# Cut the bullshit please!!!!!!!



## yebert (Aug 30, 2010)

I've been reading many posts on this website and I cannot believe the kind of bullshit people are spewing as remedies for DP/DR. I have seen everything from suggestions for taking illegal drugs to going on a 7 day water-only diet as cures for this condition! This stuff reminds me of the snake oil, quack medicine peddled around in the nineteenth century in the U.S. 
Listen people: Get real! The stuff you are reading here is anecdotal which means, at best, it is based on personal observation, rather than systematic scientific evaluation. Often it is based on just pure nonsense that someone dreamed up. It is therefore unreliable and untrustworthy and you must take everything you read here with huge grains of salt. Please be skeptical and please use your common sense. People here are desperate and are grasping onto anything that might provide some rays of hope. It is, therefore a disgrace that people are posting such unsubstantiated garbage that can cause people real harm if acted upon. You, who are posting this crap, should really be ashamed of yourselves. I think everyone here has a responsibility to try to present as legitimate and factual information as possible, and should challenge the nonsense wherever it comes up Further, I advise, that you should indicate whether their information your providing is factual or anecdotal of nature. If the information you provide here is founded than cite the source(s). Advising people to starve themselves for a week as a cure DP/DR is reckless and cruel - and, unfortunately, there are people here desperate enough to try that.


----------



## MEGA (Dec 3, 2010)

no point


----------



## Fluke93 (Nov 2, 2010)

concrete said:


> I was going to make a post similar to this. I think its funny when a bunch of 17 year olds play doctor. Even the bullshit vitamins dont work. Smoke weed twice a day, drink alcohol, eat chocalate, the water diet was the best. I suggest everyone goes and sees a "professional" phychiatrist if they want advice. Go home and eat algae tablets, but the same idiots thinking that shit works are the same people with dp/dr on here complaining. I understand people want hope, but I "hope" IQ comes into play at some point. Seek medical attention if youre in trouble, dont follow these people and their stories of glory. And to tell people to stay away from benzos and SSRIs etc...is just fucking shameful. Who are you to tell a person what medicine is going to help them? Posting videos of people shaking and shit because they took "benzos" isnt helping anyone. We dont know the back story to these videos. I know a lot of people who took benzos and weened themselves off and are completely fine. And for some of them it saved their lives! So go fuck yourself.


Ive seen professional psychiatrists, 3 actually, and none of them knew what DP was. I then went to CBT helped with my anxiety, but ignored my real concern which was DP. I'm on an anti depressant at the moment, and it helpes with anxiety and my depression, and of course if someone's suicidal, or cant bare to live, then of course pills will help, and they should go on pills. I dont think anyone here is telling anyone what to do. The majority of people here are advising others what helped them, or whats the best way to go about this shit. Although i do agree with the above, telling people illegal drugs helped them, or even alcohol, is fucking wrong. People here want relief and could easily end up in a bad habit. Its plain inconsiderate. As for the benzos thing, the guy who i very much like, i believe was just doing his part to warn people, that if you do go over the top you can get into a very big problem of withdrawal. But i think even he uses benzos, so his just saying its about everything in moderation. The last thing us guys need is withdrawing from a drug on top of DP, ive quit smoking today and thats bad enough. By the way I'm 17 and im not playing doctor.


----------



## Onibla (Nov 9, 2010)

concrete said:


> I was going to make a post similar to this. I think its funny when a bunch of 17 year olds play doctor. Even the bullshit vitamins dont work. Smoke weed twice a day, drink alcohol, eat chocalate, the water diet was the best. I suggest everyone goes and sees a "professional" phychiatrist if they want advice. Go home and eat algae tablets, but the same idiots thinking that shit works are the same people with dp/dr on here complaining. I understand people want hope, but I "hope" IQ comes into play at some point. Seek medical attention if youre in trouble, dont follow these people and their stories of glory. And to tell people to stay away from benzos and SSRIs etc...is just fucking shameful. Who are you to tell a person what medicine is going to help them? Posting videos of people shaking and shit because they took "benzos" isnt helping anyone. We dont know the back story to these videos. I know a lot of people who took benzos and weened themselves off and are completely fine. And for some of them it saved their lives! So go fuck yourself.


Vitamins and supplements can help. DP/DR can be induced due to a B-vitamin deficieny. Many supplements such as Omega 3,6 & 9 CAN help increase concentration and focus your mind a bit more, which is surprisingly useful in overcoming DP/DR. Anything that makes you feel a little healthier or better is worth taking in my opinion, they can make life just that little bit more bearable and comfortable and that's something you can build from


----------



## Emir (Nov 20, 2010)

...


----------



## MEGA (Dec 3, 2010)

no point


----------



## Fluke93 (Nov 2, 2010)

concrete said:


> youre all bullshit. thats why youre sitting here with dp/dr, right? with all your supplements and garbage. you went to 3 phychiatrists and they didnt know what dp is? what 3rd world country are you living in? my doctor and phychiatrist know exactly what it is. along with any nurse in the er and the next store neighbor.


I'm here in England. It seems when i brought the topic of DP up they did not have the slightest clue. They normally put it down to depression or panic attacks. Although I'd love them to know what DP was, but i am yet to meet someone offline who actually knows the term depersonalization.... But since no one does, all i have is the internet, a bunch of weird scary sites, and this is the only genuine place i have found just normal people who have been brought down by this terrifying condition. Also since ive had this, i have become very frustrated with the way mental illnesses are portrayed. :/. And thanks for the comment above, i guess its because i am recovering, and i don't think i could have done it without this forum. Ive had this for three months, and it was horrific in the beginning, but i am feeling much better now. If this continues or gets worse i will find somewhere in London who specialises in these kind of things.


----------



## Onibla (Nov 9, 2010)

My DP/DR is 98% better, I feel pretty much fine all the time now. 
I didn't need a psychiatrist or meds to make me feel better (as I already have a rudimentary knowledge of psychology). It's all about changing your thought patterns, simple psychology.
Vitamins do help, many of them have been scientifically proven to in lab conditions, wikipedia some vitamins if you're interested and follow the links to the research papers. Vitamins aren't the flimsy 'alternative medicine' you seem to be thinking of, if you knew anything about biology you'd understand that vitamins are important and lacking in any of them has very noticable symptons. No one is saying that taken a multivitamin tablet once a day is going to cure you, it's not, but it can make you feel better, more focused etc... Which in the long run will help you recover and tackle any depression/anxiety.
I only advise against taking SSRI's because I know that you can get better without them. SSRI's are a risk, every doctor you ask will tell you that they are a risk. Studies show they increase suicide rates in people under 18. That is a fact. BUT that doesn't mean they aren't helpful if you're in a deep hole.


----------



## Visual (Oct 13, 2010)

yebert said:


> I've been reading many posts on this website and I cannot believe the kind of bullshit people are spewing as remedies for DP/DR. I have seen everything from suggestions for taking illegal drugs to going on a 7 day water-only diet as cures for this condition! This stuff reminds me of the snake oil, quack medicine peddled around in the nineteenth century in the U.S.
> Listen people: Get real! The stuff you are reading here is anecdotal which means, at best, it is based on personal observation, rather than systematic scientific evaluation. Often it is based on just pure nonsense that someone dreamed up. It is therefore unreliable and untrustworthy and you must take everything you read here with huge grains of salt. Please be skeptical and please use your common sense. People here are desperate and are grasping onto anything that might provide some rays of hope. It is, therefore a disgrace that people are posting such unsubstantiated garbage that can cause people real harm if acted upon. You, who are posting this crap, should really be ashamed of yourselves. I think everyone here has a responsibility to try to present as legitimate and factual information as possible, and should challenge the nonsense wherever it comes up Further, I advise, that you should indicate whether their information your providing is factual or anecdotal of nature. If the information you provide here is founded than cite the source(s). Advising people to starve themselves for a week as a cure DP/DR is reckless and cruel - and, unfortunately, there are people here desperate enough to try that.


*It is, therefore a disgrace that people are posting such unsubstantiated garbage that can cause people real harm if acted upon.*

This is a public forum and people post how they feel and what they have tried. It is not a disgrace to post such things. Most agree with you that all posts need to taken with *grains of salt* (an expression that has its roots in 'ancient knowledge' - snake oil).

Now if *lego* felt he was helped by fasting - why should this be censored? Is his experience 'crap' because it is unusual? Should he be shamed? Silenced?

Is it a disgrace for someone to post about feeling hysterical or suicidal? Where does it end?

*systematic scientific evaluation*

If you wish to wait for this, that is your prerogative. But do not belittle others because they seek and find unique solutions.

*unsubstantiated garbage*

What do you define as 'substantiated'? Have 'bona fide' professionals fixed your DR? From your posts you have suffered for over 14 years.

Knowledge is a growing process and comes from many cultures and disciplines. It is important to respect others. This is a 'self help' forum.


----------



## outlaw (May 20, 2010)

Why all the anger? I understand people should really think about what kind of advice they post on the forumns but you should judge them on their intentions.

All I'm noticing aside from what your complaining about is... that you're really angry in your posts!

Maybe you're angry that these ridiculous ideas are helping other people.

I'm not trying to argue with you, I understand what you're saying BUT there's no need to be so angry about it


----------



## yebert (Aug 30, 2010)

Deleted


----------



## yebert (Aug 30, 2010)

Deleted


----------



## yebert (Aug 30, 2010)

Visual Dude said:


> *It is, therefore a disgrace that people are posting such unsubstantiated garbage that can cause people real harm if acted upon.*
> 
> This is a public forum and people post how they feel and what they have tried. It is not a disgrace to post such things. Most agree with you that all posts need to taken with *grains of salt* (an expression that has its roots in 'ancient knowledge' - snake oil).
> 
> ...


(My third attempt trying to get the format on this response correct (I'm new at this, but i'm learning) but this should do it!)

*It is, therefore a disgrace that people are posting such unsubstantiated garbage that can cause people real harm if acted upon.

This is a public forum and people post how they feel and what they have tried. It is not a disgrace to post such things. Most agree with you that all posts need to taken with grains of salt (an expression that has its roots in 'ancient knowledge' - snake oil).
*
This is a public forum and I am expressing how I feel about the reckless and dangerous things people are advocating to be tried as cures for this condition. Certainly, your not disputing the danger of taking illegal drugs as a treatment option for depersonlization - or then again maybe you are. Either way you want your cake and eat it too. You champion the publicness and openness of this forum and the right for freedom of expression. yet, at the same time have the chutzpah of challenging my my right to freely express my dismay over the fact that there are morons on this site advocating and encouraging desperate people to do dangerous things. Have you no shame?

*Now if lego felt he was helped by fasting - why should this be censored? Is his experience 'crap' because it is unusual? Should he be shamed? Silenced?*

This is a prime example of a moron advocating desperate people to do dangerous things. Or maybe in your universe fasting for seven days and losing 20 pounds in a week (as purported by this moron) is healthy behavior. Should he be shamed? Absolutely! Should he be censored? No. I am not advocating censorship of any kind. What I am advocating, though, is that good and decent people, everywhere, stand up, have the courage to use their right of freedom of expression and challenge these moronic ideas.

*Is it a disgrace for someone to post about feeling hysterical or suicidal? Where does it end?
*
Absolutely not! Where did you get that idea from? However, if someone advocates harmful behavior, they should be disgraced.

*systematic scientific evaluation

If you wish to wait for this, that is your prerogative. But do not belittle others because they seek and find unique solutions.
*
It is your prerogative if you want to base your facts on hype and hysteria rather than hard scientific evidence. But don't tell me not to belittle you.

*unsubstantiated garbage

What do you define as 'substantiated'? Have 'bona fide' professionals fixed your DR? From your posts you have suffered for over 14 years.
*
Don't play stupid. Don't tell me that you don't know the difference between hysteria and reputable, documented scientific information. If you are that stupid....well than i don't know where to begin.

*Knowledge is a growing process and comes from many cultures and disciplines. It is important to respect others. This is a 'self help' forum.
*

No knowledge is acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation. Stress the words Facts and the Truths not the hyperbole you seem to subscribe to.


----------



## Onibla (Nov 9, 2010)

Yebert, you didn't answer the question. What do you define as ‘substantiated’? There is evidence and research to show that vitamins etc help. I don't know if there's any research which shows losing weight rapidly, fasting, and drinking loads of water helps (and I doubt there is any), but that's no reason to throw away everything people have said and only put your trust in medication (which does have side effects, many of which worsen the condition and thus is a risk)


----------



## Amelie (Jul 24, 2007)

concrete said:


> youre all bullshit. thats why youre sitting here with dp/dr, right? with all your supplements and garbage. you went to 3 phychiatrists and they didnt know what dp is? what 3rd world country are you living in? my doctor and phychiatrist know exactly what it is. along with any nurse in the er and the next store neighbor.


It took me YEARS--and many, many sessions with highly regarded psychiatrists, ALL of whom told me my problem was depression--before *I* finally diagnosed myself. (I'm in the US.) Not ONE of them had any idea that what I was experiencing, and what I was trying so hard to express to them, was dissociation and not depression. Yes, that's been years ago now, but they SHOULD have known about depersonalization/derealization, as it's been in the psychiatric literature for a very long time. So don't be so quick to jump to the conclusion that every psychiatrist and nurse knows about it!

By the way, I'm on your side when it comes to the bullshit issue.


----------



## yebert (Aug 30, 2010)

outlaw said:


> Why all the anger? I understand people should really think about what kind of advice they post on the forumns but you should judge them on their intentions.
> 
> All I'm noticing aside from what your complaining about is... that you're really angry in your posts!
> 
> ...


Saint Bernard of Clairvaux said "The road to hell is paved with good intentions,". I do not purport to know the intentions of the people who post reckless advice on this website. Either way, the effect doesn't change. Desperate people, who will try anything, will end up hurting themselves following this advice however well-intentioned the advice-givers are. (Though, you must be a complete idiot if you think suggesting others to use illegal drugs is a good idea.)
I disagree with your feeling that there is a lack of cause for anger in this matter. If anything people aren't angry enough.


----------



## dustyn916 (Oct 24, 2010)

Let's all be children and argue and get internet rage. because we all know being angry cures dp/dr.........

all yebert is doing is stating his opinion. and honestly yebert has been the greatest help to me recovering and im 95 percent recoverd so i will take h is word of advice over snake oil.


----------



## flat (Jun 18, 2006)

Trying vitamins or other supplements don't harm anyone. It's an experimentation, just like a doctor tries different meds if one doesn't work. A waste of money? Perhaps. But I don't know of anyone here that has been 100% cured with a particular psychiatric medicine. Therefore the end result is the same...just feeling a bit better.

The person who said they are taking illegal drugs to feel better never condoned it. It was quite obviously stated that this is not the prefered route to go down. He was just talking about his own personal experience. Most people here have enuff common sense to not follow blindly without knowing the risks involved.

As for the 7 day water diet, can it really be that bad? Haven't lots of political prisoners and activists went on hunger strikes for much longer than that with no real health problems? Still, the person made it perfectly clear that you have to be as careful as possible if you want to try it. All you have to do, really, is ask your doctor what he thinks of it. And if he says it's ok to try it under medical supervision, then why not?


----------



## yebert (Aug 30, 2010)

Onibla said:


> Yebert, you didn't answer the question. What do you define as 'substantiated'? There is evidence and research to show that vitamins etc help. I don't know if there's any research which shows losing weight rapidly, fasting, and drinking loads of water helps (and I doubt there is any), but that's no reason to throw away everything people have said and only put your trust in medication (which does have side effects, many of which worsen the condition and thus is a risk)


Since this seems be an area in which many people on this site are unclear with, I plan on posting a separate thread on what I consider is and is not substantiated evidence. My hope is that it will prove to be insightful. As per your second point, I have never once advocated "throw[ing] away everything people have said" What I advocated is that people taking a sense of responsibility in what they write on this forum and not encourage vulnerable and desperate people to engage in potentially harmful activities. I have also advocated that people try to present as factual information as possible and not spread hyperbole. Thirdly, I have never advocated people to "only put [their] trust in medication", however don't be so rash to short-sell it either. For many, medication is critical - if not for the depersonalization itself than for its confounding illnesses as well, such as, anxiety and depression. There are many people who would not be able to function a day without their medication. Fourthly, all medications have side effects. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the doctor prescribing the medication to weigh the risks and benefits before prescribing it to you. If you don't trust your doctor than you probably shouldn't be going to him in the first place. If you don't have a doctor, perhaps you should consider going to one. Lastly, I challenge the accuracy of your claim that medications "worsen the condition". I only know of one medication that has depersonalization, expressly indicated as a potential side-effect. If I am wrong and you are aware of more than that, please provide the names of the medications and the sources you used to procure that information, and I would be happy to reconsider.


----------



## flat (Jun 18, 2006)

It's not so much that medicine worsens the sensation of being dp'd. It just adds new, unwanted feelings into the mix...like drowsiness, constipation, moodiness, not to mention potentially serious changes in body chemistry. That's why I've stopped all my meds in the past. They did little, if anything, for my dp/dr and gave me new problems to deal with. But yeah, if you can handle the side effects that come with meds then you're better off to take them if you think they are helping.


----------



## Onibla (Nov 9, 2010)

Every single SSRI has depression marked as a side effect. Depression can worsen DP/DR. I'm not saying that it is a common side effect, but if you get depression on top of DP/DR it can make it harder to deal with. I'm pretty sure all the SSRI's can cause weird feelings like depression, anxiety or loss of concentration as a side effect and these feelings can lead to increased anxiety. Since DP/DR (for most people) is a sympton of anxiety these drugs can be a risk. Not a huge one, but still a risk. 
I'm not denying that meds are useful and effective in the majority of cases, some of my friends and family take antidepressants and they say the meds are the only thing that get them through the day. 
I think that most doctors would be hesitant, and the doctors I've talked to agree, to prescribe heavy meds to someone who has a sympton of anxiety which can be overcome with therapy and CBT. My doctor (who I saw when I had flu, and brung up DP/DR) said that he thought prescribing antidepressants was a unnecessary risk, he also doubted that they'd have a huge impact unless I had become dangerously depressed as well.


----------



## Pablo (Sep 1, 2005)

Where are these cold hard scientific facts backing up what helps dp? 
There are none
The prescription of meds is a cultural one and most of the science behind them is sketchy at best. My view is that psychiatry is more of an art than a science but the trend for long time was to view people as machines and try to treat them that way by changing their brain chemistry directly, but that trend is now changing into a far more humanistic outlook because the strictly biological outlook is clearly limited in it's ability to help people.


----------



## yebert (Aug 30, 2010)

Onibla said:


> Every single SSRI has depression marked as a side effect. Depression can worsen DP/DR. I'm not saying that it is a common side effect, but if you get depression on top of DP/DR it can make it harder to deal with. I'm pretty sure all the SSRI's can cause weird feelings like depression, anxiety or loss of concentration as a side effect and these feelings can lead to increased anxiety. Since DP/DR (for most people) is a sympton of anxiety these drugs can be a risk. Not a huge one, but still a risk.
> I'm not denying that meds are useful and effective in the majority of cases, some of my friends and family take antidepressants and they say the meds are the only thing that get them through the day.
> I think that most doctors would be hesitant, and the doctors I've talked to agree, to prescribe heavy meds to someone who has a sympton of anxiety which can be overcome with therapy and CBT. My doctor (who I saw when I had flu, and brung up DP/DR) said that he thought prescribing antidepressants was a unnecessary risk, he also doubted that they'd have a huge impact unless I had become dangerously depressed as well.


Every single medicine out there has potential side effects. Even Tylenol, which has no _common _side effects reported, has the following _severe_ side effects indicated, which include: " difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue"
(http://www.drugs.com/sfx/tylenol-side-effects.html)
For this reason, before you take an antidepressant, you, should talk to your doctor about the risks and benefits of treating your condition with an antidepressant or with other treatments. You and your doctor will decide what type of treatment is right for you.
However, an important thing not to forget is risks of not treating your condition. You should know that having depression or another mental illness greatly increases the risk that you will become suicidal. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000885)


----------



## yebert (Aug 30, 2010)

Pablo said:


> Where are these cold hard scientific facts backing up what helps dp?
> There are none
> The prescription of meds is a cultural one and most of the science behind them is sketchy at best. My view is that psychiatry is more of an art than a science but the trend for long time was to view people as machines and try to treat them that way by changing their brain chemistry directly, but that trend is now changing into a far more humanistic outlook because the strictly biological outlook is clearly limited in it's ability to help people.


Pharmacological research on depersonalization is in its infancy, however, promising leads have been established. I will mention a few of them. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study just published in 2011 in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 72% of patients being treated with lamotrigine saw at least a 50% reduction of depersonalization symptoms. (Note: these were patients without psychiatric comorbidity.) (Aliyev and Aliyev, 2011)
Opioid receptor blockers, such as naloxone has shown success. In a single-blind, placebo controlled study, 14 depersonalized patients were given naloxone injections. 3 of the 14 patients' symptoms disappeared entirely. 7 patients showed marked improvement. (Nuller,et al 2001)
Further, 2 new drug classes look like they have a lot of potential: 1) cannabis receptor antogonist such as rimonaban, as the the endocannabinoid system in the brain is thought to mediate adaptive responses to unavoidable stressful stimuli. It has also shown anxiolytic properties. 2) selective kappa opiod antagonists as opposed to the opiod antogonists that have been tested thus far, which are non-selective and don't specifically target the (kappa) receptors implicated in depersonalization . Though they have not yet been developed for human use, it is likely they will be in the next few years. (Sierra, 2009) 
To conclude, your assertion that "the prescription of meds is a cultural one and most of the science behind them is sketchy at best" is absurd, and unfounded, as are all of the rest of your claims.

Sources cited:
Aliyev, Nadir, A., Aliyev, Zafar N. Lamotrigine in the Immediate Treatment of Outpatients With Depersonalization Disorder Without Psychiatric Comorbidity: Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study, Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology. February, 2011.

Nuller YL, Morozova MG,et al. Effect of naloxone therapy on depersonalization: a pilot study. J Psychopharmacol. 2001 June

Sierra, M. Depersonalization: A New Look at a Neglected Syndrome. Cambridge University Press. 2009


----------



## Pablo (Sep 1, 2005)

yebert said:


> Pharmacological research on depersonalization is in its infancy, however, promising leads have been established. I will mention a few of them. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study just published in 2011 in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 72% of patients being treated with lamotrigine saw at least a 50% reduction of depersonalization symptoms. (Note: these were patients without psychiatric comorbidity.)(Aliyev and Aliyev, 2011)
> Opioid receptor blockers, such as naloxone has shown success. In a single-blind, placebo controlled study, 14 depersonalized patients were given naloxone injections. 3 of the 14 patients' symptoms disappeared entirely. 7 patients showed marked improvement. (Nuller,et al 2001)
> Further, 2 new drug classes look like they have a lot of potential: 1) cannabis receptor antogonist such as rimonaban, as the the endocannabinoid system in the brain is thought to mediate adaptive responses to unavoidable stressful stimuli. It has also shown anxiolytic properties. 2) selective kappa opiod antagonists as opposed to the opiod antogonists that have been tested thus far, which are non-selective and don't specifically target the (kappa) receptors implicated in depersonalization . Though they have not yet been developed for human use, it is likely they will be in the next few years. (Sierra, 2009)
> To conclude, your assertion that "the prescription of meds is a cultural one and most of the science behind them is sketchy at best" is absurd, and unfounded, as are all of the rest of your claims.
> ...


From the other thread in spiritual section, it's long but worth a watch






Also the trend is away from the "chemical imbalance" outlook in psychiatry, in Europe it is anyway where there is less influence from big Pharma companies, now doctors prescribe CBT ahead of meds far more often and all the modern research on neuroplasticity has changed a lot of thinking about the best way to help people with mental issues.


----------



## gill (Jul 1, 2010)

...


----------



## yebert (Aug 30, 2010)

Pablo said:


> From the other thread in spiritual section, it's long but worth a watch
> 
> Also the trend is away from the "chemical imbalance" outlook in psychiatry, in Europe it is anyway where there is less influence from big Pharma companies, now doctors prescribe CBT ahead of meds far more often and all the modern research on neuroplasticity has changed a lot of thinking about the best way to help people with mental issues.


The video you posted is chock-full of distortions, exaggerations and outright fabrications, yet it remains void of evidence backing any of its outrageous claims. If the claims on the video are substantiated, why does it never cite sources? The fact that it not once cite any sources - not even one - leads me to believe that the ones behind the video have something to hide and an agenda. Anyone can make a video that says anything they want, but making a credible one based on evidence is a different matter entirely. Is "big pharma" infallible? No, but neither is there a big conspiracy of a group of evil corporations knowingly distributing dangerous and ineffective substances for money and greed. The efficacy and safety of psychiatric medication has been established by hundreds of independent scientific studies published in independent peer-reviewed journals and are strictly regulated. All medicines have side effects, not just psychiatric. If they didn't, they wouldn't have to be prescribed. This is why you go to a doctor you trust who can evaluate the benefits and risks of taking and not taking a medicine. Thanks to psychiatric medications, millions, today, can live productive and happy lives.

Secondly, if your right about what you posted, how could there be "less influence from big Pharma companies" in Europe, when six of the top ten largest pharmaceutical companies are located there (2 in the UK alone)?


----------



## Pablo (Sep 1, 2005)

yebert said:


> The video you posted is chock-full of distortions, exaggerations and outright fabrications, yet it remains void of evidence backing any of its outrageous claims. If the claims on the video are substantiated, why does it never cite sources? The fact that it not once cite any sources - not even one - leads me to believe that the ones behind the video have something to hide and an agenda. Anyone can make a video that says anything they want, but making a credible one based on evidence is a different matter entirely. Is "big pharma" infallible? No, but neither is there a big conspiracy of a group of evil corporations knowingly distributing dangerous and ineffective substances for money and greed. The efficacy and safety of psychiatric medication has been established by thousands of independent scientific studies published in independent peer-reviewed journals and are strictly regulated. All medicines have side effects, not just psychiatric. If they didn't, they wouldn't have to be prescribed. This is why you go to a doctor you trust who can evaluate the benefits and risks of taking and not taking a medicine. Thanks to psychiatric medications, millions, today, can live productive and happy lives.
> 
> Secondly, if your right about what you posted, how could there be "less influence from big Pharma companies" in Europe, when six of the top ten largest pharmaceutical companies are located there (2 in the UK alone)?


Yeah the video is biast but it's just the other side of the bias, the debate around the whole theory of chemical imbalance is a big one and one people can investigate for themselves as i dont have the energy to make a ten page thread about it. As far as I'm concerned meds have their place and that is they can be used as a temporary measure to stabilise a person so they can get their emotional and fininancial needs more easily met, but in terms of brain malfunction causing the chemical imbalance I don't believe that theory in the majority of cases, I believe that emotional and psychological conflicts cause the imbalance and not the other way around. So even if scientists can prove there is a chemical imbalance that is not actual proof of the cause of the emotional problem as the emotional problem could cause the chemical imbalance. If that is the case then drugs may be a way of covering up and masking the problem rather than actually finding a way of dealing with it.

If you look at the recent research on neuroplaticity of the brain it shows that the brain can rewire itself if damaged and the body is a self repairing organism, so even if you do believe there is a mechanical malfunction of your brain why doesn't it repair itself? In my case it is because my body is under constant stress and tension due to my mental conflicts, if I can solve them and relax it will remove tension and blood and neurotransmitters will flow more easily and freely to different parts of your brain so any repairs can be made. It still always comes back to the psychological and solving stress imo

Also the laws on drug advertisement are different in the UK and because the government has to pay for most the expensive pharma drugs in the NHS it has no vested interest or profit to be made by them.


----------



## Pablo (Sep 1, 2005)

Say someone has a problem like depression then a scientist finds that they are showing lower levels of serotonin in their brain, that low level may be a symptom of the problem and not the cause but pharma companies have spread the idea that it is the cause, but there is no proof of this conclusion. If it is the symptom and not the cause then all the drugs are doing is treating the symptom and never getting to the root of the problem.

It's like if a child starts crying instead of giving them a hug to make them feel safe so their nervous system can relax you go and surgically block their tear ducts instead, saying the problem is the crying and not the emotional distress, this is the same with how many people treat psychological issues instead of finding out the cause and pain behind the issue they try to get rid of the symptom.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2011)

Pablo, the problem with your theory is, there are children BORN with schizoprhenia for example -- and I will find the video on one child featured for several year in the NYTimes on that if you wish -- Jani Schoefield sp? - BORN SCHIZOPHRENIC. We know that so many mental illnesses, especially the most severe -- schizophrenia and bipolar -- are the result of significant changes in the brain -- NOT all "biochemical." There are structural differences. There are genomic/epigenomic changes (how genes turn on and off), there are things at the molecular level we do not understand. I was BORN anxious, I know it.

Just because we don't understand the brain that doesn't mean we throw away what we have begun to understand. The brain is so complex and we can't be poking at it while a person is alive, and there isn't even enough post-mortem brain tissue for research worldwide.

What we have for treatment today is the tip of the iceburg. We will look back fifty years from now and see what we have available is barbaric or completely the wrong way to treat some of these illnesses.

Environment is ALWAYS a factor, but so is one's given predisposition, one's biological makeup that starts at conception, and can even be altered in utero.

And I will use myself again re: my breast cancer. Last summer at age 51 I was diagnosed with a common breast cancer (80% of women get this TYPE, thought there are a zillion different types of cancers -- each case is UNIQUE and must be treted that way). I had a mastectomy. There is a new test used to "autopsy" the tumor itself -- gave it an Oncotype rating ... this was not available until 2004! I found by having that tumor analyzed that I did NOT need chemo -- that the risk/benefit of chemo would _*not*_ improve my chances of the cancer not returning. I was also tested for the breast cancer gene. I DO NOT HAVE IT. In terms of health, there is no reason I should have gotten this when I did, though I fit "a perfect age and hormonal profile." But there is not one doctor of the zillion I've seen over the past 8 months who can say to me, "You are 100% fine and will never get cancer again." No one. Because they don't understand cancer.

I am now on a medication I must be on for 5 years. It blocks the estrogen in my body. My tumor is an estrogen eating tumor. You don't want to know the horrible side-effects ... I'm OK, but it is not pleasant to be on this medication. One day, hopefully, this will not be required.

I may live to be 90, or I may live for 10 more years. I don't know. There is not enough known about CANCER or AIDS. How in the world can there be enough known about the Brain?

The medical profession uses what they have NOW to do what they can to help.

My father was a thoracic surgeon from the 1930s to the 1960s. Before he died he said, "My God, what we did in terms of lung cancer and heart disorders was BARBARIC. Things have changed so much re: the treatment of heart and lung disorders."

He was a doctor and he used the knowledge available at the time. He saved peoples' lives. Many more died however than today -- with the same disorders.

Medicine is an art and a science in ALL areas.

We have so much further to go to understand all illnesses.

Nothing is simple, we are all unique.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2011)

Also that video makes me want to break my computer screen. It is so packed with misinformation. Not everything you read or everything you hear is true. And one can pick and choose one's sources .. always.


----------



## Pablo (Sep 1, 2005)

Dreamer* said:


> Pablo, the problem with your theory is, there are children BORN with schizoprhenia for example -- and I will find the video on one child featured for several year in the NYTimes on that if you wish -- Jani Schoefield sp? - BORN SCHIZOPHRENIC. We know that so many mental illnesses, especially the most severe -- schizophrenia and bipolar -- are the result of significant changes in the brain -- NOT all "biochemical." There are structural differences. There are genomic/epigenomic changes (how genes turn on and off), there are things at the molecular level we do not understand. I was BORN anxious, I know it.
> 
> Just because we don't understand the brain that doesn't mean we throw away what we have begun to understand. The brain is so complex and we can't be poking at it while a person is alive, and there isn't even enough post-mortem brain tissue for research worldwide.
> 
> ...


I agree with a lot of what you are saying Dreamer, I guess im more on the environment and psychological side than the genetic side, im not saying the genetics have no part to play I just just think it's not as important than many people presume, there are no facts in this area at this current time. I am never against scientific progress or understanding but what I am against is limiting your view to what can be proven by scientific tests as to what is at the root of problems.

For example there are a lot of psychologists who talk about how important the environment is in the womb, if your mother is going through extreme stress and problems while her child is pregnant the child may feel all of that, it may even feel that the world isn't a safe place on some instinctual level before it's even born and come into the world contracted and dissociated already. There are a lot of psychologists who talk about the possibility of the birth process actually being traumatic, many people have complicated births and the whole process could be traumatising for some babies, there is a whole psychological approach called "rebirthing" started by Stansilav Grof where people work through their birth traumas. None of this is provable scientifically, but that doesn't mean it isn't true for some people, it may even be true for you, there are certainly a number of subjective case studies which indicate this is true for some people and has helped them recover to live healthy lives.

There are all sorts of accounts of traditional healing you can read about, for example I read about one guy who had hallucinations and paranoia his whole life since he was born, then one day in desperation he went to a Taoist energy healer who worked on the pre-verbal stuck energy in his body and allowed him to process and release it and all the hallucinations etc were gone for good. I guess i'm just reacting to the original post in this thread which suggests that there is some sort of factual scientific basis to constitutes how you should approach healing yourself when there isn't, we are all different and unique and what works for one person may not work for another and if you limit your possibilities of healing to what scientists can measure in a lab then you might be prevent yourself from doing what is required for you to recover and live a happy life.


----------



## Pablo (Sep 1, 2005)

I would be interested in the account of this person who was born schizophrenic, doing a quick google search the youngest person I can find diagnosed is five years old while the vast majority are during adolescence or young adulthood.

The way I see it is that children are incredibly sensitive and act out or embody any tension or issue in the family environment. I saw a documentary the other day about a family with a child with ADHD, it was clearly obvious to me that there were incredible strains in the marriage with the parents which neither would admit to, maybe the father was a closet homosexual or something, but then the child in the family could obviously feel the hidden anxiety and unexpressed strains in the family and acted them out as that is all he knew how to do, then the problem becomes all about the child who becomes a "problem child" then gets medicated to the eyeballs and more or less blamed for just expressing something which isn't actually to do with him. The kid didn't have a chemical imbalance he was just acting out the strains in the family so in a way he was the sanest one there, but was made to feel like he was the most insane because he expressed what the others didn't want or dare to to deal with, it was heartbreaking to watch. If the kid believes all his life that he is the problem child and has a chemical imbalance I don't see how he will ever properly recover and live to his full potential.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2011)

Pablo, the story of Jani Schoefield has been followed by the L.A. Times for quite a few years. The child was BORN with schizophrenia. I have tried to pull up articles but don't have time to find everything.

This is her official website, and mind you she has a little brother who is perfectly fine. Her illness has destroyed the family.

Also, just from my own experience it is KNOWN that schizophrenia is a medical/neurological disorder, there is no doubt, there are differences in the brains of individuals with schziophrenia. And the illness can occur on a spectrum. I have a cousin whose son, 15, has schizophrenia. He was perfectly fine until about 2 years ago then started exhibiting bizarre symptoms. He has been hospitalized 3 times. He can't go to school. His four other siblings are fine. If you met him you would see he is a terribly frightened, disturbed child and it makes me so sad for him. His prognosis is poorl

Jani's Webiste:
http://www.janisjourney.org/

I found a few videos, but be careful on YouTube ... some "related videos" talk of how Jani is "possessed by demons."

She has been on Oprah and a few other programs, but the best info on her is found in the L.A. Times. Many articles about her illness. One journalist, forgot his name, has been following her progress. She is being treated at UCLA in LA. She has been on an ABC Special ... I can't find all of this stuff.

If you come across stupid people debating her illness ... well.
Sorry, this is so brief.

There is NO DOUBT IN MEDICINE/NEUROLOGY that schizophrenia and bipolar are medical conditions. There is all the proof in the world. What causes it is not clearly understood, but there seems to be a connection w/genetics. If a mother has schizophrenia the child has a higher risk. But there are stories of identical twins -- one with schizoprhenia, one without. In utero stresses such as VIRUS', toxins in the environment, toxins a mother may ingest, but this is a clear neurological disorder. A stressor can set it off -- but age of onset is usually the same -- adolescence. Jani is not the only child-onset case of schizophrenia, but became well-known because someone at the LA Times cared.

I wish I could find the entire ABC special. I'll look.






[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDSwnRf_1CA&feature=related


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2011)

No wonder I spelled her name wrong. Jani (January) Shofield ... I'll find the LA Times piece.


----------



## snow storm (Aug 10, 2010)

I found an interesting article in the Washington Post about how people from poorer nations diagnosed with schizophrenia do better than people in more wealthy nations with the same illness. Isn't that a paradox or what...
Actually there was a series of three articles about the subject. Here's the a link to the second one:

My link


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2011)

Also, the family is broke and in debt because of her illness. The site asks for donations. No one is obligated. My husband has donated -- he lives in California.

This is only one story of thousands in the US and around the world.

These are MEDICAL disorders.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2011)

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-schizophrenia29-2009jun29,0,4834892.story

Jani's story in the LA Times.

I'll have to check out the Post article. Sounds odd. Mental illness is dealt with differently everywhere. Regardless, stigma and ignorance keep people from getting the help they need. Jared Lee Loughner, who shot so many people in Tucson is an individual who "fell through the cracks" for a million reasons.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2011)

I just glanced at the Post article. What is interesting is it is a purely cultural difference. In India, yes, someone with schizoprhenia may be cared for by an extended family, but in China for example, mental illness is a shame to be hidden.

If one has a large social support system one is more likely to do well;we seem to have lost in this culture -- here we are online instead of interacting with our friends for example.

But I can vouch for one family member I have who has bipolar/schzioaffective. He just got out of the hospital. He is impossible to be with. When he runs out of money, he will be arrested for assaulting someone and back in the hospital or in jail. It is NOT easy dealing with anyone with a severe mental disorder. It is NOT.


----------



## Surfingisfun001 (Sep 25, 2007)

Pablo said:


> I would be interested in the account of this person who was born schizophrenic, doing a quick google search the youngest person I can find diagnosed is five years old while the vast majority are during adolescence or young adulthood.
> 
> The way I see it is that children are incredibly sensitive and act out or embody any tension or issue in the family environment. I saw a documentary the other day about a family with a child with ADHD, it was clearly obvious to me that there were incredible strains in the marriage with the parents which neither would admit to, maybe the father was a closet homosexual or something, but then the child in the family could obviously feel the hidden anxiety and unexpressed strains in the family and acted them out as that is all he knew how to do, then the problem becomes all about the child who becomes a "problem child" then gets medicated to the eyeballs and more or less blamed for just expressing something which isn't actually to do with him. The kid didn't have a chemical imbalance he was just acting out the strains in the family so in a way he was the sanest one there, but was made to feel like he was the most insane because he expressed what the others didn't want or dare to to deal with, it was heartbreaking to watch. If the kid believes all his life that he is the problem child and has a chemical imbalance I don't see how he will ever properly recover and live to his full potential.


What is the documentary called in which you are talking about?


----------



## snow storm (Aug 10, 2010)

Well I guess that some "underdeveloped" countries have some social structures, like strong family ties etc that seem to benefit people who are mentally ill. Im sure there are great variations though and Im sure it's not "great" everywhere. But according to the article it's a three decade long study conducted by the World Health Organization so I guess it can be said to be a reliable source.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2011)

snow storm said:


> Well I guess that some "underdeveloped" countries have some social structures, like strong family ties etc that seem to benefit people who are mentally ill. Im sure there are great variations though and Im sure it's not "great" everywhere. But according to the article it's a three decade long study conducted by the World Health Organization so I guess it can be said to be a reliable source.


Understood, I have to really sit down and read the complete article.

What I can't comprehend about Western Medicine which is in theory frequently "more advanced" is that so many psychiatrists don't know what DP is. That will forever make me scream with rage until that changes. Though I can't explain how my first psychiatrist diagnosed me immediately with anxiety, depressioin, and "oh that weird feeling you have is DP/DR" in 1975.

So many factors involved.
Thanks for the link.
Hah, I also just discovered Estimated Income Tax isn't due until the 18th, not tomorrow, so the fact that I can't find the form I needed to send in doesn't matter -- after 25 miniutes of bitching and ranting.

Cheers,
D


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2011)

surfingisfun001 said:


> What is the documentary called in which you are talking about?


Pablo, yeah, I'd like to know this as well. Sounds bizarre! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ....
Nite all.


----------



## Pablo (Sep 1, 2005)

Dreamer* said:


> What is the documentary called in which you are talking about?


It was on Channel 4 in the UK a few weeks ago, it's not on their catch up service any more I will have to see if I can find it


----------



## yebert (Aug 30, 2010)

Pablo said:


> Say someone has a problem like depression then a scientist finds that they are showing lower levels of serotonin in their brain, that low level may be a symptom of the problem and not the cause but pharma companies have spread the idea that it is the cause, but there is no proof of this conclusion. If it is the symptom and not the cause then all the drugs are doing is treating the symptom and never getting to the root of the problem.
> 
> It's like if a child starts crying instead of giving them a hug to make them feel safe so their nervous system can relax you go and surgically block their tear ducts instead, saying the problem is the crying and not the emotional distress, this is the same with how many people treat psychological issues instead of finding out the cause and pain behind the issue they try to get rid of the symptom.


Hold on...Take a deep breath.

I have never advocated not hugging your children when they cry. I am certainly not advocating "surgically block[ing] their tear ducts". Thats ridiculous and is symptomatic of your problematic thinking patterns. You are jumping to wild and false conclusions. What I am advocating is that you be more cautious and circumspective in your thinking. Don't jump to conclusions. Look at things with a grain of salt. Scrutinize and verify you data for credibility. Challenge what you read and watch. Just because a video says something, doesn't make it true. Unfortunately, your wholesale acceptance of the video is causing you to have a distorted view of the facts.

As far as whether low serotonon is the cause or the effect of depression, right now the answer to that is inconclusive. However, its quite probable that it is. Either way, The efﬁcacy and effectiveness of antidepressant pharmacotherapy for major depressive episodes is established beyond any reasonable doubt. Meta-analyses of over 200 randomized trials comparing antidepressant medication with placebo among outpatients with major depression indicated response rates for antidepressant medication were in the range of 50 -55% compared to rates of 25-30% forpatients treated with placebo (U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, Agency for Health Policy and Research. 1993). 
A more recent review and meta-analysis focused on newer antidepressants. A total of 81 placebo-controlled randomized trials with over 10,000 participants were examined (including 15 using ﬂuoxetine, 8 using ﬂuvoxamine, 9 using paroxetine, 10 using sertraline, 6 using mirtazapine, six using venlafaxine, 9 using nefazodone, 3 using bupropion, 4 usinggepirone). Across all studies, probability of clinical response was 51% for active antidepressants compared to 32% for placebo (Mulrow & Williams et al, 1998.) So, for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter whether antidepressants just alleviate symptoms or treat the root cause (though, it follows that it is treating the root cause), the bottom line is it works.

Further, Pharma companies have not spread the the idea that low serotonon is definitively the only cause of depression. They merely presume it. Take a look at the Prescribing Information prescribing information for Paxil, Lexapro, Zoloft and Celexa under the Pharmacodynamic section. They all state almost virtually exactly the same thing: "The mechanism of action of [this drug] as an antidepressant is *presumed *to be *linked *to potentiation of serotonergic activity in the central nervous system (CNS) resulting from its inhibition of CNS neuronal reuptake of serotonin (5-HT)." Presume means "suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability" (http://thesaurus.com/browse/presumed?rh=thesaurus.com). In this case, it is quite probable that low serotnin is the cause of depression.

Sources cited:

Agosti, S. JW, Quitkin FM, Ocepek-Welikson K. How ymptomatic do depressed patients remain after benefiting from medication treatment? Comprehensive Psychiatry 1993

Depression Guideline Panel. Clinical Practice Guideline Number 5: Depression in Primary Care. Volume 1: Detection and Diagnosis. Rockville, MD: U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, Agency for Health Policy and Research. AHCPR Publication No 1993


----------



## yebert (Aug 30, 2010)

Pablo said:


> Yeah the video is biast but it's just the other side of the bias, the debate around the whole theory of chemical imbalance is a big one and one people can investigate for themselves as i dont have the energy to make a ten page thread about it. As far as I'm concerned meds have their place and that is they can be used as a temporary measure to stabilise a person so they can get their emotional and fininancial needs more easily met, but in terms of brain malfunction causing the chemical imbalance I don't believe that theory in the majority of cases, I believe that emotional and psychological conflicts cause the imbalance and not the other way around. So even if scientists can prove there is a chemical imbalance that is not actual proof of the cause of the emotional problem as the emotional problem could cause the chemical imbalance. If that is the case then drugs may be a way of covering up and masking the problem rather than actually finding a way of dealing with it.
> 
> If you look at the recent research on neuroplaticity of the brain it shows that the brain can rewire itself if damaged and the body is a self repairing organism, so even if you do believe there is a mechanical malfunction of your brain why doesn't it repair itself? In my case it is because my body is under constant stress and tension due to my mental conflicts, if I can solve them and relax it will remove tension and blood and neurotransmitters will flow more easily and freely to different parts of your brain so any repairs can be made. It still always comes back to the psychological and solving stress imo
> 
> Also the laws on drug advertisement are different in the UK and because the government has to pay for most the expensive pharma drugs in the NHS it has no vested interest or profit to be made by them.


Pablo,
You are doing exact same thing as your video; you are making a lot of wild claims here without backing it up. Please cite your sources so that I can evaluate whether I consider them credible or not. t you are making a lot of outlandish claims here. If you want people to believe you, you got to back it up. Merely saying that you "don't have the energy" and that "people can investigate for themselves" is inadequate. You are the one making the arguments, therefore the burden is on you to prove them. I'm sorry but I do not take your words for granted.


----------



## yebert (Aug 30, 2010)

Pablo said:


> Say someone has a problem like depression then a scientist finds that they are showing lower levels of serotonin in their brain, that low level may be a symptom of the problem and not the cause but pharma companies have spread the idea that it is the cause, but there is no proof of this conclusion. If it is the symptom and not the cause then all the drugs are doing is treating the symptom and never getting to the root of the problem.
> 
> It's like if a child starts crying instead of giving them a hug to make them feel safe so their nervous system can relax you go and surgically block their tear ducts instead, saying the problem is the crying and not the emotional distress, this is the same with how many people treat psychological issues instead of finding out the cause and pain behind the issue they try to get rid of the symptom.


Hold on...Take a deep breath.

I have never advocated not hugging your children when they cry. I am certainly not advocating "surgically block[ing] their tear ducts". Thats ridiculous and is symptomatic of your problematic thinking patterns. You are jumping to wild and false conclusions. What I am advocating is that you be more cautious and circumspective in your thinking. Don't jump to conclusions. Look at things with a grain of salt. Scrutinize and verify you data for credibility. Challenge what you read and watch. Just because a video says something, doesn't make it true. Unfortunately, your wholesale acceptance of the video is causing you to have a distorted view of the facts.

As far as whether low serotonon is the cause or the effect of depression, right now the answer to that is inconclusive. However, its quite probable that it is. Either way, The efﬁcacy and effectiveness of antidepressant pharmacotherapy for major depressive episodes is established beyond any reasonable doubt. Meta-analysis indicated that response rates for antidepressant medication were in the range of 50 -55% compared to rates of 25-30% for patients treated with placebo (U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, Agency for Health Policy and Research, 1993) 
A more recent review and meta-analysis focused on newer antidepressants. A total of 81 placebo-controlled randomized trials with over 10,000 participants were examined (including 15 using ﬂuoxetine, 8 using ﬂuvoxamine, 9 using paroxetine, 10 using sertraline, 6 using mirtazapine, six using venlafaxine, 9 using nefazodone, 3 using bupropion, 4 usinggepirone). Across all studies, probability of clinical response was 51% for active antidepressants compared to 32% for placebo (Mulrow & Williams et al, 1998.) So, for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter whether antidepressants just alleviate symptoms or treat the root cause (though, it follows that it is treating the root cause), the bottom line is it works.

Further, Pharma companies have not spread the the idea that low serotonon is definitively the only cause of depression. They merely presume it. Take a look at the Prescribing Information prescribing information for Paxil, Lexapro, Zoloft and Celexa under the Pharmacodynamic section. They all state almost virtually exactly the same thing: "The mechanism of action of [this drug] as an antidepressant is *presumed *to be *linked *to potentiation of serotonergic activity in the central nervous system (CNS) resulting from its inhibition of CNS neuronal reuptake of serotonin (5-HT)." Presume means "suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability" (http://thesaurus.com/browse/presumed?rh=thesaurus.com). In this case, it is quite probable that low serotnin is the cause of depression.

Sources cited:

Agosti, S. JW, Quitkin FM, Ocepek-Welikson K. How ymptomatic do depressed patients remain after benefiting from medication treatment? Comprehensive Psychiatry 1993

Depression Guideline Panel. Clinical Practice Guideline Number 5: Depression in Primary Care. Volume 1: Detection and Diagnosis. Rockville, MD: U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, Agency for Health Policy and Research. AHCPR Publication No 1993


----------



## Pablo (Sep 1, 2005)

You obviously haven't read my posts fully Yebert and are taking them completely out of context, quite obviously I was using analogies to explain a point when I mentioned tear ducts not speaking literally and not even in particular reference to you, the point I was making is by medicating you may just be treating the symptom rather than the cause of something. I do examine things very closely and scrutinise things sometimes using my own judgement and common sense ahead of what one double blind placebo trial indicates. I have provided my opinion on things and explained the reasons why using my own judgement which I am completely satisfied with. If you want the source on neuroplasticity you can use google or read the books on the subject which are out at the moment here is a basic link http://www.suite101.com/content/the-new-science-of-neuroplasticity-a261503 and I don't feel the need to cite a scientific source on every single thing I write because this is a forum and im not writing a university Thesis, for the other things I spoke about genetics I did cite sources, im sure everybody can make their own minds up about these issues or look into them in further detail if they wish to.


----------



## Pablo (Sep 1, 2005)

yebert said:


> As far as whether low serotonon is the cause or the effect of depression, right now the answer to that is inconclusive. However, its quite probable that it is. Either way, The efﬁcacy and effectiveness of antidepressant pharmacotherapy for major depressive episodes is established beyond any reasonable doubt. Meta-analysis indicated that response rates for antidepressant medication were in the range of 50 -55% compared to rates of 25-30% for patients treated with placebo (U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, Agency for Health Policy and Research, 1993)
> A more recent review and meta-analysis focused on newer antidepressants. A total of 81 placebo-controlled randomized trials with over 10,000 participants were examined (including 15 using ﬂuoxetine, 8 using ﬂuvoxamine, 9 using paroxetine, 10 using sertraline, 6 using mirtazapine, six using venlafaxine, 9 using nefazodone, 3 using bupropion, 4 usinggepirone). Across all studies, probability of clinical response was 51% for active antidepressants compared to 32% for placebo (Mulrow & Williams et al, 1998.) So, for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter whether antidepressants just alleviate symptoms or treat the root cause (though, it follows that it is treating the root cause), the bottom line is it works.
> 
> Further, Pharma companies have not spread the the idea that low serotonon is definitively the only cause of depression. They merely presume it. Take a look at the Prescribing Information prescribing information for Paxil, Lexapro, Zoloft and Celexa under the Pharmacodynamic section. They all state almost virtually exactly the same thing: "The mechanism of action of [this drug] as an antidepressant is *presumed *to be *linked *to potentiation of serotonergic activity in the central nervous system (CNS) resulting from its inhibition of CNS neuronal reuptake of serotonin (5-HT)." Presume means "suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability" (http://thesaurus.com/browse/presumed?rh=thesaurus.com). In this case, it is quite probable that low serotnin is the cause of depression.
> ...


You can cite thousands of studies of how medication has helped improve peoples symptoms but it doesn't change the question about whether you are only treating the symptom rather than the cause, and if you never treat the cause how is a permanent recovery possible? perhaps by masking the symptom you prevent ever treating the cause. Perhaps there is a reason why people exhibit symptoms and by treating them you prevent this reason being known and the lesson being learned. In the past Pharma companies have suggested that they are treating the cause with medication but the science simply doesn't confirm that conclusion . These are important questions in my opinion and I don't believe there is the scientific evidence right now to prove that this sort of approach does treat the cause in many cases.


----------



## yebert (Aug 30, 2010)

Pablo said:


> You obviously haven't read my posts fully Yebert and are taking them completely out of context, quite obviously I was using analogies to explain a point when I mentioned tear ducts not speaking literally and not even in particular reference to you. I do examine things very closely and scrutinise things sometimes using my own judgement and common sense ahead of what one double blind placebo trial indicates. I have provided my opinion on things and explained the reasons why using my own judgement which I am completely satisfied with. If you want the source on neuroplasticity you can use google or read the books on the subject which are out at the moment here is a basic link http://www.suite101.com/content/the-new-science-of-neuroplasticity-a261503 and I don't feel the need to cite a scientific source on every single thing I write because this is a forum and im not writing a university Thesis, for the other things I spoke about genetics I did cite sources, im sure everybody can make their own minds up about these issues or look into them in further detail if they wish to.


Pablo,
I have read and considered your posts quite closely. I am responding precisely to what you yourself have said in that specific post. I disagree with you. I don't find your statement "if a child starts crying instead of giving them a hug to make them feel safe so their nervous system can relax you go and surgically block their tear ducts instead" so obvious an analogy. Given the kind of outlandish things you've been saying, it followed you were being quite literal. I still maintain that you have problematic thinking patterns. You are still jumping to wild and false conclusions and you most certainly are not scrutinizing and verifying you data for credibility. This all evident, to me at least, in your writing. You really shouldn't be satisfied with it and its unfortunate that you put your own unsubstantiated judgment ahead of scientific evidence such as a double blind randomized placebo controled study. It is your burden, not mine, to substantiate your arguments. I'm not going to go on Google do the legwork for you. Its true that this is an open forum and anybody could write as they wish. However, your on a thread I started, responding to comments I posted. Your obviously trying to persuade me of your opinions or you wouldn't be here in the first place. And in order for me to be persuaded, I require you to back up your claims with facts. As for the source you provided on neuroplasticity, I don't find suite101.com to be credible. As far as the genetics, you did cite some sources and I congratulate you for that and encourage you to do it more often - though I have yet to evaluate them for credibility and context


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2011)

Pablo,
I can only suggest a few things as this will never end.

1. You need a degree in medicine and then further study in neurology to truly understand these things. I make an effort to keep up with as much medical information as I can on brain disorders, even going to lectures and I know .00000000000001% of what someone who does this for a living.

2. Are you then saying that Alzheimer's is caused by conflicted emotions -- even though many of the early signs are behavioral?

3. It is USELESS to argue this if you don't have current information. I suggest you research PubMed, or go to http://www.nami.org It is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that most mental illnesses are caused by some problem in the brain. Entire families can have depression, generation after generation.

*My question never ends with most people -- why is it many, many people cannot accept that the brain itself -- the grey matter, down to the very molecules that make it up -- can malfunction? And how is it that the malfunction cannot happen from the time of conception?*

Can you answer that? Why is it that one can be born with a prolapsed mitral valve in their heart (which may be missed for years or noted immediately), how is it I was born with flat feet, how is it some individuals develop cancer and others never do. How is it we have no vaccine or cure for AIDS which is caused by ONE virus that has learned to alter itself. And yet any problem with the brain is caused by inner conflict?

There are so many books on this topic, so many I can't list. And so many people who suffer, and you are saying that their suffering is somehow NOT medical because it is in the brain itself EVEN IF WE MAY NOT KNOW HOW TO TREAT IT? I am stumped.

Go to the Harvard Brain Bank at McLean Hospital in Boston and look at the brains of cadavers. See actual PHYSICAL changes in brains in those with mental illness, some of which can be seen by the eye, vs. other things that can be seen under the microscope.

I won't add more to this, as the argument is hopeless.


----------



## yebert (Aug 30, 2010)

Pablo said:


> You can cite thousands of studies of how medication has helped improve peoples symptoms but it doesn't change the question about whether you are only treating the symptom rather than the cause, and if you never treat the cause how is a permanent recovery possible? perhaps by masking the symptom you prevent ever treating the cause. Perhaps there is a reason why people exhibit symptoms and by treating them you prevent this reason being known and the lesson being learned. In the past Pharma companies have suggested that they are treating the cause with medication but the science simply doesn't confirm that conclusion . These are important questions in my opinion and I don't believe there is the scientific evidence right now to prove that this sort of approach does treat the cause in many cases.


You obviously haven't read my posts closely enough. If you had it would of saved you the trouble of writing this response. This is what I stated: "As far as whether low serotonon is the cause or the effect of depression, right now the answer to that is inconclusive. However, its quite probable that it is" however "for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter whether antidepressants just alleviate symptoms or treat the root cause (though, it follows that it is treating the root cause), the bottom line is it works." I don't know how much clearer I can get. Your assertion that it might be a bad idea to treat the symptoms because it might prevent a "lesson being learned" is cruel and ridiculous. I don't know about you I'd rather get my symptoms treated, than suffer with them in order that some sort of lesson be learned. Furthermore, pharma companies never suggested, not once, that "they are treating the cause with medication". I don't know where your getting this from. What they do say, as I've noted in one of my previous posts, is "The mechanism of action of [the drug] as an antidepressant is _*presumed *_to be *linked *to potentiation of serotonergic activity in the central nervous system". Honestly, I don't get your blind hatred of pharmaceutical companies. Without pharmaceutical companies, I probably wouldn't be alive today.


----------



## gill (Jul 1, 2010)

I think it's more practical to look for what helps the most, then some absolute truth or absolute cause.


----------



## Pablo (Sep 1, 2005)

yebert said:


> You obviously haven't read my posts closely enough. If you had it would of saved you the trouble of writing this response. This is what I stated: "As far as whether low serotonon is the cause or the effect of depression, right now the answer to that is inconclusive. However, its quite probable that it is" and "for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter whether antidepressants just alleviate symptoms or treat the root cause (though, it follows that it is treating the root cause), the bottom line is it works." I don't know how much clearer I can get. However, you are correct that permanent recovery is often not possible. As many people with psychiatric conditions need to be on maintenance medication for rest of their lives.(Take schizophrenia and Bi-polar, for example.) Your assertion that it might be a bad idea to treat the symptoms because it might prevent a "lesson being learned" is cruel and ridiculous. I don't know about you I'd rather get my symptoms treated, than suffer with them in order that some sort of lesson be learned. Furthermore, pharma companies never suggested, not once, that "they are treating the cause with medication". I don't know where your getting this from. What they do say, as I've noted in one of my previous posts, is "The mechanism of action of [the drug] as an antidepressant is _*presumed *_to be *linked *to potentiation of serotonergic activity in the central nervous system". Honestly, I don't get your blind hatred of pharmaceutical companies. Without pharmaceutical companies, I probably wouldn't be alive today.


For me whether the medical approach is treating the cause or the symptom is a huge deal. Treating only the symptom means permanent treatment for the rest of your life with all sorts of side effects and complications, treating the cause means cure.

Also I am trying not to talk in ultimate general terms when I say these things like there might be a lesson or something to learn from some mental illness cases, each case and each person is unique and thus there will never be one universal cure or pill for everyone which was the point I was trying to make, some peoples problems might be purely 100% medical, some might be purely psychological or environmental or a combination of things.

When I say there could be a lesson what I mean is that perhaps the illness is trying to tell you something. To give a made up example of what I mean a person could be a very gifted natural artist but had been told their whole life growing up that art was stupid and they had to be an accountant, then later in life they find themselves in an office all day crunching numbers and living life through what other people want and gradually they develop depression, now the cause of this depression obviously isn't a chemical imbalance even though there probably is a chemical imbalance in his brain, the cure would be for him to develop and express his artistic talents to live his life more true to himself and not to continue life exactly the same as before but with medication propping him up, thus the depression was actually a gift forcing him to live life in a more healthy way for him. Maybe DP is trying to tell us something or force us to live in a more healthy way for us, but we would have to start genuinely listening to ourselves to find out if this is true or not, you cant rely on a scientific study to tell you.


----------



## Visual (Oct 13, 2010)

Dreamer* said:


> Pablo,
> I can only suggest a few things as this will never end.
> 
> 1. You need a degree in medicine and then further study in neurology to truly understand these things. I make an effort to keep up with as much medical information as I can on brain disorders, even going to lectures and I know .00000000000001% of what someone who does this for a living.
> ...


*My question never ends with most people -- why is it many, many people cannot accept that the brain itself -- the grey matter, down to the very molecules that make it up -- can malfunction? And how is it that the malfunction cannot happen from the time of conception?*

Dreamer,

Perhaps it is FEAR. Fear of not being in control. Fear of mortality.

It seems that people often view the body as some sort of 'container' for consciousness. And when you die this consciousness survives and 'lives' elsewhere - whether heaven, reincarnation, or some other plane of existence.

Many people fear death (thanatophobia), yet Freud observed, 'nobody believes in his/her own death. The unconscious does not deal with the passage of time or with negations. That one's life could and would end just does not compute.' Ecc 9:11 speaks of 'eternity in ones heart/mind'.

So to view our feelings, perceptions, behaviors, consciousness, etc as a gigantic, complex biological machine may seem too fearful to accept. It reminds us of our mortality. All of us are familiar with the breakdown of machines (cars, electronics, nuclear reactors) and rather not feel any similarity (brotherhood?) to such objects.

However, it really doesn't cheapen life to consider that we are machine-like. It need not be a theological conflict to have such a view. I realize that I am a strange duck but my reaction is one of awe that biology could be so sophisticated as to be organized into consciousness itself. [And I hope this post is not somehow offensive to people]

It seems that medical evidence (genetics, brain injuries, response to chemicals, vulnerability to suggestion) indicates as least some possibility of this property of 'biological' existence.

I know we have had some interesting posts regarding 'neurological' disease vs 'psychological' disorder. But they do seem to be the same thing. And at the microscopic level, involve the structure of synapses and their metabolic functioning status.


----------



## Pablo (Sep 1, 2005)

Dreamer* said:


> *My question never ends with most people -- why is it many, many people cannot accept that the brain itself -- the grey matter, down to the very molecules that make it up -- can malfunction? And how is it that the malfunction cannot happen from the time of conception?*


I see no reason why that isn't possible in some cases of mental illness, but if that was the rule rather than the exception then surely the rates of mental illness would be relatively the same all across the globe and they aren't, the World Health Organisation study I mentioned earlier showed that English speaking countries have almost double the rate of mental illness than mainland Europe. Why would the brains of people in English speaking countries be that much more faulty? there is no genetic evidence it is anything to do with that.










http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/291/21/2581.full


----------



## Visual (Oct 13, 2010)

Pablo said:


> I see no reason why that isn't possible in some cases of mental illness, but if that was the rule rather than the exception then surely the rates of mental illness would be relatively the same all across the globe and they aren't, the World Health Organisation study I mentioned earlier showed that English speaking countries have almost double the rate of mental illness than mainland Europe. Why would the brains of people in English speaking countries be that much more faulty? there is no genetic evidence it is anything to do with that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for the wonderful picture.

Genetics are only one factor in mental illness. And there can be multiple factors - for example: Parkinson's Disease and Autism are a combination of genetic weakness and exposure to environmental toxins (at lease toxic to these individuals).

While many feel otherwise, there are a number of disease effects (mental and physical) from living in industrialized nations. Multiple Sclerosis is a good example - and mainly a Western hemisphere disease. Surely even our attitudes and goals can be a factor in mental illness.


----------



## yebert (Aug 30, 2010)

Pablo said:


> For me whether the medical approach is treating the cause or the symptom is a huge deal. Treating only the symptom means permanent treatment for the rest of your life with all sorts of side effects and complications, treating the cause means cure.
> 
> Also I am trying not to talk in ultimate general terms when I say these things like there might be a lesson or something to learn from some mental illness cases, each case and each person is unique and thus there will never be one universal cure or pill for everyone which was the point I was trying to make, some peoples problems might be purely 100% medical, some might be purely psychological or environmental or a combination of things.
> 
> When I say there could be a lesson what I mean is that perhaps the illness is trying to tell you something. To give a made up example of what I mean a person could be a very gifted natural artist but had been told their whole life growing up that art was stupid and they had to be an accountant, then later in life they find themselves in an office all day crunching numbers and living life through what other people want and gradually they develop depression, now the cause of this depression obviously isn't a chemical imbalance even though there probably is a chemical imbalance in his brain, the cure would be for him to develop and express his artistic talents to live his life more true to himself and not to continue life exactly the same as before but with medication propping him up, thus the depression was actually a gift forcing him to live life in a more healthy way for him. Maybe DP is trying to tell us something or force us to live in a more healthy way for us, but we would have to start genuinely listening to ourselves to find out if this is true or not, you cant rely on a scientific study to tell you.


I would be satisfied with an FDA approved medication that just treats the symptoms DP/DR, as long as it alleviates them, even if it doesn't cure it. In a perfect world there would be a magical medication that cures the disease with one pill, but than again, in a perfect world DP/DR wouldn't exist. 
I would never call depression or any other psychiatric illness a gift.


----------

