![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 31. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Fred Potter on April 26, 2000, at 20:21:40
I have read about Dr Jensen and his methods and while sounding very hopeful, it doesn't sound correct that someone will respond say to Prozac after a couple of days or even hours. Any views on his methods?
Fred
Posted by medlib on April 26, 2000, at 22:41:21
In reply to Dr Martin Jensen, posted by Fred Potter on April 26, 2000, at 20:21:40
> I have read about Dr Jensen and his methods and while sounding very hopeful, it doesn't sound correct that someone will respond say to Prozac after a couple of days or even hours. Any views on his methods?
> Fred******************
Fred--JohnL, one of the most knowledgeable and helpful posters on this board, recommends Jensen highly. I'm awaiting delivery of his book, so all I know about him is what's on his website (which is a bit too promotional for my taste).
I *can* report that my personal experience with Prozac was like a light switch--virtually instantaneous. I started it as soon as it came on the market umpteen years ago; the dramatic nature of my reaction to the first dose was startling. I remember feeling "Oh! This makes things possible!" I must have been seriously seratonin-deprived. It never made me high or happy--just put a floor under how far I could fall--which is, in itself, enabling. It started "pooping out" a couple of years ago, and I finally got off of it last fall--a long ride.
I suspect that the Jensen protocol works best with patients whose neurotransmitter profile is seriously skewed, but I am interested enough to want to learn more details. I feel a real sense of urgency re my treatment options; it's hard to sustain hope throughout lengthy unsuccessful med trials. Normally, I am a highly skeptical person; and the more global the claims, the more dismissive I feel--according to the old maxim, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." Occasionally though, it helps to "suspend disbelief" temporarily; new strategies are sometimes necessary to break out of a negative feedback loop.
Here's hoping that it "ain't all hype"!--medlib
Posted by Fred Potter on April 26, 2000, at 23:06:04
In reply to Re: Dr Martin Jensen, posted by medlib on April 26, 2000, at 22:41:21
Thankyou Medlib. Are you as qualified as your name suggests? Anyway I reckon we patients are experts on ourselves. The nearest I got to an instantaneous response with ADs was with Moclobemide (2-3 days), but it pooped out after a couple of months. Then there was the usual cranking up of the dose, which made me worse. Meanwhile, I wait patiently for my Adranifil to arrive from the UK.
Regards from Fred
Posted by medlib on April 27, 2000, at 2:58:39
In reply to Re: Dr Martin Jensen, posted by Fred Potter on April 26, 2000, at 23:06:04
> Thankyou Medlib. Are you as qualified as your name suggests?
Fred--Geez! No, it never occurred to me that my "handle" implied anything; if it does, maybe I'd better change it! I have a hard time remembering registration names and passwords--partly because I spend so much time on the web and partly because my personal RAM (short-term memory) is small and "buggy". I had used "medlib" on 2 or 3 med sites requiring sign up, so thought I might have a better shot at remembering it here (didn't think I'd do much posting here--had no prior contact with a board or other group).
When I'm working (and I'm not right now--major depressive episode), I'm a medical librarian specializing in electronic resources--so I can find stuff, and help others learn to find stuff. I also have degrees in psych and in nursing, so I can understand what I find. But I'm no expert; I have nowhere near the database of specialized neuropharm info that a number of posters here have--and I probably don't have enough room left on my personal hard drive (long-term memory) to acquire it. If I could just figure out how to defrag the damned thing, there might be hope!
Meanwhile, I just appreciate having access to these experts' knowledge and everyone's experiences--both available nowhere else.
Thanks much for the inquiry. Sorry, but I'm afraid that succinctness is beyond me, too.
Best wishes--medlib
Posted by JohnL on April 27, 2000, at 5:43:18
In reply to Dr Martin Jensen, posted by Fred Potter on April 26, 2000, at 20:21:40
> I have read about Dr Jensen and his methods and while sounding very hopeful, it doesn't sound correct that someone will respond say to Prozac after a couple of days or even hours. Any views on his methods?
> FredI was Jensen's biggest critic. No one disagreed with him more than me. I preached to everyone how he was a quack and a get-rich-quick-scheme. I hate to admit being wrong, but I was actually way off base. After reading his workbook, and then speaking with him personally, I can no longer find any fault in his strategy. He is merely searching for the BEST drug for each person. Not just ANY drug that works somewhat, but rather the BEST one. Sampling and trial-and-error is the only way.
It reminds me of a scientist once who set out to disprove the Bible. The problem was as he gathered more and more scientific evidence, it was actually supporting the Bible and not refuting it. His best scientific efforts actually proved the Bible. Not what he set out to do. This atheist scientist is now a devoted Christian. It was kind of the same with me and Jensen's book. I bought it with the intention of ripping it to shreads and drawing people's attention to every fault I could find. But it turned out just the opposite. Instead I discovered all the faults in MY beliefs.
Do people really respond in as little as one day or one week? Definitely. From threads going back months to a year ago, I remember a lady commenting on how Wellbutrin worked for her immediately--no long trial needed. A child was feeling better than ever during his fourth day on Effexor. Personally I responded very fast to Adrafinil. I also felt immediate improvement the very first day with St Johnswort. And it continues.
There are actually plenty of real life examples, but we often don't see them unless we are looking for them. Then we find they're all over the place. But of course we see more of the opposite here...the long drawnout frustrating painful trials of meds that aren't correct for the person's chemistry. As everyone here knows, I've been in that camp for a long long time.
If a med is a superior match for a person's chemistry, it will indeed provide fast results with few side effects. The longer the wait, the farther away the med is from targeting the problem directly. Instead there is a trickle down process that takes time.
But it' worth noting that Jensen does not replace traditional psychiatry with his methods, but rather uses his methods to enhance and speed up traditional psychiatry. He does not abondon one in favor of the other. They go together. There are sporadic cases where quick responses just don't happen, and a longer wait is justified. He also knows that improvement will continue with longer trials, but that the early initial reaction is a solid clue as to what to expect down the road. To sum it all up, he's in search of the BEST med that works for a person, not just ANY med that works. ANY med might take six weeks to work. But the BEST med will do so in a week or less. Now that you are aware, keep your eyes and ears open. You'll see real life proof of these quick responses.
JohnL
Posted by CarolAnn on April 27, 2000, at 9:24:27
In reply to Re: Dr Martin Jensen, posted by JohnL on April 27, 2000, at 5:43:18
Hi JohnL, haven't written to you in a while. I'm so glad to see how well you are doing!
Here's the question:
Does Dr. Jensen or any other source, advise where or how one might be able to hook up with a Doctor who practices his methods? I mean, specifically how to find such a Doctor near where a person lives? Thanks! CarolAnn
Posted by medlib on April 27, 2000, at 13:32:54
In reply to Re: Dr Martin Jensen (Query for JohnL), posted by CarolAnn on April 27, 2000, at 9:24:27
JohnL--Your description of and recommendation for Dr. Jensen's method has already made a difference for me with my pdoc. I took in a couple of your posts, and he agreed to speeded up rx trials and didn't demur about trying Ritalin. (Unfortunately, 10mg. of it BID has made little impact--maybe a slight increase in alertness.) Sadly, I must go see my pdoc (I'm running out of meds) before I receive and have a chance to digest Dr. Jensen's book. I'm looking forward to reading it, because your outline of his method seems intuitively right to me.I think I'll probably be asking Dr.Jensen for a telephone consultation--if either of my docs will cooperate with him. Why would a pdoc be anything other than highly insulted to have a stranger on the telephone take over treatment of one of his patients, expecting him to serve as secretary/nurse? My internist isn't likely to be too thrilled, either. He declared that psych wasn't his balliwick and referred me to a pdoc; he may be unwilling to get involved in something that he's washed his hands of earlier.
In the meantime, I'm unsure of what to ask for from the pdoc next week. My current cocktail (Effexor XR 300mg; Synthroid 0.1mg; and the Ritalin) just isn't cutting it--I'm still dysfunctionally depressed. More Ritalin, other stims? More Effexor? (The last E. bump-up made me sick for 2 wks., but an additional 75mgs. isn't totally out of the question, I guess.) SSRI augmentation? BuSpar was a bust, beta blockers depress me utterly. I'm reluctant to try Remeron because I already have weight problems. Some time ago I tried Wellbutrin, both with and without Prozac--nada. I was on Elavil years before Prozac, but it "pooped out" in 6 months.
I guess that leaves Naltrexone--I don't have a feel for whether that would be worth a trial.It seems unreasonable to make a major change into other classes of meds if I may be consulting Dr. Jensen soon, but it's important to me to do something to maintain a sense of momentum. I have a strong sense that I'm running out of time. If you have any thoughts about my current situation you'd be willing to share, they would be much appreciated.
The fact that you've researched and experimented your way into a med cocktail that works for you is most encouraging--gives others of us some hope; it also enables an obviously valuable person. Thanks for sharing your success with us.
Thanks, too, for your patience with this lengthy saga. If I *do* succeed in finding something that works for me, it will be largely because of your knowledge and your generosity with it.
Best wishes--medlib
Posted by Diane on April 27, 2000, at 13:40:13
In reply to Dr Martin Jensen, posted by Fred Potter on April 26, 2000, at 20:21:40
>...it doesn't sound correct that someone will respond say to Prozac after a couple of days or even hours. Any views on his methods?
> FredI responded negatively to Prozac (twice) within 9hrs. I guess his method would
weed out extreme reactions.If I had the money I'd try it. It would help narrow down the overwhelming choice of
ADs faster.
Posted by Fred Potter on April 27, 2000, at 15:25:30
In reply to Re: Dr Martin Jensen, posted by Diane on April 27, 2000, at 13:40:24
Thanks medlib (your name's just fine) and JohnL for your explanations. Actually I'm on Celexa and am now in the position of not being able to stay on the same dose. I was on 60mg at one time and told that was way too much and brought it down to 40. I felt no good on that either. I increased it to 50 and felt good the next day, then that dose pooped out. So I dropped it to 40 and that felt ok for about half a day. For the last week or so I've been on 30 mg and gradually worsened. Last night I decreased to 20 and I feel immediately better this morning. I suspect in a few days I'll have to increase to 30, or perhaps decrease to 10mg. Immediate responses yes, but not ones that last.
I suspect down-regulation of receptors and interference with NE and DA systems. Perhaps the Adrafinil will give me a clue when it arrives. JohnL your mention of immediate response with St John's Wort - I had that, but it didn't last. But I didn't take it for long. I suppose it'll mix with Celexa, I'll try it again anyway.
The best to you all
Fred
Posted by Janice on April 27, 2000, at 22:07:08
In reply to Re: Dr Martin Jensen, posted by Fred Potter on April 27, 2000, at 15:25:30
I have to admit I've tried dozens of medications over years, and when one is right for me I know it either immedicately (Dexedrine) or within a few days, I know something seriously different is going on in my brain (lithium & Desipramine).
This man's theory could have worked for me.
Janice
ps All the other drugs I tried, I usually tried for months (ocassaionlly a year) before admitting to myself they were doing nothing for me.
Posted by DC on April 28, 2000, at 0:11:43
In reply to Re: Dr Martin Jensen, posted by Janice on April 27, 2000, at 22:07:08
TO all:
I got the book the other day. Read pretty much the whole thing in two hours. I think the basic premise is sound. The idea of trying the meds quickly and trying the different classes. But the book itself is sort of a rip off. It's not very well written. It doesn't have a real binding even. I was expecting a real book with nice indepth discussions. Good ideas--but I think JohnL could explain them on here just as well as the book. This book has a lot of tables and graphs in it. It doesn't mention social phobia and some other conditions. The basic principiples may work, but this is not a sophisticated piece of literature. --Dwight
Posted by JohnL on April 29, 2000, at 4:40:03
In reply to Re: Dr Martin Jensen, posted by DC on April 28, 2000, at 0:11:43
> TO all:
>
> I got the book the other day. Read pretty much the whole thing in two hours. I think the basic premise is sound. The idea of trying the meds quickly and trying the different classes. But the book itself is sort of a rip off. It's not very well written. It doesn't have a real binding even. I was expecting a real book with nice indepth discussions. Good ideas--but I think JohnL could explain them on here just as well as the book. This book has a lot of tables and graphs in it. It doesn't mention social phobia and some other conditions. The basic principiples may work, but this is not a sophisticated piece of literature. --DwightDwight. I know the feeling. My immediate impression on opening the package was a bit of disappointment. It wasn't a hard cover book like I expected. I too read it through in a few hours.
At first I felt like there wasn't as much in-depth stuff as I would like. But I have gone back and re-read parts of it several times. Each time something stands out that I kind of brushed over the first time. I get more and more from it each time I re-read it. I think there is actually a lot more there than at first glance. It takes me time to really digest it all. And then when I re-read it I discover new things I didn't get the first time.
I look at it more now as a workbook rather than a textbook. Jensen is at this moment writing a second 'book' which apparently goes into much greater detail of points made in the first book. And it apparently has more 'what-if-this' or 'what-if-that' procedural kind of detail. Should be a nice followup and expansion on the first book. But a hardcover version would look a lot nicer in my little library. :-)
I found all the tables and graphs fascinating. I haven't seen anyone else put the results of their practice into display like that before. I agree with you that this is not generally a sophisticated book. But then again, I don't think it was meant to be. I think it was meant to be a guidebook for patients, doctors, and students to follow when treating any psychiatric condition. Even psychiatric conditions not discussed--such as social phobia--can be easily treated with a firm understanding of the principles in the book. Hopefully his new book will have mention of some conditions not mentioned in the first. Regardless, I think the guidance provided by the book is sufficient to tackle just about any psychiatric condition successfully.
JohnL
Posted by JohnL on April 29, 2000, at 5:08:59
In reply to Re: Dr Martin Jensen (Query for JohnL), posted by CarolAnn on April 27, 2000, at 9:24:27
> Hi JohnL, haven't written to you in a while. I'm so glad to see how well you are doing!
> Here's the question:
> Does Dr. Jensen or any other source, advise where or how one might be able to hook up with a Doctor who practices his methods? I mean, specifically how to find such a Doctor near where a person lives? Thanks! CarolAnnCarolann,
I think it's unlikely you will find a local doc who practices Jensen's approach. Even if there was, I doubt they would be as talented as he is. He seems to have such intricate knowledge of every medication. The clues provided by medication trials all make sense to him. What really stands out the most to me is his passion for what he does. He is passionate and in love with his work. In my experience, anyone in any profession who is passionate with what they do seem to excell above their peers.Anyway, you don't need a local doctor who practices his approach. All you need is a local doc willing to cooperate with the approach. Here's why... His practice involves speaking with you own doctor personally, before consulting with you. He'll make sure everyone's on the same page before getting started. After your consultation, he will fax his recommendations and reasonings to your local doc. So while Jensen is the leader of the team, it is your own local doc who will actually write the prescriptions and monitor the situation at the local level. He won't--and legally can't--run the show across state lines without your own doctor's involvement. More accurately I think Jensen is more of an expert consultant to you and your doctor than he is a primary care giver.
I was worried my local GP wouldn't cooperate. I emailed this concern to Jensen. He emailed me back saying he would be happy to call my doctor personally to discuss whatever hesitancies there were. Apparently he is getting very good cooperation.
When I approached my local doc, I said something like this, "I'm considering consultation with an outside psychiatrist. He specializes in getting people well--fast--who have had multiple failures on medications. But his approach is different than anything you've likely seen, and I think you might be skeptical at first. But I've studied his method and I really like it and I want to try it. It's being taught in medical schools right now. Basically he's going to run me through various quick trials--probably a week each--of different meds to gather clues before deciding on any longterm medication. Since I've been frustrated up to this point on different medications, I don't see that I have anything to lose. I want to try it. He will deal with you directly, like a consultant. Will you please work with me and give this a try?"
So as long as you have a GP to receive the faxes and write the prescriptions, you're all set. Jensen works as part of a three member team...you, your local doctor of choice, and him. He really is an expert and quite a gentleman. Any hesitancy or reluctance on your doctor's part, Jensen will be happy to call him personally.
As for the cost. It's about the same as all other pdocs I've dealt with. $300 for the first hour, which is what I've always normally had to pay anyone. And then $75 for each 15 minute follow-up, which is right in line with every other pdoc I've ever dealt with. Hope this helps. Keep us updated. I'm interested in your progress.
JohnL
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on April 29, 2000, at 10:50:36
In reply to Re: Dr Martin Jensen, posted by JohnL on April 27, 2000, at 5:43:18
> If a med is a superior match for a person's chemistry, it will indeed provide fast results with few side effects.
This is a wonderful ideal.
I guess I am resistant to the universal accuracy and applicability of this idea. My resistance may not be too different from that you initially displayed towards it. If Dr. Jensen's methods work well, I think this is a good criterion upon which to judge their value. I hope they do. I could use a break.
I think I understand somewhat the concept behind these two associations. Such a teleological concept certainly is appealing. Perhaps this notion will ultimately prove accurate once neuroscience advances to the point of providing us with all of the drugs necessary to realize it.
A quick, robust, and continued response with no side effects would be the traits desired in a drug treatment. Such a drug would be a superior match de facto. As I see it, the problem with this statement is that the superior match of those drugs currently available for an individual's chemistry may still take 4 - 6 weeks to bear fruit. It may also produce more undesirable side effects than those drugs that have not worked adequately. I think your original caveat regarding short trial periods was a good one.
> ANY med might take six weeks to work. But the BEST med will do so in a week or less. Now that you are aware, keep your eyes and ears open. You'll see real life proof of these quick responses.
My eyes and ears are open, and they find too many examples that do not demonstrate these characteristics to make such generalized statements and act upon them. There may indeed be a trend in this direction, but again, I feel your original caveat MUST take precedence. I'm not sure it even makes sense to judge whether or not a better match exists for an individual if their reaction to a specific drug does not meet these BEST criteria. What is the ratio between the "week or less" and the "two weeks or more" scenarios for ultimate treatment effectiveness? If it is not 1:0, what decisions are to be made?
I wish I had the gumption and mental energy to read Jensen's book.
For me, a procession of anecdotal accounts would not be as persuasive as empirical investigation. I imagine the charts produced by Dr. Jensen. that you refer to demonstrate a statistical trend to support the above proposed tenet. Such results would merit further investigations in different milieus. I wish I could be so sure that these things were true as to be able to determine within two weeks whether or not to continue with a drug trial. But I am too afraid that I may miss the boat if I do.
> The longer the wait, the farther away the med is from targeting the problem directly.
Who said this? Please. We are not there yet. A target that produces quick and temporary relief of symptoms can be quite remote from the location of the first domino.
> Instead there is a trickle down process that takes time.
This makes a bit more sense to me.
John, I can understand your enthusiasm about a doctor and a method that have worked so well for you when no others have. I am envious. I have already mentioned Dr. Jensen to my doctor. I believe that his methods as you have described them have great merit.
- Scott
Posted by medlib on April 29, 2000, at 11:07:39
In reply to Re: Dr Martin Jensen...CarolAnn, posted by JohnL on April 29, 2000, at 5:08:59
JohnL--
Your description of and recommendation for Dr. Jensen's method has already made a difference for me with my pdoc. I took in a couple of your posts, and he agreed to speeded up rx trials and didn't demur about trying Ritalin. (Unfortunately, 10mg. of it BID has made little impact--maybe a slight increase in alertness.) Sadly, I must go see my pdoc (I'm running out of meds) before I receive and have a chance to digest Dr. Jensen's book. I'm looking forward to reading it, because your outline of his method seems intuitively right to me.
I think I'll probably be asking Dr.Jensen for a telephone consultation--if either of my docs will cooperate with him. Why would a pdoc be anything other than highly insulted to have a stranger on the telephone take over treatment of one of his patients, expecting him to serve as secretary/nurse? My internist isn't likely to be too thrilled, either. He declared that psych wasn't his balliwick and referred me to a pdoc; he may be unwilling to get involved in something that he's washed his hands of earlier.In the meantime, I'm unsure of what to ask for from the pdoc next week. My current cocktail (Effexor XR 300mg; Synthroid 0.1mg; and the Ritalin) just isn't cutting it--I'm still dysfunctionally depressed. More Ritalin, other stims? More Effexor? (The last E. bump-up made me sick for 2 wks., but an additional 75mgs. isn't totally out of the question, I guess.) SSRI augmentation? BuSpar was a bust, beta blockers depress me utterly. I'm reluctant to try Remeron because I already have weight problems. Some time ago I tried Wellbutrin, both with and without Prozac--nada. I was on Elavil years before Prozac, but it "pooped out" in 6 months.
I guess that leaves Naltrexone--I don't have a feel for whether that would be worth a trial.It seems unreasonable to make a major change into other classes of meds if I may be consulting Dr. Jensen soon, but it's important to me to do something to maintain a sense of momentum. I have a strong sense that I'm running out of time. If you have any thoughts about my current situation you'd be willing to share, they would be much appreciated.
The fact that you've researched and experimented your way into a med cocktail that works for you is most encouraging--gives others of us some hope; it also enables an obviously valuable person. Thanks for sharing your success with us.
Thanks, too, for your patience with this lengthy saga. If I *do* succeed in finding something that works for me, it will be largely because of your knowledge and your generosity with it.
Best wishes--medlib
P.S. Since I wrote this I've spoken with my pdoc's office which tells me he "doesn't do that sort of thing." Will try my internist next. Have printed out your script for asking--*very* helpful! Thanks again for all your assistance.
-------------------------------------------------Carolann,
> I think it's unlikely you will find a local doc who practices Jensen's approach. Even if there was, I doubt they would be as talented as he is. He seems to have such intricate knowledge of every medication. The clues provided by medication trials all make sense to him. What really stands out the most to me is his passion for what he does. He is passionate and in love with his work. In my experience, anyone in any profession who is passionate with what they do seem to excell above their peers.
>
> Anyway, you don't need a local doctor who practices his approach. All you need is a local doc willing to cooperate with the approach. Here's why... His practice involves speaking with you own doctor personally, before consulting with you. He'll make sure everyone's on the same page before getting started. After your consultation, he will fax his recommendations and reasonings to your local doc. So while Jensen is the leader of the team, it is your own local doc who will actually write the prescriptions and monitor the situation at the local level. He won't--and legally can't--run the show across state lines without your own doctor's involvement. More accurately I think Jensen is more of an expert consultant to you and your doctor than he is a primary care giver.
>
> I was worried my local GP wouldn't cooperate. I emailed this concern to Jensen. He emailed me back saying he would be happy to call my doctor personally to discuss whatever hesitancies there were. Apparently he is getting very good cooperation.
>
> When I approached my local doc, I said something like this, "I'm considering consultation with an outside psychiatrist. He specializes in getting people well--fast--who have had multiple failures on medications. But his approach is different than anything you've likely seen, and I think you might be skeptical at first. But I've studied his method and I really like it and I want to try it. It's being taught in medical schools right now. Basically he's going to run me through various quick trials--probably a week each--of different meds to gather clues before deciding on any longterm medication. Since I've been frustrated up to this point on different medications, I don't see that I have anything to lose. I want to try it. He will deal with you directly, like a consultant. Will you please work with me and give this a try?"
>
> So as long as you have a GP to receive the faxes and write the prescriptions, you're all set. Jensen works as part of a three member team...you, your local doctor of choice, and him. He really is an expert and quite a gentleman. Any hesitancy or reluctance on your doctor's part, Jensen will be happy to call him personally.
>
> As for the cost. It's about the same as all other pdocs I've dealt with. $300 for the first hour, which is what I've always normally had to pay anyone. And then $75 for each 15 minute follow-up, which is right in line with every other pdoc I've ever dealt with. Hope this helps. Keep us updated. I'm interested in your progress.
> JohnL
Posted by JohnL on April 30, 2000, at 2:36:31
In reply to Re: Dr Martin Jensen - JohnL, posted by Scott L. Schofield on April 29, 2000, at 10:50:36
Scott,
You bring up some very good issues. I certainly understand your hesitancy and slight skepticism. I think that's a good thing. I must admit, I was a whole lot more skeptical than you at first. Just a few followup comments that might help in perspective of the issues...The graphs and tables are all based on 250 patients in one year who were completely cured. They show what percent of patients in each symptom category (depression, anxiety, etc) got better on what classes of medications. What they highlight more than anything else is how people with identical symptoms may respond to meds of different classes, and by what percents. And they show differences between similar meds in the same class. It is helpful when deciding where to start, what are the best odds, where to go from here, what has been missed. Stuff like that.
Back in the old days there were few meds to choose from, and thus the trickle down effect was a necessity. And it set the stage for setting precedence of what the psychiatric community now considers fact...drugs take time to work. But today there are so many more choices. In Jensen's office at least, all the drugs we might ever need to achieve excellent results are already in existence today. The hard part is that it takes experimentation to find the right one. But those graphs help point us in the right direction, setting priorities, and adding structured organization to the process based on what has worked in the past.
The farther away a drug is from targeting the problem, the longer the wait...if it works at all. Who said that? Only Jensen. He began noticing a few sporadic quick responses in medical school and on into private practice, and he explored the phenomenon in depth to see if there was a way to identify why those things happened. You are correct when you say "we" are not there yet. True. But a few passionate physicians, like Jensen, are indeed already there. By the time the psychiatric community accumulates empirical evidence on a widespread scale to support Jensen's empirical evidence on a small scale, I'll be dead. As we all know, psychiatry's best efforts are full of disappointments and failures. Even 70% success rates are usually only based on a 50% improvement of symptoms...not complete recovery. With that in mind, today's psychiatry is even weaker than it seems at first glance. Might as well flip a coin for equal odds. All this against a backdrop of thousands of studies providing empirical evidences.
Personally, I'm not happy about waiting for psychiatry to have all the answers proved. I want to be well ASAP. With that in mind, I narrow the universe down to one successful doctor's office. I could care less what the psychiatric community is doing, I want a doctor with results. How or why he gets those results, I could care less.
Your skepticism is justified. I've experienced it too. But it's a good thing, because it fosters discussion of issues that might help somebody somewhere get bette, one way or the other.
JohnL
Posted by Stephanie L. on April 30, 2000, at 12:01:30
In reply to Re: Dr Martin Jensen - JohnL, posted by Scott L. Schofield on April 29, 2000, at 10:50:36
> > If a med is a superior match for a person's chemistry, it will indeed provide fast results with few side effects.
>
> This is a wonderful ideal.
>
> I guess I am resistant to the universal accuracy and applicability of this idea. My resistance may not be too different from that you initially displayed towards it. If Dr. Jensen's methods work well, I think this is a good criterion upon which to judge their value. I hope they do. I could use a break.
>
> I think I understand somewhat the concept behind these two associations. Such a teleological concept certainly is appealing. Perhaps this notion will ultimately prove accurate once neuroscience advances to the point of providing us with all of the drugs necessary to realize it.
>
> A quick, robust, and continued response with no side effects would be the traits desired in a drug treatment. Such a drug would be a superior match de facto. As I see it, the problem with this statement is that the superior match of those drugs currently available for an individual's chemistry may still take 4 - 6 weeks to bear fruit. It may also produce more undesirable side effects than those drugs that have not worked adequately. I think your original caveat regarding short trial periods was a good one.
>
> > ANY med might take six weeks to work. But the BEST med will do so in a week or less. Now that you are aware, keep your eyes and ears open. You'll see real life proof of these quick responses.
>
> My eyes and ears are open, and they find too many examples that do not demonstrate these characteristics to make such generalized statements and act upon them. There may indeed be a trend in this direction, but again, I feel your original caveat MUST take precedence. I'm not sure it even makes sense to judge whether or not a better match exists for an individual if their reaction to a specific drug does not meet these BEST criteria. What is the ratio between the "week or less" and the "two weeks or more" scenarios for ultimate treatment effectiveness? If it is not 1:0, what decisions are to be made?
>
> I wish I had the gumption and mental energy to read Jensen's book.
>
> For me, a procession of anecdotal accounts would not be as persuasive as empirical investigation. I imagine the charts produced by Dr. Jensen. that you refer to demonstrate a statistical trend to support the above proposed tenet. Such results would merit further investigations in different milieus. I wish I could be so sure that these things were true as to be able to determine within two weeks whether or not to continue with a drug trial. But I am too afraid that I may miss the boat if I do.
>
> > The longer the wait, the farther away the med is from targeting the problem directly.
>
> Who said this? Please. We are not there yet. A target that produces quick and temporary relief of symptoms can be quite remote from the location of the first domino.
>
> > Instead there is a trickle down process that takes time.
>
> This makes a bit more sense to me.
>
> John, I can understand your enthusiasm about a doctor and a method that have worked so well for you when no others have. I am envious. I have already mentioned Dr. Jensen to my doctor. I believe that his methods as you have described them have great merit.
>
>
> - Scott
All I know that out of the l6 medications for depression that I tried, the two that worked worked within a few days (It might not have been a full-fledged "working" but the stirrings were definitely there.)
I know that many of us depressives become quite sensitive to what's going on inside of us; overtime, I found that I could tell pretty fast if an anti-depressant would be a "fit." If I had to go again through my 3-year-search for the right medication, II definitely would try Dr. Jensen.
Posted by Aylese on April 30, 2000, at 21:30:11
In reply to Re: Dr Martin Jensen - Scott, posted by JohnL on April 30, 2000, at 2:36:31
If I could even begin to afford such a wonderful luxury, I would be a most willing participant in this type of psychiatry. It sounds like a miracle. JohnL, I am excited for you! Way to go, guy!
Posted by S.D. Guy on April 30, 2000, at 21:57:05
In reply to Re: Dr Martin Jensen....Dwight, posted by JohnL on April 29, 2000, at 4:40:03
Dr. Jensen's web site explains that the idea is to go through one or more of 5 'protocols', each consisting of a few medications which are tried one at a time for a few days each. Does his book list which medications he uses in each protocol? Are any of them anti-epileptic drugs (besides the common benzodiazepines)?
Posted by JohnL on May 2, 2000, at 4:49:27
In reply to Does the book list the meds in the 5 protocols?, posted by S.D. Guy on April 30, 2000, at 21:57:05
> Dr. Jensen's web site explains that the idea is to go through one or more of 5 'protocols', each consisting of a few medications which are tried one at a time for a few days each. Does his book list which medications he uses in each protocol? Are any of them anti-epileptic drugs (besides the common benzodiazepines)?
Yes,
The protocols are discussed throughout the book (soft cover workbook appearance actually), as well as the 10 basic chemical imbalances involved and the different meds in each protocol. Of interest is the statistical odds--in percentage--of a particular protocol working for a particular set of symptoms. These statistics are based on the universe of Jensen's practice--not psychiatry worldwide--though I suspect the statistics would be very similar.The protocol of anticonvulsants and antiepileptics is discussed. This protocol is generally warranted when there are clues of chemical instability. For example, when an initial good response to a med deteriorates. Or when the symptoms indicate cycling. But even in these situations, it is surprising to see how larger than expected percentages of patients got excellent results on other meds we wouldn't at first expect.
Lots of tidbit information on different meds is interesting to me. For example, Zoloft has the highest percentage of success in preventing suicide while Prozac has the least. Prozac and Celexa--despite their obvious differences--are actually more similar to each other than other SSRIs. Celexa is often the best choice for someone with perfectionist personalities. And, for example, SSRIs are not as selective as we might generally think. They all have action at other sites besides serotonin, resulting in subtle but important implications of why one works for someone but another doesn't. The 'seat-belt' strategy of giving the patient a sample of Xanax and/or Stelazine as a remedy to weather bad reactions is interesting.
Though it's a softcover and probably not on any top 10 list selling list, I think it's well worth the $30. It's a book unlike any other, and has the definite potential of adding to one's knowledge of psychiatry. As I've mentioned before, it doesn't replace traditional psychiatry, but rather enhances it and fine-tunes it. Hope this helps.
JohnL
Posted by SLS on May 2, 2000, at 8:46:41
In reply to Re: Dr Martin Jensen - JohnL, posted by Stephanie L. on April 30, 2000, at 12:01:30
> All I know that out of the l6 medications for depression that I tried, the two that worked worked within a few days (It might not have been a full-fledged "working" but the stirrings were definitely there.)
Hi Stephanie,
Thanks for posting and providing valuable input.It's wonderful to read more and more descriptions that corroborate the new perspective of psychiatry being discussed here. Believe me, I have no emotional need to show it to be invalid. On the contrary, I would have been much better off had I not been required to stay on ineffective medications with nasty side effects all of these years. It really sucks, doesn't it? This whole thing sucks.
The more details JohnL provides of the contents of Dr. Jensen's book, the more excited I become.
If you wouldn't mind, I would just like to ask a few questions.
1. What is your "official" diagnosis?
2. What is the nature of your depression?
- Anergic? Having barely enough energy to get out of a chair to get a glass of water?
- Agitated?
- Sleeping too much -or- insomnia/restless sleep with difficulty sleeping past 4 or 5 in the morning?
- Eating too much and being overweight -or- having no appetite and being underweight?
- Able to smile or laugh?
- Anxiety?
- Social Phobia?3. What were the two drugs that have worked?
4. Were you taking any other drugs at the time?
5. Why did you discontinue taking the first drug that worked?
6. Which drugs have made you feel much worse?
Thank-you for any reply.
> If I had to go again through my 3-year-search for the right medication, II definitely would try Dr. Jensen.
I think I would too. Thank-you for your concern.
Sincerely,
Scott
Posted by grrrilla on May 2, 2000, at 15:18:28
In reply to Re: Dr Martin Jensen - JohnL, posted by SLS on May 2, 2000, at 8:46:41
Hey look what I found
http://www.concernedcounseling.com/ccijournal/conference/hsiungmeds.htm
http://www.concernedcounseling.com/ccijournal/conference/jensendepression.htm
These are interviews by yet another Bob (has anyone noticed how many MH types are named Bob-my personal Pdoc is a Bob too).
They are a couple of years old but I thought they were interesting. If anybody reads the Jensen interview (or just knows the answer), what does he mean when he says patients that had ECT usually had ADD based Depression? Does he mean patients whose depression was helped by ECT or just people that had it?
My personal .02 worth of experience: I can feel Prozac in 30 minutes. It feels like valium. In the long run it made me into a big fat apathetic depressed zombie, but I didn't care (until I got off it). And I could feel Buspar in a couple of days. {:o)
Posted by FredPotter on May 3, 2000, at 15:35:23
In reply to Re: Does the book list the meds in the 5 protocols?, posted by JohnL on May 2, 2000, at 4:49:27
I took Moclobemide when I was very ill and it started to work on day 2 and definitely worked by day 3. The right drug for me therefore? Not so. It gradually flattened and dipped and my dose was put up finally to 600mg and I proceeded to get worse and worse until they changed it for Paxil, which did nothing for about 3 weeks. I had one day of feeling great and then the poop-out started. Let's face it, if short trials were a good indicator, we'd all be on alcohol or heroin.
Fred
Posted by Janice on May 3, 2000, at 20:07:51
In reply to Short trials and moclobemide, posted by FredPotter on May 3, 2000, at 15:35:23
Let's face it, if short trials were a good indicator, we'd all be on alcohol or heroin.
Janice
Posted by JohnL on May 4, 2000, at 0:53:39
In reply to Short trials and moclobemide, posted by FredPotter on May 3, 2000, at 15:35:23
> I took Moclobemide when I was very ill and it started to work on day 2 and definitely worked by day 3. The right drug for me therefore? Not so. It gradually flattened and dipped and my dose was put up finally to 600mg and I proceeded to get worse and worse until they changed it for Paxil, which did nothing for about 3 weeks. I had one day of feeling great and then the poop-out started. Let's face it, if short trials were a good indicator, we'd all be on alcohol or heroin.
> FredThe phenomenon you mention--quick response which then fades or worsens--is a clue indicative of instable chemistry or instable electricity. This phenomenon is clearly identified and discussed in a book I was reading. Not just a case of chemical imbalance. And this of course warrants a whole new approach in drug selection priorities.
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.