours to prepare (which included throwing up of pure anxiety). At some point I managed to go to the doctor.The doctor told me that I was 'stressed', then he explained how that affected my body so that I got sick. Then he sent me home sayng that he couldn't do anything because I was 'not' sick! If I had been more depressed at that moment, I would have killed myself of the prospect of not having anyone to cure me. I did not know how to come in touch with a psychologist (the doc did not tell me how, nor did he advice me to), and considering how much it had costed me to get to the doc... looking up a psychlogist and go to regular apointments was not an option.
So I went home. And because my main problem was anxiety, and not depression, I was furious (I had a pretty bad temper, probably one of the reasons I made it that far despite my mental problems). I cried, I was angry, I vomited of hopelessness. After a few days I had thought about it, decided that there was no one there to help me, and I had to make a choice. Did I want to continue living the way I did, or did I want to get back my own life, or did I want to die. I did not want to continue the way I did, but i didn't want to die either. I found myself all the books I could about anxiety... but NOT about how to treat it. Just 'what is it'. I had to agree at some point that the doctor was right, only that the label was 'anxiety' and not 'stress'. I decided to take control over the situation, and very carefully I started forcing myself to do all the tings I was scared of. Repeating mantras in my head to distract me. It took me almost three years. But then I could not only go shopping and get the mail, I could take a bus, go to the movies etcetc. I learned later that what I had been using was "exposing therapy" (Im not sure of the word in English?), which is one of the most efficient therapies in treating anxiety. If I had been with a therpaist he could probably have cured my anxiety a lot faster, but for me what was important was to get rid of the anxiety.
Of course this would not work for everyone, but sometimes it is worth trying? I am quite happy that the doctor didn't give me benzodiazepines for example, even though I think he could have helped me a bit more than he did. It is now 5 years ago since I declared myself not bothered by anxiety anymore, and I haven't had one panick attack, and hardly ever felt anything resembling GAD. I still don't like big open space with lots of people, but I don't feel fear when crossing that space. But the last year I have been using anti depressives because my depression seems not to be curable with any of the psychotherapies that has been tried so far. I do not stop using psychotherapy even though I am on medications... simply because I feel that the depression has been twisting the thoughts in my head so much that I need guidance in making them good and healthy for me. And more, but I wont bore you with that...
But maybe you understand that I value both psychotherapies and medications, I didn't mean to glorify psychotherapy as such :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2004, at 16:02:39
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 14:24:23
> Ok, then I understand what you mean too. Though both DSM IV-R and ICD are both used among psychiatrists and psychologist, and a lot of poeple seem to think that because psychologists don't have a medical background they are more a pseudo science than psychiatry. Which at some apsects could be true, and on other aspect could be false.
It is true that both psychiatrists and psychologists use DSM, but the DSM taskforce is comprised of members of the American Psychiatric Association and so it is more psychiatry than psychology. Psychologists get the credit for most of the lovely diagnostic tests, however.
The medication part of psychiatry seems to be closely alligned with medicine. But then things such as activity scheduling and relaxation training are typically taught by psychologists and they clearly have a physiological basis for their effectiveness.
There is controversy over whether psychoanalysis is a 'real science' or a 'pseudo-science'. Half the trouble comes with the difficulty in spelling out just what is distinctive about a 'real science'. Some people maintain that it shouldn't be viewed as a science - it is an art, and I have sympathy with that line.
Cognitive Neuro-psychologists have recently turned to studying individual psychiatric symptoms, such as delusions. Typically in the cases of neurological conditions (cerebral trauma) rather than the sorts of delusions typically found in psychiatric conditions, however. This branch os psychology is very scientific as it attempts to build cognitive models of processes such as belief formation or object recognition, or face recognition and then explains certain deluisons by positing a breakdown in the normal process of belief formation. If we then consider locations of cerebral trauma we can learn about how the cognitive model is realised on the psysical wetware of the brain. In this way we can come to learn the function of different areas. But then, this is scientific psychology.
The boundary between 'real science' and 'pseudo science' is fuzzy.
It always suprises me that psychiatrists do psychodynamic stuff whereas psychologists do CBT. I would have thought that the most 'scientific' pairing would be medication stuff, plus CBT. But, well, there it is.
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 16:48:28
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology » Sad Sara, posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2004, at 16:02:39
"It always suprises me that psychiatrists do psychodynamic stuff whereas psychologists do CBT. I would have thought that the most 'scientific' pairing would be medication stuff, plus CBT. But, well, there it is."
Yeah, me too! But maybe that is because after all, Freud was a psychiatrist and not a psychologist, and sometimes professional seems to prefer to "stick to their own", if you understand what I mean. CBT, as far as I know, more "founders" in the branch of psychology than at least psychoanalysis itself has...
But plainly, what I believe, is that medicine and psychology can both be accused of being "pseudo". In my personal opinion, using a medication that seems to work on (lets say) 50% of the poeple who has a certain problem... without really knowing WHY the medication is working is not very scientific in my point of view ;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2004, at 18:18:13
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 16:48:28
> Yeah, me too! But maybe that is because after all, Freud was a psychiatrist and not a psychologist, and sometimes professional seems to prefer to "stick to their own", if you understand what I mean.
Yes, I think I do get what you mean. There is a history there...
>In my personal opinion, using a medication that seems to work on (lets say) 50% of the poeple who has a certain problem... without really knowing WHY the medication is working is not very scientific in my point of view ;-)
Sure, though I would argue that that doesn't make psychiatry (the medication side of it) unscientific. There is ongoing research into just how the medication has the effects that it does and there is the hope that we may be able to develop medications that are more specific in their effects. This process of ongoing research and experimentation is (I would argue) just what does make the medical side of psychiatry scientific.
Just my opinion of course :-)
Posted by Fi on November 5, 2004, at 18:31:29
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 16:48:28
Apologies- I havent read all the posts. So sorry if repititions.
I agree that there is stigma about mental illness. For example, there have been programmes describing how Van Gogh and King George III had physical illnesses as if this was wonderful news and made their symptoms 'respectable'.
I dont think that this stigma means that we should see neurologists instead. There is certainly the issue that brain biology is changed in at least some people with psycholgical problems, but its unclear if these changes are the cause of the symptoms, or a result of them. Mind and body are of course closely linked.
It doesnt need to be medication or therapy- ideally its both (if its too much of a problem for therapy on its own to work). Sure, it would be good if we completely understood how the medication works. There is some understanding of the neurotransmitters and such, but actually drugs are often used when they arent completely understood (eg anaesthetics). On a pragmatic level.
In the UK, a range of mental health professional suggest or use CBT, usually only parts of it (or refer people to books). There are very few psychologists at all, let alone ones trained in CBT.
What a psychiatrist could offer (in a perfect world) would be some level of psychological therapies, or referral to relevant professionals, plus good knowledge of relevant drugs. As well as the linked skills in assessment (including risk assessment) and diagnosis.
Neurologists would only have part of that.
Anyway, what we need is less stigma and more treatment resources. These could be linked- its always easier to lobby for more neonatal cots than a unit for mental health rehabilitation.And government knows that, tho doesnt always go completely for public priorities (forunately!)
Fi
Posted by Squiggles on November 5, 2004, at 19:58:17
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Fi on November 5, 2004, at 18:31:29
I think that's a balanced perspective.
When I proposed neurology over psychiatry,
i did so mostly to stick to the clear picture
of what is going on in the brain, as trying
to "cure" or alleviate symptoms through CBT
etc., is much more difficult. Also, it
is fraught with subjective impressions,
misinterpretations, prejudices, etc.I like the pragmatic approach for myself
because i think i have had anxiety since
very early childhood - how that got to
be or whether it is endogenous -- who knows;
but it is so ingrained, even in my breathing,
that meds are the best approach.That is just an example.
Squiggles
Posted by maryx on November 5, 2004, at 20:47:19
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Squiggles on November 5, 2004, at 19:58:17
I had childhood epilepsy and then developed borderline personality disorder as a teenager. I went to the same dr. for both.But at that time (the seventies) there was no treatment for bpd except institutionalization; so that's what happened to me. Now I take a lot of medicine, from a neuropsychiatrist, for that.Also, if we were treated by neurologists, the state and federal governments would have to give financial parity to "mental illnesses." It's not going to happen in my lifetime because there still is no one strong advocate for it in political power.
Posted by Squiggles on November 5, 2004, at 21:24:13
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by maryx on November 5, 2004, at 20:47:19
I'm sorry you have these ailments to
live with, and i hope that your neuropsychiatrist
is good.I never thought of your argument but
it is a very enlightening one. Yup,
your finger on the button.Squiggles
Posted by Fi on November 8, 2004, at 14:43:42
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Squiggles on November 5, 2004, at 19:58:17
I agree, and I think we have it in common that there isnt some neat psychological 'reason'. And there are so many counselling/therapy theories- they cant all be right!
I have got nowhere with counselling/therapy except to get support (nice at the time, but you cant have counselling for ever!) I know that other people do find these approaches very useful, and work thru issues. But didnt work for me.
So I depend on meds, and try to increase my armoury of ways to try and get thru the really bad patches (one minute at a time...) Thank god that meds are there too.
Fi
Posted by Squiggles on November 8, 2004, at 20:38:48
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Fi on November 8, 2004, at 14:43:42
A bit of both in the right amount and
the right kind - good Rx -- famous
and very difficult to live up to, words :-)Squiggles
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 9, 2004, at 19:48:45
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology » Sad Sara, posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2004, at 18:18:13
Coming late to this thread, after some musing and some procrastination....
Psychiatry is, IMHO, applied neurology. The limitations of psychiatry are those of neurology, plus the inherent uncertainty of classifying disease/disorder/syndrome based solely on behaviour.
We know so little about the workings of the brain that we cannot even say why the meds we currently use have the effects that they do (or lack of effects, as the case may be). We speak of "serotonin reuptake inhibition" as if it is a rebalancer of brain chemistry. But, if it is as we say, how is it that the antidepressant effect takes weeks to emerge? If you take LSD, or peyote, you get an immediate effect mediated by serotonin. That is not at all what we are dealing with in respect of antidepressants. Yet we speak as if we know what is going on. Hardly.
I see no great divide between neurology and psychiatry. They are partners and interactors. They each feed from the discoveries of the other. They grow, together. Any distinction between the two realms is arbitrary, just as is mental diagnosis.
Mother Nature doesn't draw lines between groups. That's totally human nature at work. The DSM, the ICD, they are our best but wholly imperfect systems of categorization. But is it not so that the intellectual reserve we maintain when we consider these guides is simply evidence of their arbitrary and simplistic nature? Let's not forget that a major impetus for the development of the DSM was to standardize insurance billing for mental health issues. The accountants just wouldn't accept "he's a little neurotic and a bit of an oddball" as a diagnosis, and write the cheque. They wanted a little bit more detail than that.
One of the primary failings of the DSM/ICD is that it is an observational system of classification. Are we to assume that each practitioner will see an identical example of "major depression, recurrent" or "narcissistic personality disorder" when patients present themselves? Of course not. So, they had to make the definitions a little fuzzier, or groups (a.k.a. diagnoses) would not likely coalesce from the hodge-podge of behaviour at all. "5 of this list of 9 symptoms, but not any of those down at the end (the differentials)." That's hardly scientific. And, who is to say that a particular collection of behaviours has an identical cause in two different subjects? That's where it really falls apart.
Depression of mood is a symptom, yet it is treated in current medical practise as if it is a clear-cut disease. As a symptom, though, it is heterogenous (having many possible causes). Arthralgia (often mis-spoken of as arthritis), or joint pain, is a symptom of at least 180 different and distinct disorders. Some of the treatments work for more than one of those disorders. Others might even work for most of the real causes of the joint pain, but no treatment works for them all. What if the poor response to psychiatric meds is nothing more than a reflection of the heterogeneity of the symptoms we've mistaken for diseases? You can't treat someone with septic arthritis by giving them tylenol. You need a better and more specific diagnosis to treat properly.
The more I understand, the less I know. The brain is still a "black box". Stuff goes in, and behaviour comes out. Inside, it is Magick™. Psych-iatry, "mind doctoring". It may not be great, but it's the best we've got. And we've come a long way from insulin shock, trans-orbital lobotomies, and "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest".
If anyone reading this has spent any time on the Alternative board, you know of my philosophy that a healthy mind cannot exist in a sick or poorly nourished body. Trying to prod or force healthier brain activity with medication may be a mug's game, absent consideration for the biological basis of the energy of mind itself. Perhaps psychiatry should be replaced by nutritional science, not neurology, after all. Maybe no one would be mentally ill if we could figure out what they specifically needed to consume to be well. Okay, 'same pipe dream, different pills', but best start there, methinks, and medicate/treat after you've gotten the machinery tuned up.
Lar
Posted by MKB on November 10, 2004, at 9:21:07
In reply to Re: Psychiatry should be replaced with neurology, posted by Larry Hoover on November 9, 2004, at 19:48:45
I totally agree. Furthermore, I have a feeling that many of the "medications" people have used for psychiatric illnesses have actually done more harm than good. This is not meant to be a put-down of anyone who takes them. I'm simply speaking from my own experience.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.