![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 23 of 23. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by West on February 9, 2009, at 12:10:11
Posted by yxibow on February 9, 2009, at 16:37:44
In reply to Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video, posted by West on February 9, 2009, at 12:10:11
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaq54C2R-GY
Mrmph... well from what it appears is anti-psychiatry is behind the anti-"mothers act", including Scientology's "disguised" CCHR organization. But, feel free as one believes is all I can say......
Posted by Sigismund on February 9, 2009, at 18:00:51
In reply to Re: Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video » West, posted by yxibow on February 9, 2009, at 16:37:44
Yxie, let me remind the board that when the Chelmsford thing happened here and more than 30 people were killed by psychiatrists doing deep sleep 'therapy', the CCHR was the body that forced a royal commission into it all.
I saw a survivor of Chelmsford the other day. He'd been a rock star, and had gone to Chelmsford for treatment of drug addiction. It was good to see him alive and moderately well.
Posted by Sigismund on February 9, 2009, at 18:24:46
In reply to Re: Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video, posted by Sigismund on February 9, 2009, at 18:00:51
From Wikipedia
>From 1988 to 1990 the Australian government held the Chelmsford royal commission inquiry into Deep Sleep Therapy (DST). For a decade prior, the CCHR had been pushing for an investigation of the Chelmsford Private Hospital in New South Wales, and its head, Dr. Harry Bailey, who had been practicing DST from 1963 to 1979.[citation needed]
>Honorable Justice John (J. P.) Slattery, Royal Commissioner, is quoted as stating that the CCHR "contributed considerably to advance the cause of the Chelmsford patients in their campaign for an open inquiry into the hospital."[citation needed] The inquiry discovered that deep sleep therapy had killed 26 patients, 22 patients who had it had killed themselves, and close to a thousand had suffered brain damage.[citation needed] Of the former patients, 152 received reparations from a fund totaling in excess of 5 million dollars.[13]
>Chelmsford Hospital was forced to close in 1990, and two of its psychiatric staff were brought on charges in 1992.[citation needed] Dr. Bailey himself stepped down in 1979 due to the CCHR's protest campaign, and committed suicide by drug overdose in 1985, the night before he was subpoenaed to appear in court.[citation needed] His suicide note read, in part: "Let it be known that the Scientologists and the forces of madness have won."[14]
Posted by garnet71 on February 9, 2009, at 18:48:32
In reply to Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video, posted by West on February 9, 2009, at 12:10:11
It's very important to look at all sides of issues, imo. I think the anti-psychiatry movement is pretty damn warranted and some knowledge or readings regarding the subject should be required for all future pdocs in med. school. I cannot imagine why so many people don't want to look at both sides of an issue. I can't comprehend it.
Here's an interesting database-"story" index:
http://www.ssristories.com/index.html
Can't vouch for the credibility of the information, but such tracking is a good idea.
It's very easy to say that those with bad SSRI experiences were already ill to begin with, and that the outcome of situations were a result of pre-existing conditions; but at the same time, it seems very important to consider the implications of continually prescribing brain-altering drugs to the masses w/o any biological testing! I think its pretty damn scary to prescribe, for example, SSRIs without first being sure there is actually a seratonin deficiency in the brain. BTW, there is a seratonin test available. Not 100% accurate, so maybe we should ask the question as to why more accurate tests are not being developed?
Here's an interesting video back at you. It's sounds a bit rambling at first, but the overall point is provocative; from the point of an anthropologist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-ewvCNguug
If you're really interested in ingenious ideas or analysis from some of the most creative thinkers around on trends and societal issues, browse this site for a while:
www.ted.com
It's pretty amazing.
Posted by Phillipa on February 10, 2009, at 0:10:23
In reply to Re: Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video » West, posted by garnet71 on February 9, 2009, at 18:48:32
All I know personally is that SSRI's Snri's do not work for me luvox the exception it doesn't improve things did for two weeks years ago with benzos. Pdoc said today day long trip to see her that for me ad's are a bandaid and pschotheraphy would be more helpful my problem is I worry aboutt too much and am too sensitive. so stick with the present dose of luvox xanax small dose and valium and get out and about as often as can. also said the thyroid is present in so many anxiety disorders suggested I find a doc to test my hormones even though postmenopausal as she's seen many improve with natural estrogen. She's honest hence drive the distance. Love Phillipa
Posted by yxibow on February 10, 2009, at 0:52:41
In reply to Re: Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video, posted by Sigismund on February 9, 2009, at 18:24:46
> From Wikipedia
>
> >From 1988 to 1990 the Australian government held the Chelmsford royal commission inquiry into Deep Sleep Therapy (DST). For a decade prior, the CCHR had been pushing for an investigation of the Chelmsford Private Hospital in New South Wales, and its head, Dr. Harry Bailey, who had been practicing DST from 1963 to 1979.[citation needed]
>
> >Honorable Justice John (J. P.) Slattery, Royal Commissioner, is quoted as stating that the CCHR "contributed considerably to advance the cause of the Chelmsford patients in their campaign for an open inquiry into the hospital."[citation needed] The inquiry discovered that deep sleep therapy had killed 26 patients, 22 patients who had it had killed themselves, and close to a thousand had suffered brain damage.[citation needed] Of the former patients, 152 received reparations from a fund totaling in excess of 5 million dollars.[13]
>
> >Chelmsford Hospital was forced to close in 1990, and two of its psychiatric staff were brought on charges in 1992.[citation needed] Dr. Bailey himself stepped down in 1979 due to the CCHR's protest campaign, and committed suicide by drug overdose in 1985, the night before he was subpoenaed to appear in court.[citation needed] His suicide note read, in part: "Let it be known that the Scientologists and the forces of madness have won."[14]Yes, I know this, I read the same thing. Research also shows other situations.
I'm sorry, I stand with my own opinion, everyone is free to theirs.Scientology has de facto taken over the entire city of Clearwater, FL as World Headquarters and has multiple domains, arms of their church, and questionable practices that are not sanctioned by conventional medicine.
Even ordinary citizens of Clearwater are extremely tired of Scientology's overwhelming presence in their town, and this is fact, in fact something that Scientology surveyed themselves in their own town for purposes of jurisdiction change.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/05/23/Tampabay/Church_requests_that_.shtml
Narconon. Alonon. All unconventional approaches to rehab therapy.
CCHR is a front for Scientology's staunch views against psychiatry. They have a "retreat" in Hemet, CA. They also have a "Psychiatry: Industry of Death" 'museum' in Hollywood. Their website is explicit and contains similar information.
Whether a hospital in Australia did or didn't do as CCHR claims does not justify their continued rampant and only in my personal view dangerous views against psychiatry and other forms of medical practice.It is alleged and was nearly tried in court that they held a woman against her will basically. Lisa McPherson. She died in the hands of a Scientology connected doctor who had his license suspended for a year and was fined. A civil suit was settled recently.
Similar cases have occurred where "vitamin" therapy was given to people who had severe schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders. Without proper medical care, several murder cases occurred.
Whether one wants to call it a religion, which unfortunately I have to say on here to be civil, even though the FBI almost had their 501(c) status revoked with multiple tax evasions and penetration deep into the FBI in the late 1970s and 1980s. Deep fines were levied but it was insufficient to stop.
They have major presence in Hollywood because there are certain "stars", need I not mention Tom Cruise, who has openly stated on television his anti-psychiatry views and his prominent Scientology views.
These high cash donations from prominent people such as noted to Scientology allow Scientology to attract people to their "church" and lose their savings.
I haven't heard of many churches who copyright and obscure their "main teachings" or "bibles" and have their own internal FBI/CIA like arm and lawyers, funded by all these donations to go after anyone who shows these documents or says word zero about the organization.
So I'll probably be castigated. Fine, as I still said people are allowed to believe what they wish, and I personally believe, as I noted before that they are dangerous, detrimental to the advancement of science, and unfortunately to the present, except for a few countries like Germany where they have not gotten a religious status, I believe, are untouchable by the law, even though I personally believe long ago the FBI would have revoked their status if they weren't pursued themselves.Its like multiple Law and Order episodes that end up unable to be prosecuted.
L. Ron Hubbard's basically failed and unreadable science fiction stories form the central focus of the religion.
At any rate, I can't say anything more than I already have.Choose as one may.
Posted by SLS on February 10, 2009, at 6:58:17
In reply to Re: Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video » Sigismund, posted by yxibow on February 10, 2009, at 0:52:41
I doubt there are very many treatment resistant people here who can say that they never felt worse on a drug. I have had a few drugs make me suicidally depressed when such is not one of the features of my depression. That's too bad. It is the nature of the beast. But what is the alternative? Better treatments? Of course. What? When. Unless one can answer those two questions, I don't think it make sense to call for the withdrawal from market today's antidepressants.
Should there be more disclosure to the patient? Yup. However, the thing that a psychiatrist can do right now is to monitor a patient more frequently at the beginning of a drug trial when untoward reactions are most likely to occur, and spend more than 5 minutes with a patient per visit thereafter.
- Scott
Posted by B2chica on February 10, 2009, at 8:42:46
In reply to Re: Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video, posted by SLS on February 10, 2009, at 6:58:17
>>to monitor a patient more frequently at the beginning of a drug trial when untoward reactions are most likely to occur, and spend more than 5 minutes with a patient per visit thereafter.
> >
BINGO scott. couldn't agree more here. i think THIS is the real issue. you go into a pdoc and see them for 5 maybe 10min, you just can't get across whats going on with you in that time. and once ever few weeks is not enough when you start a new drug. But the people should also not be told that SSRI's are "fix it" drugs like they claimed is said in the video. Doc' need to tell them to self monitor and CALL CALL CALL if feelings are awry! also being monitored by a therapist once a week is also helpful someone who sees a person for at least 45min. can get more insight.
the combo of the two have been life saving for me. Also that my T talks with my Pdoc. Also KEY.there are just too many incidents that go wrong within the first week or two of taking a new AD (or dosage adjustment)
Overall, it was a very biased video, and was blatently against SSRI's but something tells me that SSRI's weren't maybe even appropriate for some of these folks? trying a TCA or even adding a AP might have really made the difference here.
JMHO
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 10, 2009, at 10:16:57
In reply to Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video, posted by West on February 9, 2009, at 12:10:11
Good grief is absolutely an appropriate response to this video. It is not in accord with reality. There are so many distortions, exaggerations and outright falsehoods presented, I don't know where to begin.
I've thoroughly analysed Ann Tracy's work, and she is not a reliable source. She selects only evidence that suits her agenda, and when such evidence does not exist, she invents it.
For example, her comments about maternal filicide rates....that we've only seen this phenomenon since the advent of SSRIs....pure hokum. Pure unadulterated hokum. Compared to 100 years ago, or fifty years ago, maternal filicide rates are down. There has been no recent upswing in rates which would correlate with the large number of antidepressant treatments offered mothers for post-partum depression or psychosis. Individual cases are tragic, but they are anecdotal. Complex events with multiple variables. It's simply easiest to blame drugs. Unfortunately for these fear-mongers, there is no pattern.
In a study of factors thought to predict for filicide in the U.S., in males the most likely is prior military service (55%). In females, use of alcohol (27%), apart from a diagnosis of depression (70%) or psychosis (30%). I found no evidence to correlate use of medication with this type of tragedy. And notwithstanding what Tracy claims, 70% of maternal filicides involved firearms. And 90% thought they were doing their kids a favour.
Don't even get me started about the myths Tracy invoked about LSD.
Lar
Posted by Garnet71 on February 10, 2009, at 11:32:33
In reply to Re: Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video » Sigismund, posted by yxibow on February 10, 2009, at 0:52:41
Yxibow,
That was really interesting-the information about Scientology. I never knew the organization was so cult-like. It's a shame so many have to be so extreme-"meds are bad; meds are good".
I do see some validity in the anti-psych movements though. Much of society's output is a result of power, money, and control, and organizations are created out of want for power money and control. Psychiatry is no different in being affected by those variables.
When I was reading what you wrote about Scientology, I was thinking about the similarities betweeen it and the U.S. government, many religions, and other organizations. Human beings, as leaders of groups seek such things, organize around power, money, and control. In fact, economics is replacing the discipline of sociology and hints at replacing anthropology.
Posted by Garnet71 on February 10, 2009, at 11:45:01
In reply to Re: Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video » Sigismund, posted by yxibow on February 10, 2009, at 0:52:41
About the FBI. I have great respect for many of the people who work there, but the agency is also utilized as the arm of govt. corruption.
Ever wonder why Elliot Spitzer was singled out for what he did? Do you really think the FBI cared that much that he was visiting a prostitute, and thinks its so important to rid the world of them? Elliot Spitzer wanted complete reform of our financial/mortgage institutions. Think about that one!
Did you ever wonder why many govt. organizations required polygraph tests as a condition for employment? Not to see if a person is 'honest' and trustworthy--well, there's several reasons--including so that they have recorded something that can be later used against you.
Again, power, control, and money. Psychiatry is affected by these variables, like everything else. I think this is why some people get so frustrated with psychiatry's 'output', but don't realize why. It could be so much better than it is now.
Posted by West on February 10, 2009, at 13:31:51
In reply to Re: Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video, posted by Sigismund on February 9, 2009, at 18:00:51
> I saw a survivor of Chelmsford the other day. He'd been a rock star, and had gone to Chelmsford for treatment of drug addiction. It was good to see him alive and moderately well.I assume you avoided asking him how he was sleeping (sorry...bad i know)
Seriously though reading that made my jaw drop. Those are some astonishing figures, all terribly sad of course. It makes you wonder just what an apparently benign sounding treatment actually involved.
West
Posted by West on February 10, 2009, at 14:43:18
In reply to Re: Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video » West, posted by garnet71 on February 9, 2009, at 18:48:32
'I think its pretty damn scary to prescribe, for example, SSRIs without first being sure there is actually a seratonin deficiency in the brain. BTW, there is a seratonin test available. Not 100% accurate, so maybe we should ask the question as to why more accurate tests are not being developed.'
From what i understand medical literature has never made any over 'deficiency'. I assume such an imbalance would be impossible to accurately measure without killing the subject and taking a brain slice and putting it on ice as is the convention in lab studies with rats
> Here's an interesting video back at you. It's sounds a bit rambling at first, but the overall point is provocative; from the point of an anthropologist:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-ewvCNguug
>Thanks, i had some problems loading the whole of it but found the beginning interesting. It seems romantic love is a completely biochemical state over which you are powerless. I suppose you don't know until it's hit you.
I had been using ritalin once alongside escitalopram which i was taking for depression. My usual state was calm but a bit apathetic. After taking it for a week to write some important essays I had to return home to pick up some stuff. After supper my mother asked me if I had fallen in love: perhaps heightened dopamine had had some latent effect on my manner. Either way i believe women to be infinitely more sensitive than men to human behaviour.
Male vervet monkeys lower down the pecking order are known to have lower levels of serotonin than their 'alpha' male counterparts. They are more likely to take risks like jumping 10-20 feet across branches, frequently falling and hurting themseleves, getting into scraps etc whereas the alphas engage in dangerous activity much more infrequently and only do so when it is essential (or where it threatens their rank). In an experiment to see how it might alter the status and dynamics of a troop, scientists removed the alpha male and gave a drug designed to raise serotonin to a monkey near the bottom. After a couple of weeks it's status goes up. What's interesting is that the males don't notice anything at first, it's the females who do: they're attention and interest becomes aroused by these monkeys- as if there must be something about them - maybe they're calmer or gentler - or maybe he becomes more trustworthy or starts bringing them food, whatever it is they start to notice him more. This gets the attention of the male monkeys ultimately leading to a status rise in the group until he becomes the alpha male. The drug was prozac. Pretty amazing really.
> www.ted.com
>
> It's pretty amazing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by Sigismund on February 10, 2009, at 15:54:34
In reply to Re: Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video » Sigismund, posted by yxibow on February 10, 2009, at 0:52:41
>Whether a hospital in Australia did or didn't do as CCHR claims
Those are the findings of the royal commission (which is the highest level of legal inquiry available to the state here), that took the best part of 10 years campaigning to establish.
Scientology? Tom Cruise? L Ron Hubbard?
I can't take it seriously. I can't remember the basic story, or be bothered reading wikipedia on the subject but I did come across this fact which would interest you
>The Church of Scientology announced Hubbard had deliberately discarded his body to do "higher level spiritual research," unencumbered by mortal confines, and was now living "on a planet a galaxy away".
So, he may come back.
Posted by Sigismund on February 10, 2009, at 16:03:07
In reply to Re: Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video- sigismund, posted by West on February 10, 2009, at 13:31:51
I can tell you more or less what it involved. They were whacked out on barbiturates and godknowswhatelse (Largactil?) and catheterised (one would hope) and sent off to sleep for a fortnight.
This, superimposed on a heroin withdrawal, is something I would be anxious to avoid and which William Burroughs (also a scientologist!) described as the most painful procedure he had ever experienced.
People were lying around in their urine and faeces, I remember hearing that. Bad nursing when you would need extra good nursing. Plus the whole idea is just terrible.
In the case of the rock star, there was some story about him trying to burgle the drugs trolley and escaping in his pyjamas down the street, pursued by the staff.
1000 people with brain damage!
Dr Harry Bailey could see the writing on the wall and knocked himself off. It was huge here.
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 10, 2009, at 16:07:12
In reply to Re: Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video » West, posted by garnet71 on February 9, 2009, at 18:48:32
> I think its pretty damn scary to prescribe, for example, SSRIs without first being sure there is actually a seratonin deficiency in the brain.
Antidepressants are not prescribed to remedy a serotonin deficiency. They are prescribed to treat the symptoms of depression, and some other mental illnesses. Their mechanism of action is still unknown. The differing qualities of individual antidepressants are matched, hopefully, to the particular symptoms identified during diagnosis.
> BTW, there is a seratonin test available. Not 100% accurate,
There is no serotonin test in current use. Not one that can assess serotonergic activity in the central nervous system, in any case. Urinary excretion of serotonin breakdown products can be measured, but 90% or more of that comes from tissues outside of the CNS, and is irrelevant. Such tests are a fraud, IMHO. Blood levels can be taken, but they have never been correlated to anything in particular, save some dietary intakes, and those effects are transient. If these tests were of any value, they would be in common use by all doctors.
> so maybe we should ask the question as to why more accurate tests are not being developed?
They're looking as hard as they can, and as fast as they can. Whoever comes up with such a test would become very wealthy.
Lar
Posted by Connor on February 10, 2009, at 16:22:45
In reply to Re: Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video » garnet71, posted by Larry Hoover on February 10, 2009, at 16:07:12
> Antidepressants are not prescribed to remedy a serotonin deficiency. They are prescribed to treat the symptoms of depression, and some other mental illnesses. Their mechanism of action is still unknown. The differing qualities of individual antidepressants are matched, hopefully, to the particular symptoms identified during diagnosis.
>
>Yes, that's not what the drug companies not want you to think. The depression is a chemical imbalance lie has been perpetuated by the drug companies for years and what has been done to stop them.
It's a shame all the anti-psychiatry movement is being hijacked by scientologists. There movement is just as if not more damaging then scientology. The credence behind their techniques is about as good too.
"New generation anti-depressants have little clinical benefit for most patients, research suggests."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7263494.stm
It's great being prescribed medication that has ruined your life, when there's not even any science to back it up. SO you're saying I could have taken a sugar pill that wouldn't f*ck up my brain and would have gotten similar theraputic benefits? Fantastic.
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 10, 2009, at 16:51:21
In reply to Re: Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video, posted by Connor on February 10, 2009, at 16:22:45
> "New generation anti-depressants have little clinical benefit for most patients, research suggests."
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7263494.stmNot that hoary misrepresentation of reality again. Kirsch completely distorted reality to come to his conclusions. I urge you to read the following posts to understand why that is so.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20080221/msgs/815551.html
https://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20080420/msgs/824891.html> It's great being prescribed medication that has ruined your life, when there's not even any science to back it up. SO you're saying I could have taken a sugar pill that wouldn't f*ck up my brain and would have gotten similar theraputic benefits? Fantastic.
No, placebo would not have offered similar results.
I like this quote from Dr. Arif Khan, from the April 2000 volume of Psychiatric Times, commenting about the same set of studies looked at by Kirsch (by the way):
"The less-than-impressive results in these and other studies also calls to mind the fact that patients assigned to placebo treatment in clinical trials are not "getting nothing." The capsule they receive is pharmacologically inert but hardly inert with respect to its symbolic value and its power as a conditioned stimulus. In addition, placebo-treated patients receive all of the commonly employed treatment techniques: a thorough evaluation; an explanation for their distress; an expert healer; a plausible treatment; expectation of improvement; a healer's commitment, enthusiasm and positive regard; and an opportunity to verbalize their distress. Jerome Frank, Ph.D., in his book Persuasion and Healing: A Comparative Study of Psychotherapy made a compelling case that these parts of treatment are the active ingredients of all the psychotherapies (1993)....
A cautionary note is indicated about the generalization of these data to the clinical management of depressed patients. The less-than-impressive difference between drug and placebo in this and other studies of clinical trials does not speak directly to the effectiveness of antidepressants in clinical practice. Participants in antidepressant clinical trials are a highly select group and are not representative of the general population of depressed patients. They are not actively suicidal, they are almost always outpatients who are moderately rather than severely or mildly depressed, and they are free of comorbid physical or psychiatric illness. They are likely to have a higher placebo response rate than more severely ill depressed patients.
Furthermore, the primary aim of these studies is not to assess the optimal effect of antidepressants, but rather to rapidly assess efficacy of new drugs so they can be brought to the market. Therefore, dose, duration and diagnosis in clinical trials are not necessarily ideally suited to identify the optimal effects of antidepressants. Accordingly, clinical trials may identify the lower bound of the effect size compared to placebo."
Lar
Posted by garnet71 on February 10, 2009, at 18:59:13
In reply to Re: Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video » garnet71, posted by Larry Hoover on February 10, 2009, at 16:07:12
> Antidepressants are not prescribed to remedy a serotonin deficiency.
That is very confusing, considering that concept is in the very name "SSRI" and that my doctors have told me the same. Confusing not even considering the drug co. commercials.
> There is no serotonin test in current use. Not one that can assess serotonergic activity in the central nervous system, in any case. Urinary excretion of serotonin breakdown products can be measured, but 90% or more of that comes from tissues outside of the CNS, and is irrelevant. Such tests are a fraud, IMHO. Blood levels can be taken, but they have never been correlated to anything in particular, save some dietary intakes, and those effects are transient. If these tests were of any value, they would be in common use by all doctors.
My endocronologist told me she would have ordered a seratonin test for me had I not been lacking just one other symptom - flushing. We didn't have a discussion about the test accuracy, though.
I don't have the answers or claim to have the answers, but cant' help but be overcome by many of us going through a lot of pain and suffering. What I do know, however, is that people, including experts, too often look at such issues within these little seperate windows--the psychiatrist, the neuroscientist, the endocronologist, the educator, the government policy maker, etc--when issue(s) is more of a kaliedoscope than a serial concept.
There are world-class institutions who have increasingly designed interdisciplinary entitites to increase the positive effects of technologies, exponentially. I am looking forward to that trend continuing and eventually consuming the mainstream. It seems silly to me that anthropology, art, political science, economics, medicine, and everything else are studied as seperate disciplines when really, they are all interconnected. There is perhaps a growing amount of information to be shared that overwhelms this concept, but institutions (incl. some government entities) are doing it. As far solutions are concerned, I'll trust the social entrepreuners will somehow figure it out, which is something I had hoped to become someday.
Posted by West on February 10, 2009, at 19:06:21
In reply to Re: Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video- sigismund » West, posted by Sigismund on February 10, 2009, at 16:03:07
> This, superimposed on a heroin withdrawal, is something I would be anxious to avoid and which William Burroughs (also a scientologist!) described as the most painful procedure he had ever experienced.Well there can be no moral gain without necessary sacrifice
> In the case of the rock star, there was some story about him trying to burgle the drugs trolley and escaping in his pyjamas down the street, pursued by the staff.
Hilarious. Did he do a nicholson and chuck the barbs then?
> 1000 people with brain damage!
Less so
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 10, 2009, at 20:01:51
In reply to Re: Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video » Larry Hoover, posted by garnet71 on February 10, 2009, at 18:59:13
> > Antidepressants are not prescribed to remedy a serotonin deficiency.
>
> That is very confusing, considering that concept is in the very name "SSRI" and that my doctors have told me the same. Confusing not even considering the drug co. commercials.I don't think the rationale matters one iota. Drugs are prescribed on the basis of their efficacy. My favourite professor, who was also my academic advisor, used to call this sort of explanation "hand waving", as in "I know! I know!", when it is clear than no one knows. Efficacy is verifiable, whereas mechanism is unknown.
> > There is no serotonin test in current use. Not one that can assess serotonergic activity in the central nervous system, in any case. Urinary excretion of serotonin breakdown products can be measured, but 90% or more of that comes from tissues outside of the CNS, and is irrelevant. Such tests are a fraud, IMHO. Blood levels can be taken, but they have never been correlated to anything in particular, save some dietary intakes, and those effects are transient. If these tests were of any value, they would be in common use by all doctors.
>
> My endocronologist told me she would have ordered a seratonin test for me had I not been lacking just one other symptom - flushing. We didn't have a discussion about the test accuracy, though.Which is entirely consistent with what I said. Carcinoid tumours can secrete huge amounts of serotonin, in the periphery. If large amounts of the serotonin metabolite 5-HIAA *and* serotonin are found in urine, it's almost certain that a carcinoid is the cause. Usually, only 5-HIAA is found in significant amounts in urine, and that's what is tested for in commercial "serotonin urinalysis". Which is fraudulent, IMHO.
Anyway, carcinoid is a peripheral serotonin problem, and does not affect the central nervous system as serotonin cannot cross the blood/brain barrier. It can often be felt, however, as serotonin does affect heart/circulatory parameters.
> I don't have the answers or claim to have the answers, but cant' help but be overcome by many of us going through a lot of pain and suffering. What I do know, however, is that people, including experts, too often look at such issues within these little seperate windows--the psychiatrist, the neuroscientist, the endocronologist, the educator, the government policy maker, etc--when issue(s) is more of a kaliedoscope than a serial concept.
Fair enough. I think it would be hard to become expert in all those realms, or to find a concensus perspective with which all would agree.
> There are world-class institutions who have increasingly designed interdisciplinary entitites to increase the positive effects of technologies, exponentially. I am looking forward to that trend continuing and eventually consuming the mainstream. It seems silly to me that anthropology, art, political science, economics, medicine, and everything else are studied as seperate disciplines when really, they are all interconnected. There is perhaps a growing amount of information to be shared that overwhelms this concept, but institutions (incl. some government entities) are doing it. As far solutions are concerned, I'll trust the social entrepreuners will somehow figure it out, which is something I had hoped to become someday.
Maybe we can all contribute to that transformation, in our own small measures.
Lar
Posted by garnet71 on February 10, 2009, at 20:32:36
In reply to Re: Good grief...NOT a pro ssri video, posted by West on February 10, 2009, at 14:43:18
Interesting story about the monkeys!
The anthropologist in the video warns, in a nutshell, of the implications on certain aspects of society (love, connection, intimacy, relationships) due to widespread antidepressant use.
But she doesn't go into detail about the possibilites, kind of disappointing there, but nevertheless, leaves provocative thoughts and questions.
This is the end of the 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.