![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 21 of 21. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by SLS on May 1, 2018, at 6:40:51
Initial calculation.
-----------------------------------
a) Prevalence of Lyme Disease in the United States = 329,000
https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/humancases.htmlb) Prevalence of Lyme Disease that presents as depression = 40% (0.40)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7943444c) Prevalence of Major Depressive Disorder - 16,200,00
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/major-depression.shtml
-------------------------------------------------------Depression cases with Lyme Disease =
(a x b) / c
-------------------------------------------------------
(329,000 x 0.40)/16,200,000 = 0.00741 = 0.741% = 7/1000
-------------------------------------------------------
Posted by linkadge on May 1, 2018, at 7:03:34
In reply to Prevalence of depression in Lyme = 7 in 1000 ?, posted by SLS on May 1, 2018, at 6:40:51
Thanks for digging this up SLS. The calculation makes sense.
Even if 100% of Lymes patients developed depression, that would only account for 2% of the total cases of depression.
329,000/16,200,000 = 2%
Now, it is possible that some of the cases of depression are misdiagnosed (and are in fact due to Lymes disease).
However, if 9/10 cases of depression were due to Lymes:
0.9 x 16.2 million = 14.58 million
14.58 million - 329,000 = 14,251,000
This would mean there were at least 14.3 million cases of undiagnosed Lymes disease, or in other words, the incidence of Lymes is more than 46 FOLD higher than it currently believed.
I think another way to filter through this would be to compare rates of depression in countries / regions with high Lymes prevalence, vs. those with low prevalence.
Linkadge
Posted by SLS on May 1, 2018, at 7:04:04
In reply to Prevalence of depression in Lyme = 7 in 1000 ?, posted by SLS on May 1, 2018, at 6:40:51
Cases of depression that have Lyme Disease:
Initial calculation.
-----------------------------------
a) Prevalence of Lyme Disease in the United States = 329,000
https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/humancases.htmlb) Prevalence of Lyme Disease that presents as depression = 40% (0.40)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7943444c) Prevalence of Major Depressive Disorder - 16,200,00
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/major-depression.shtml
-------------------------------------------------------Depression cases with Lyme Disease =
(a x b) / c
-------------------------------------------------------
(329,000 x 0.40)/16,200,000 = 0.00741 = 0.741% = 7/1000
-------------------------------------------------------
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 1, 2018, at 7:09:04
In reply to Re: Prevalence of depression in Lyme = 7 in 1000 ?, posted by linkadge on May 1, 2018, at 7:03:34
> Thanks for digging this up SLS. The calculation makes sense.
>
> Even if 100% of Lymes patients developed depression, that would only account for 2% of the total cases of depression.
>
> 329,000/16,200,000 = 2%
>
> Now, it is possible that some of the cases of depression are misdiagnosed (and are in fact due to Lymes disease).
>
> However, if 9/10 cases of depression were due to Lymes:
>
> 0.9 x 16.2 million = 14.58 million
>
> 14.58 million - 329,000 = 14,251,000
>
> This would mean there were at least 14.3 million cases of undiagnosed Lymes disease, or in other words, the incidence of Lymes is more than 46 FOLD higher than it currently believed.
>
> I think another way to filter through this would be to compare rates of depression in countries / regions with high Lymes prevalence, vs. those with low prevalence.
>
> Linkadge
Thanks for expanding perspectives.:-)
- Scott
Posted by linkadge on May 1, 2018, at 15:13:57
In reply to Re: Prevalence of depression in Lyme = 7 in 1000 ?, posted by SLS on May 1, 2018, at 7:09:04
We need Larry Hoover.
He'd probably very quickly quash the notion that 9/10 people with depression have Lymes.
There is a cognative bias (don't know the name) by which individuals feel that their cure is everybody's cure.
Linkadge
Posted by ed_uk2010 on May 1, 2018, at 16:01:29
In reply to Re: Prevalence of depression in Lyme = 7 in 1000 ? » SLS, posted by linkadge on May 1, 2018, at 15:13:57
> We need Larry Hoover.
Where is Larry these days?
Posted by linkadge on May 1, 2018, at 16:39:21
In reply to Re: Prevalence of depression in Lyme = 7 in 1000 ? » linkadge, posted by ed_uk2010 on May 1, 2018, at 16:01:29
Not sure,
Clearly nobody has programmed a working "ask Larry" button in the HTML code.
Linkadge
Posted by Phillipa on May 1, 2018, at 22:47:20
In reply to Re: Prevalence of depression in Lyme = 7 in 1000 ? » linkadge, posted by ed_uk2010 on May 1, 2018, at 16:01:29
Still on my facebook he has a company that does mining and is making tons on money. Phillipa
Posted by bleauberry on May 2, 2018, at 12:07:07
In reply to Prevalence of depression in Lyme = 7 in 1000 ?, posted by SLS on May 1, 2018, at 6:40:51
In the same amount of time it took to research all this and then crunch the numbers and extrapolate, an LLMD could have been located and an appointment set on the books.
Number crunching and skepticism does not heal. Progress happens when we let go and just do it.
These calculations are totally flawed, to boot. There are no accurate scientific numbers to work with. The best we have are estimates and anecdotal. Data from 'establishment academia' sources are terribly flawed by politics and economics. They are far from accurate.
In the realm of estimates and anecdotal, clinicians with experience in this topic who deal with it every day in their clinics - not think tanks - confidently claim that only 1 in 10 people with lyme is correctly diagnosed.
It's hard to do accurate number crunching when the sources of data are so spectacularly different. With that said, we have to choose sides. I chose the side that has been working. I abandoned the side that didn't work for 20+ years.
Ruling it in or out requires 2 hours of time and about $300 cash. With an experienced LLMD. Ruling it in or out does not happen with think tanks or calculators.
imo
> Initial calculation.
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> a) Prevalence of Lyme Disease in the United States = 329,000
> https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/humancases.html
>
> b) Prevalence of Lyme Disease that presents as depression = 40% (0.40)
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7943444
>
> c) Prevalence of Major Depressive Disorder - 16,200,00
> https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/major-depression.shtml
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Depression cases with Lyme Disease =
>
> (a x b) / c
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> (329,000 x 0.40)/16,200,000 = 0.00741 = 0.741% = 7/1000
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Posted by SLS on May 2, 2018, at 15:08:27
In reply to Re: Prevalence of depression in Lyme = 7 in 1000 ? » SLS, posted by bleauberry on May 2, 2018, at 12:07:07
> These calculations are totally flawed, to boot. There are no accurate scientific numbers to work with.
Then how could you possibly offer one? (9/10)
> > Initial calculation.
> >
> > -----------------------------------
> >
> > a) Prevalence of Lyme Disease in the United States = 329,000
> > https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/humancases.html
> >
> > b) Prevalence of Lyme Disease that presents as depression = 40% (0.40)
> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7943444
> >
> > c) Prevalence of Major Depressive Disorder - 16,200,00
> > https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/major-depression.shtml
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Depression cases with Lyme Disease =
> >
> > (a x b) / c
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > (329,000 x 0.40)/16,200,000 = 0.00741 = 0.741% = 7/1000
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
- Scott
Posted by SLS on May 3, 2018, at 0:14:51
In reply to Re: Prevalence of depression in Lyme = 7 in 1000 ? » SLS, posted by bleauberry on May 2, 2018, at 12:07:07
Bleauberry.
You have been told by your physicians that 9 out of 10 (90%) people presenting with depression will actually have Lyme Disease.
> I have my own estimate of the number of lyme cases in USA. It is 10X whatever we think it is.
Nice non-answer. How much do "we" think it is?
Let's try another experiment. We need to come up with a value representing the number of people in the USA who are walking around with Lyme Disease. 33,000 cases are reported to the CDC each year. However, they estimated that the true number is 10 times higher than this = 329,000. If you were to multiply this number by another 10, we get 3,290,000. Still, this would yield a much lower number than the 90% number you keep touting. For every 100 cases of depression, 8 would have Lyme = 8%. That's still a very big number - certainly bigger than the 7 out of 1000 (0.740%) that results when you use the CDC estimate.
Okay - just for kicks:
To get to 90%, you would have to multiply the CDC estimate by a factor of 110.
That's 110x !
By the way, such a number would imply that 1 in 10 people in the USA are walking around with Lyme Disease.
Does this sound reasonable to you?
Oh, c'mon, Bleauberry. Smile.
For now, I would have to guess that the prevalence of Lyme Disease among people with depression in the USA is somewhere between 1% and 2%. However, this number will vary greatly regionally. 96% of Lyme cases occur in 14 states. To not take this into account in clinical practice demonstrates a lack of desire to get it right.
Connecticut
Delaware
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin
- Scott
Posted by bleauberry on May 3, 2018, at 10:45:13
In reply to Re: Prevalence of Lyme in depression = 7 in 1000 ? » bleauberry, posted by SLS on May 2, 2018, at 15:08:27
Scott it was never claimed by me that 9/10 was an accurate number. I claimed that both of the doctors who managed to end my treatment resistant depression thought that was an accurate number. Both of them. And the LLNP also.
9/10 is believed to be an accurate number according to different clinicians I had.
I would say their anecdotal estimates are probably more accurate than any other estimates out there, simply because they are based on extensive experience in real clinical settings.
But as I have said before, whether it is 9/10, 3/10, 6/10, whatever, none of that really matters because none of that will do a thing to help somebody heal. What does matter is that when patients treat themselves as if they had lyme, whether they actually do or not, and most likely they will never know for sure, the outcomes are better. They just are.
Depression and anxiety are way too complicated to address with mono therapies of just psychiatric meds, or just exercise, or just diet, or just amalgam removal, or whatever. Mood is extremely complicated and requires a comprehensive wide spectrum approach, not a targeted approach. We here at babble focus a lot on targeted approaches and I disagree with that. We have plenty of evidence to show that our targeted approaches really aren't that great. Comprehensive is way better. And the best comprehensive approach I have ever seen, heard of, or experienced, is treating lyme whether it exists or not.
> > These calculations are totally flawed, to boot. There are no accurate scientific numbers to work with.
>
> Then how could you possibly offer one? (9/10)
>
>
> > > Initial calculation.
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------
> > >
> > > a) Prevalence of Lyme Disease in the United States = 329,000
> > > https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/humancases.html
> > >
> > > b) Prevalence of Lyme Disease that presents as depression = 40% (0.40)
> > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7943444
> > >
> > > c) Prevalence of Major Depressive Disorder - 16,200,00
> > > https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/major-depression.shtml
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Depression cases with Lyme Disease =
> > >
> > > (a x b) / c
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > (329,000 x 0.40)/16,200,000 = 0.00741 = 0.741% = 7/1000
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by bleauberry on May 3, 2018, at 10:56:57
In reply to Let's play with numbers. (Repost) » bleauberry, posted by SLS on May 3, 2018, at 0:14:51
Scotty I am really not interested in playing with numbers. I am interested in seeing suffering patients get better. The time, effort, and brain energy utilized to play with these numbers would be much better spent studying other things.
10X, by the way, is not a "non answer". The best estimates floating around - nobody knows - is that for every 1 patient correctly diagnosed, there are 9 walking around with wrong diagnosis of fibromyalgia, CFS, MS, depression, anxiety, schizophrenia. That's where the 10X came from. It is an estimate by doctors who work this topic in real world clinics. It is not think tank theory.
There are no accurate numbers to work with. Any number games are going to be flawed right from the get-go. There are so many myths and mysteries involved in Lyme disease. That is exactly why so many people suffer needlessly and encounter treatment resistance. You can't get better if you are treating the wrong thing. You can't get better if you are playing with a calculator instead of finding a 2nd opinion.
For future reference, the CDC is totally unreliable on lyme stats, diagnosis and treatment. For every flawed scientific study they use to make their case about something, there are 2 or 3 other better scientific studies which directly refute their claims. The CDC cherry picks. They do not include all data. They censor. There is deep politics and economics in these massive bureaucracies. CdC is better for acute settings - of example a Zika outbreak in Africa - absolutely spectacular the CDC was. But when it comes to chronic mystery disease, they are way behind the curve.
The reason I was a treatment resistant psychiatric patient for 20 years was directly because of CDC guidelines.
imo
> Bleauberry.
>
> You have been told by your physicians that 9 out of 10 (90%) people presenting with depression will actually have Lyme Disease.
>
> > I have my own estimate of the number of lyme cases in USA. It is 10X whatever we think it is.
>
> Nice non-answer. How much do "we" think it is?
>
> Let's try another experiment. We need to come up with a value representing the number of people in the USA who are walking around with Lyme Disease. 33,000 cases are reported to the CDC each year. However, they estimated that the true number is 10 times higher than this = 329,000. If you were to multiply this number by another 10, we get 3,290,000. Still, this would yield a much lower number than the 90% number you keep touting. For every 100 cases of depression, 8 would have Lyme = 8%. That's still a very big number - certainly bigger than the 7 out of 1000 (0.740%) that results when you use the CDC estimate.
>
> Okay - just for kicks:
>
> To get to 90%, you would have to multiply the CDC estimate by a factor of 110.
>
> That's 110x !
>
> By the way, such a number would imply that 1 in 10 people in the USA are walking around with Lyme Disease.
>
> Does this sound reasonable to you?
>
> Oh, c'mon, Bleauberry. Smile.
>
> For now, I would have to guess that the prevalence of Lyme Disease among people with depression in the USA is somewhere between 1% and 2%. However, this number will vary greatly regionally. 96% of Lyme cases occur in 14 states. To not take this into account in clinical practice demonstrates a lack of desire to get it right.
>
> Connecticut
> Delaware
> Maine
> Maryland
> Massachusetts
> Minnesota
> New Hampshire
> New Jersey
> New York
> Pennsylvania
> Rhode Island
> Vermont
> Virginia
> Wisconsin
>
>
> - Scott
>
Posted by linkadge on May 4, 2018, at 16:15:23
In reply to Re: Prevalence of depression in Lyme = 7 in 1000 ? » SLS, posted by bleauberry on May 2, 2018, at 12:07:07
>Number crunching and skepticism does not heal.
Neither does haphazardly recommending potentially harmful treatments based on a personal hunch.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on May 4, 2018, at 16:16:02
In reply to Re: Prevalence of Lyme in depression = 7 in 1000 ? » bleauberry, posted by SLS on May 2, 2018, at 15:08:27
>Then how could you possibly offer one? (9/10)
Touche
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on May 4, 2018, at 16:17:22
In reply to Re: Prevalence of Lyme in depression = 7 in 1000 ? » SLS, posted by bleauberry on May 3, 2018, at 10:45:13
>9/10 is believed to be an accurate number
>according to different clinicians I had.Of course, just as most chiropractors think that ones brain tumor is because ones hips are out of alignment.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on May 4, 2018, at 16:28:02
In reply to Re: Let's play with numbers. (Repost) » SLS, posted by bleauberry on May 3, 2018, at 10:56:57
>Scotty I am really not interested in playing with
>numbers. I am interested in seeing suffering
>patients get better. The time, effort, and brain
>energy utilized to play with these numbers would
>be much better spent studying other things.Blueberry, I'm sorry, but get serious. I'm glad you're feeling better, but your 'cure' is simply not everybody's cure. If thyroid medication helped my depression, sure I'd share my story, but I wouldn't ram it down everybody's throat as a 'cure all'.
At best, the contribution of Lyme's to overall incidence of depression is likely in the single digits. If you think it is more, you are simply not looking at the totality of current data.
If you have more accurate data (not hunches) to support your claims, please share. Otherwise, stop recommending everybody pop needless (and not harmless) antibiotics.My cure for everybody's depression is chocolate covered gumballs. Do I have any evidence? No - I don't need it. I don't bother myself with trivial things like data / proof. I'm interested in curing people.
Calling Scott - 'scotty' also does nothing to support your case. As if you are some kind of authority, as if Scott is a juvenile?
Get real.
Linkadge
Posted by bleauberry on May 8, 2018, at 8:12:37
In reply to Re: Prevalence of depression in Lyme = 7 in 1000 ? » bleauberry, posted by linkadge on May 4, 2018, at 16:15:23
There is no comparison between the dangers and risks of psychiatric medications compared to antibiotics. There is low risk with antibiotics. The greatest risk is the same as antidepressants - suicide. Drugs can cause otherwise sane people to kill themselves. Paxil has done that. Zoloft has done that. TCAs have done that. Twisting the mind in controlled experiments is not exactly risk-free.
The most common risk with antibiotics is yeast infection or disharmony in the intestines. That is easily prevented and remedied with 100billiion probiotics per day. Some antibiotics can cause tendonitis and bone problems. That can be managed by short term usage, not long term, and substituting other choices. Of note, some people have reported that it required that deep bone penetration to fully cure their disease - Bartonella specifically - also the most profound infection producing every psychiatric thing we experience at babble. Bartonella.
In the case of antibiotics suicide is a risk because of the Herxheimer reaction - die off toxiicity which can cause deep depression.
Psych drugs carry far more risk than antibiotics, with far less potential benefit. Antibiotics have much lower risk and much higher potential benefit.
All of this is just my opinion. Based on extensive experience with both camps of this discussion. Wisdom guided by experience.
I think it makes sense to weigh risks against potential benefits.
We don't see potential benefits of psych drugs turn out the way we hope hardly ever.
> >Number crunching and skepticism does not heal.
>
> Neither does haphazardly recommending potentially harmful treatments based on a personal hunch.
>
> Linkadge
>
Posted by bleauberry on May 8, 2018, at 8:59:30
In reply to Re: Let's play with numbers. (Repost), posted by linkadge on May 4, 2018, at 16:28:02
> Blueberry, I'm sorry, but get serious.
I didn't come here to joke.
>I'm glad you're feeling better, but your 'cure' is simply not everybody's cure.
There is no way of justifying that. There is no way of telling the lyme doctors who are healing people that they are wrong. You haven't even talked to one. You've never had an evaluation by one. You've never heard anything about it except from me. And the main thing is that there is an obvious closed mind right at the start of discussion. But that's ok. I get it. It takes time.
> If thyroid medication helped my depression, sure I'd share my story, but I wouldn't ram it down everybody's throat as a 'cure all'.
This shows the fallacy of some of our current medical thinking. We refer to a thyroid issue as if it were a separate thing. There is no curiosity as to why the thyroid is messed up - what exactly made that happen? The moon? No, in my world, that is an extremely common portion of tick born infections - to mess up the glands. Treating the messed up gland does not treat the underlying disease. It only treats that malfunctioning gland. Which is not the actual ultimate problem. The gland was fine and dandy until something happened. We have to find out, what happened? It isn't as hard or mysterious as most make it seem.
>
> At best, the contribution of Lyme's to overall incidence of depression is likely in the single digits.Making things up. Inventing numbers that feel good. The best numbers we have are from doctors working in the field - according to them, out of 10 diagnosis, only one of them is correct. This is what I meant when I said number crunching is not healing. It just isn't. If anything, it is a way of exercising resistance and opposition to justify feelings while rejecting new information that doesn't feel comfortable.
>If you think it is more, you are simply not looking at the totality of current data.
The data sucks. That is the problem. There is not good data. That's why we are all where we are. It is very incomplete, very biased, and not up to date with technological advances. If you put bad data into a computer you will get bad results from the software. That is what is happening in the medical world too often, and definitely in this discussion.
> If you have more accurate data (not hunches) to support your claims, please share. Otherwise, stop recommending everybody pop needless (and not harmless) antibiotics.
What I share here is not supported by science simply because science has not looked at it. They have not yet taken 1000 treatment resistant depression patients and put them on 3 rotating antibiotics for 9 months in order to duplicate what LLMDs are doing in the real world. It has not been done.
For me to recover from 20+ years of treatment resistant depression/bipolarI/BipolarII,Schizoaffective/Anxiety (I had all of those diagnosis by the time I finished with 12 specialists), for me to recover from that DID REQUIRE antibiotics. According to the attending doctors, 9 out 10 chronic psychiatric patients fit into that picture as well. Not just me. I am not an odd case. Babblers talk about me like I am a weird outlying case. Not so. Very, very common. The most common thing seen in the clinics actually.
Paxil. Prozac. Zoloft. Proazc+Nortriptyline. Prozac+Desipramine. Amisulpride. Prozac+Zyprexa. Lexapro. Lexapro+Abilify. Lexapro+Seroquel. Nortriptyline. Desipramine. Parnate. Modafinil. Depakote. Lithium. Xanax. Valium. Wellbutrin. Remeron. Remeron with all the above. Trazadone. Baskets of herbs and supplements. Many other meds I am not remembering at this moment......all of these exotic chemicals and exotic combinations of 2,3,4, and even 5 of them at a time, were nearly useless when compared to the amazing progress with antibiotics. Fact. Profound.
But when you get three different doctors and one nurse, all from different locations, they don't know each other, but they all agree on the same conclusions, and all them arrived at their conclusions based on their own experience in their own clinics, that is hard to argue with. You can only really resist that and fail to confirm it by having a preconceived resistance to the whole thing, without basis other than emotionalism.
>
> My cure for everybody's depression is chocolate covered gumballs. Do I have any evidence? No - I don't need it. I don't bother myself with trivial things like data / proof. I'm interested in curing people.I've never heard of different doctors from different locations agreeing that gumboils work. But that has happened literally millions of times for lyme and psychiatry.
>
> Calling Scott - 'scotty' also does nothing to support your case. As if you are some kind of authority, as if Scott is a juvenile?Mistyped. Sorry if you were offended.
>
> Get real.I am not here to be fake. I am here to bring new ideas to old sufferings. Patients are free to be curious or to object, however they see fit.
I was in the rejecting camp for quite a few years. I'm glad I didn't stay there because I would probably be dead of suicide by now if I had. My depression was really, really bad, for a really, really long time. Longer than everybody here except[pt SLS.
Maybe if the connection between stealth infections, toxicity, and psychiatry are disagreeable to you then simply ignore.
Some people are desperate for choices and options and they want to copy success stories. Some people reject all that. Human nature.
My entire journey/experience states with no doubt that longterm chronic psychiatric patients have far better outcomes being treated by LLMDs than they do by Psychiatrists. It is just that simple. Fill in the gaps any way you want to.
All of this is opinion gathered by wisdom gathered by experience gathered by 20 years in psychiatry study and gathered by 10 years in lyme study. If you had studied gumboils for 10 years and were in remission because of it, I would definitely be curious to learn more about gumboils! But that's just me.
I can accidentally sound like a salesman pushing a lyme product. But of course, think about it, I have nothing to gain. There is no money. There is no fame and fortune. With the pushback I have received from some babblers, I have honed my message to be more precise. Here it is:
If you've been suffering longer than 5 years with limited progress, GET A SECOND OPINION FROM AN L.L.M.D. That's my message to all babblers.
>
> Linkadge
Posted by Phillipa on May 8, 2018, at 9:25:58
In reply to Re: Let's play with numbers. (Repost) » linkadge, posted by bleauberry on May 8, 2018, at 8:59:30
Rubbish someone brainwashed you and I feel for you. Didn't you say you again had a relapse. This conversation to me is over. Bye Phillipa
Posted by bleauberry on May 8, 2018, at 11:41:17
In reply to Re: Let's play with numbers. (Repost) » bleauberry, posted by Phillipa on May 8, 2018, at 9:25:58
> Rubbish someone brainwashed you and I feel for you. Didn't you say you again had a relapse. This conversation to me is over. Bye Phillipa
I had that same frustration as you express in this post. For a really long time. I don't any more.
Here is the situation stated accurately:
20+ year treatment resistance responds to LLMD, not multiple psychiatrists and not multiple family doctors.
It turns into remission. Depression totally gone.
The remission has a relapse that looks like anxiety, a year later - no depression this time - just anxiety.
The relapse is almost remission with renewed treatment. Anxiety is 95% gone after 6 weeks. (when was the last time you heard a babbler claiming they were 95% better in 6 weeks?????)
You don't see those kinds of results with anybody else here.
But I want to see results like that with you. And everybody.But it doesn't happen when minds are closed and rejectful. I get that. I totally get that. I've had more time here than anybody else here, so believe me, I totally get it, and I am the opposite of brainwashed.
If you ask me, any patient thinking that a cocktail of mind altering drugs is going to cure their disease is showing what brain washing really looks like. The medical community has given you and me a bunch of myths and false hopes. There are tremendous success stories but still too much needless suffering. We can do better. We can manage our medications way better than we currently are. We can attack disease and suffering way better than we are.
Just saying it the way it is. In my book, anyone not making serious progress within a 5 year time frame is on the wrong road and it is as simple as that.
The doctor who told me I did not have lyme because my lab test was negative - THAT is brain washing.
The family doctor who told me Paxil would treat my depression - THAT was brain washing.
The ECT consultants who told me it would probably help - THAT was brain washing.
The doctor who said his patients get better with antibiotics - that was NOT brain washing. That was actually the first fact I had seen in 20 years.
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.