![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 68. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by BarbaraCat on January 6, 2002, at 0:16:07
I know we're an imperfect species, we've had miserable childhoods for the most part, our aymgdalas are bonked out and there are many reasons for not feeling great, but have you all noticed how many of us suffer from depression -- 'chemical imbalances'? Any ideas why this might be? I've been exploring and researching everything from micoplasma infection (who knows, those chemtrails we've been spotting overhead are spraying something!) to substance P overload in the CS fluid to every thing I can get my hands on. I also have fibromyalgia along with severe depression and when I get depressed it's a TOTAL body thing. I hurt all over, every cell aches, I'm tired and I'm in deep despair. Yes, I take meds and it helps sometimes and sometimes not. But it makes me wonder -- what's going on? Why are we so sick? Any takers on this question of the ages?
Posted by CalvaryHill on January 6, 2002, at 0:22:19
In reply to WHY are we all so 'chemically challenged'?, posted by BarbaraCat on January 6, 2002, at 0:16:07
I think you would benefit greatly with a tricyclic antidepressant--most namely, Nortriptyline (Pamelor). Tricyclics in low doses act as prophylaxis for pain.
Posted by spike4848 on January 6, 2002, at 1:05:26
In reply to Re: WHY are we all so 'chemically challenged'? » BarbaraCat, posted by CalvaryHill on January 6, 2002, at 0:22:19
I agree with two views concerning the origins of mood disorders:
(1) There is the "Sickle Cell" phenonema .... people with 1 sickle cell gene or "Sickle Trait" are protected against malaria ... which still is a huge killer in Africa. People with 2 sickle cell genes or "Sickle Disease" go on to have many complications. Too much of a good thing.
Same with mood disorders .... people with mild mood abnormalities, like high energy types tend to succeed in this fast paced world. People with severe mood abnormalities such as mania and depression tend to fair worse in the world. Too much of a good thing.
(2) Prior to this century, most humans lived into their late twenties and early thirties. I think our bodies were programed to live to about that age comfortably. Now that we are living to an average age of late 70's we are seeing an explosion of all types of diseases. I personally believe the brain was not meant to absorb all of modern societies stresses for 70 plus years.
Spike
You were probably looking for a simplier answer, sorry for the verbal diarrhea.
Posted by stjames on January 6, 2002, at 12:21:22
In reply to Re: WHY are we all so 'chemically challenged'? » CalvaryHill, posted by spike4848 on January 6, 2002, at 1:05:26
> (2) Prior to this century, most humans lived into their late twenties and early thirties. I think our bodies were programed to live to about that age comfortably.
No, we invented health care, antibiotics, learned about grems and serile techniques, ect. So we live longer because the easy to get illnesses
are controled. Things that have always been there, like AIDS and Eubola come into play when a cold, flu or infection (common things) can not kill us.
Posted by stjames on January 6, 2002, at 12:22:11
In reply to WHY are we all so 'chemically challenged'?, posted by BarbaraCat on January 6, 2002, at 0:16:07
> I know we're an imperfect species,
You answered your question.
Posted by OldSchool on January 6, 2002, at 13:07:21
In reply to WHY are we all so 'chemically challenged'?, posted by BarbaraCat on January 6, 2002, at 0:16:07
> I know we're an imperfect species, we've had miserable childhoods for the most part, our aymgdalas are bonked out and there are many reasons for not feeling great, but have you all noticed how many of us suffer from depression -- 'chemical imbalances'? Any ideas why this might be? I've been exploring and researching everything from micoplasma infection (who knows, those chemtrails we've been spotting overhead are spraying something!) to substance P overload in the CS fluid to every thing I can get my hands on. I also have fibromyalgia along with severe depression and when I get depressed it's a TOTAL body thing. I hurt all over, every cell aches, I'm tired and I'm in deep despair. Yes, I take meds and it helps sometimes and sometimes not. But it makes me wonder -- what's going on? Why are we so sick? Any takers on this question of the ages?
The psychiatrists dont really know whats wrong with us. The whole problem here is we suffer from serious brain based illnesses, which are in fact neurological problems basically. But instead are oftentimes treated like mere "emotional" problems by the mental health field. Its BS.Until the mental health field is formally handed over the Neurology field lock, stock and barrel someday, we "mental patients" will continue to be treated like second class citizens.
Old School
Posted by stjames on January 6, 2002, at 13:45:52
In reply to Re: WHY are we all so 'chemically challenged'?, posted by OldSchool on January 6, 2002, at 13:07:21
> The psychiatrists dont really know whats wrong with us. The whole problem here is we suffer from serious brain based illnesses, which are in fact neurological problems basically. But instead are oftentimes treated like mere "emotional" problems by the mental health field. Its BS.
>
> Until the mental health field is formally handed over the Neurology field lock, stock and barrel someday, we "mental patients" will continue to be treated like second class citizens.
>
> Old SchoolI agree with you 100%. Psychiatrists attempt to be a middle ground, but they are not trained in psychology. In 17 years I have never found one that can do therpy. Active listening and support is not real thearpy. At least it was no where as effective as the PhD psychologist I saw.
However, Neurology (at least at present) is not very close to having the answers, either. I feel they do understand the meds and effects much better.
Posted by Cam W. on January 6, 2002, at 15:54:38
In reply to WHY are we all so 'chemically challenged'?, posted by BarbaraCat on January 6, 2002, at 0:16:07
The evolution of our body is unable to keep up with the evolution of our ability to think abstractly (damn hemorrhoids and lower back pain; I think I'll start dragging my knuckles, again). Also, the synaptic plasticity of our brain is taking short cuts in this complex world and the amount of information processed is now exceeding what many of our brain structures can handle. Specific brain circuitry (eg. the locus ceruleus, thalamus, raphe nuclei, PFC, etc.) hasn't evolved the necessary "failsafe-feedback" circuits to prevent, correct &/or modify every disruption (short circuit?) in neuronal electrical flow. I dunno; just a guess.
This is your brain: ......iii...ii..ii...
This is your brain with 300 trillion bits of data hitting it at once: •••••••iiiiii•••iiiii))))iiiiii)))••••Aw hell; fry me up an egg. - Cam
Posted by OldSchool on January 6, 2002, at 16:36:29
In reply to Re: WHY are we all so 'chemically challenged'?, posted by stjames on January 6, 2002, at 13:45:52
> However, Neurology (at least at present) is not very close to having the answers, either. I feel they do understand the meds and effects much better.
This is the real problem. ALL severe forms of mental illness are neurological...brain based. All of them. The technology is here today, unlike twenty or thirty years ago. Computers, all the high tech imaging equipment they have like SPECT and PET, genetic engineering is in its infancy. Id like to see more high tech, NASA type space technology applied to mental illness research, which would basically mean brain research.
Its time to ditch this psychiatry crap and go straight to Neurology and get the show on the road, IMO. Of course, I am very opinionated about this as a result of my experiences.
Old School
Posted by IsoM on January 6, 2002, at 16:44:06
In reply to Re: WHY are we all so 'chemically challenged'? » CalvaryHill, posted by spike4848 on January 6, 2002, at 1:05:26
Many people read how the life expectancy for centuries past was only in the 30's to 40's & think that was considered old age. It wasn't!
The way statistics can be used can be very misleading. That was the AVERAGE life expectancy - in other words, when the age of every individual life span was added up & then divided by the number of individuals, it equalled around 40. But that's taking into account, babies that died at a few days old, mothers who died in child birth, children who died from infectious diseases, young men who were killed in battles & wars - ALL persons who were ever alive, even for one day.
Look at a country like Afghanistan. The average life expectancy is only around 46. Does that mean it's old age? No. Look at the number of old people you can see there & it's not just the harsh weather making them look old but you can find people there in their 70's & 80's. But one in four children die before the age of five & the death rate of babies is the third highest in the world. It all serves to bring the AVERAGE age of the population way down. But individuals who make it into adulthood, don't die from childbirth or war can often live into their 60's & 70's.
So the increase of our average life expectancy has nothing to do with depression.
*********************************
> (2) Prior to this century, most humans lived into their late twenties and early thirties. I think our bodies were programed to live to about that age comfortably. Now that we are living to an average age of late 70's we are seeing an explosion of all types of diseases. I personally believe the brain was not meant to absorb all of modern societies stresses for 70 plus years.
>
> Spike
Posted by stjames on January 6, 2002, at 18:17:47
In reply to Re: WHY are we all so 'chemically challenged'?, posted by OldSchool on January 6, 2002, at 16:36:29
> This is the real problem. ALL severe forms of mental illness are neurological...brain based. All of them. The technology is here today, unlike twenty or thirty years ago. Computers, all the high tech imaging equipment they have like SPECT and PET, genetic engineering is in its infancy.
lets just keep in mind that, for now, SPECT is not a primary dignossis tool, and we are no where near doing genetic engineering on kids, just testing
Posted by bob on January 6, 2002, at 19:18:06
In reply to Re: Previous Life Expectancies » spike4848, posted by IsoM on January 6, 2002, at 16:44:06
Yes, I'd have to agree here, that I'm not so sure that an increase in the average life expectancy leads to an increase in incidence of depression. However, more people living into old age certainly offers more chances for developing some sort of mental illness (in terms of absolute quantities of cases). If the average life expectancy was 35, there wouldn't be that many people making it to 80. People who die at 35 but were mentally sound, don't develop mental illness after that.
Nevertheless... I'm not sure that the incidence, normalized by age, for any particular mental illness has changed much over history. Many of these disorders, especially severe ones, have onsets in the 20s. I'm sure this has probably been true forever.
Posted by stjames on January 6, 2002, at 19:57:04
In reply to Re: Previous Life Expectancies » IsoM, posted by bob on January 6, 2002, at 19:18:06
> Nevertheless... I'm not sure that the incidence, normalized by age, for any particular mental illness has changed much over history. Many of these disorders, especially severe ones, have onsets in the 20s. I'm sure this has probably been true forever.
We tend to assume that AIDS, Ebola, and many other
"emergent" pathogens are something new. However, one was more likley to die from infections, cancer, TB, ect. Till we learned to treat them.
Now what was difficult to catch (do to the fact more common things would kill you first) is getting common. We had a few decades reprieve, but that is over.
Posted by OldSchool on January 6, 2002, at 20:54:41
In reply to Re: Previous Life Expectancies » IsoM, posted by bob on January 6, 2002, at 19:18:06
> Yes, I'd have to agree here, that I'm not so sure that an increase in the average life expectancy leads to an increase in incidence of depression. However, more people living into old age certainly offers more chances for developing some sort of mental illness (in terms of absolute quantities of cases). If the average life expectancy was 35, there wouldn't be that many people making it to 80. People who die at 35 but were mentally sound, don't develop mental illness after that.
>
> Nevertheless... I'm not sure that the incidence, normalized by age, for any particular mental illness has changed much over history. Many of these disorders, especially severe ones, have onsets in the 20s. I'm sure this has probably been true forever.I think my health went bad when I was 29...right around the time this guy is talking about where people used to only live to. I got hit with major depression at late 28...early 29. Never been the same since and I turn 33 in less than a month.
Old School
Posted by jay on January 6, 2002, at 22:57:26
In reply to WHY are we all so 'chemically challenged'?, posted by BarbaraCat on January 6, 2002, at 0:16:07
> I know we're an imperfect species, we've had miserable childhoods for the most part, our aymgdalas are bonked out and there are many reasons for not feeling great, but have you all noticed how many of us suffer from depression -- 'chemical imbalances'? Any ideas why this might be? I've been exploring and researching everything from micoplasma infection (who knows, those chemtrails we've been spotting overhead are spraying something!) to substance P overload in the CS fluid to every thing I can get my hands on. I also have fibromyalgia along with severe depression and when I get depressed it's a TOTAL body thing. I hurt all over, every cell aches, I'm tired and I'm in deep despair. Yes, I take meds and it helps sometimes and sometimes not. But it makes me wonder -- what's going on? Why are we so sick? Any takers on this question of the ages?
Ahhh...have been doing a bit of my own research in this area. Noonday Demon by Andrew Sololoman(sp?) is a great start for some answers. Far, far, far, from anything, really, though.I think a few major factors come into play. One, is that our brains have developed at a rate beyond which we can understand them. There are billions of mysteries lurking around in that pool of chemicals, molecules, etc. We have *a lot* of questions, and far too few answers. There still is no solid answer for the most basic thing in our lives....why we need sleep? (I know there are some factors..but much is hypothesis.)
Second, I think is social. In particular in North America, we have created a culture (or lack of it) of bland consumerism, and non-stimulation. We have poverty, wars, disease, famine, and the vision of Western capitalism being this somehow perfect thing, like the way the Soviets used to brag about their system, is just crappola. Capitalism NEEDS a human face...period! We have forced each other into struggles to the death amongst ourselves (welfare is almost non-existent..job security gone...so we end up on the streets..yes, many of us, mentally ill, and either kill ourselves through suicide, certain behaviours (hardcore drug use..etc..), or we get killed by those supposed to protect us.
Anyhow...that's this sociologist's view. Dr. Bob..I know...redirect...I'll shut up now..;-)
Peace..
Jay
Posted by Jane D on January 6, 2002, at 23:27:12
In reply to Re: Previous Life Expectancies » IsoM, posted by bob on January 6, 2002, at 19:18:06
> Nevertheless... I'm not sure that the incidence, normalized by age, for any particular mental illness has changed much over history. Many of these disorders, especially severe ones, have onsets in the 20s. I'm sure this has probably been true forever.
Bob -
I don't see how we can ever know. We can't even match up diagnoses from one decade to the next. Perhaps, if there really is more mental illness today, it is not because everyone is living longer but because WE were the ones that died early. Under more primitive conditions anyone who was not determined to live probably didn't.
-Jane
Posted by bob on January 7, 2002, at 0:01:31
In reply to Re: Previous Life Expectancies » bob, posted by Jane D on January 6, 2002, at 23:27:12
Jane:
You're absolutely right, we cannot know -- I'm just guessing of course. You're also right that most of us would have been dead in primitive conditions. I think the change came when humans became altruistic. In such cases, offspring of ours that surely would have died because they were too young to fend for themselves would have been helped by others. Who knows, altruism may be the reason why early-onset mental illness is prevalent today, if these disorders are mostly genetic. It allowed the offspring to continue on in the absence of parents.
Posted by IsoM on January 7, 2002, at 0:18:15
In reply to Re: Previous Life Expectancies » bob, posted by Jane D on January 6, 2002, at 23:27:12
My 2˘ worth only, but in reading about history, other cultures, & the rise of depression...
We tend to think that that way we view life is the way other cultures throughout the world & throughout time have viewed life. The quality & pursuit of happiness are relatively modern concepts. Yes, happiness was always something nice to have but few except the wealthy or privileged classes had the chance to achieve it. The average person working & struggling to survive under some pretty adverse conditions, at most times, was too busy with the rigours of everyday life.
Even nowadays, in places where life is hard & difficult, little thought is given to whether they're happy. Life is filled with duties & work. Happiness is derived from being around family & community as one works through each day. Happy times were to be savoured during weddings, births, & holidays - it wasn't thought to be necessary in everyday life.
I believe that with the more leisure time we have available now, we also have the time to reflect on our lives & inner thoughts. Depression is fairly acceptable now - we don't lock up people in asylums anymore. How many of us would admit to depression if we thought our only choice was to be locked away in an asylum like they used to be?
Even in other parts of the world where there was never thought to be much depression, rates for people afflicted with depression are rapidly rising as they, too, develop more leisure time & desire this "happiness" in their lives too. I think it's always been with us but in past generations, we've never had the luxury of stating it & having others understand us as we do now.
As I said, my 2˘ only.
Posted by bob on January 7, 2002, at 0:22:33
In reply to Re: Previous Life Expectancies, posted by OldSchool on January 6, 2002, at 20:54:41
Unfortunately for me, I turned south at about 22 or 23. I think I either would have been dead long ago, or lived some seriously miserable years before I died. Of course, I'm miserable a lot anyway, even with meds.
Posted by BarbaraCat on January 7, 2002, at 0:38:33
In reply to Re: Previous Life Expectancies » OldSchool, posted by bob on January 7, 2002, at 0:22:33
There are alot of us out there (me too) with serious treatment resistant depression. An AD kicks in to offer hope, then fizzles out. Yes, some times are filled with simple contentment, pleasure even, but really, much of life just ain't worth it when it hurts all the damn time. What makes us continue with it? Is it hope that a new med will appear - the 'magic bullet'? Our spiritual beliefs (my personal hell is that I'll just have to come back and do the same thing over again, and again, and again. No escape. Pretty bleak, huh?) The grief of those left behind? Some secret gift in depression? I have read Noonday Demon, but I still ponder why nature has allowed this miswiring/firing to get so far along in the evolutionary scale. I too agree with another's post that it's primarily neurological. Why are there not more MRI's pet scans, imaging offered to us to pinpoint where our brain is malfunctioning? Expensive? Yes, but what is the cost of escalating depression?
Posted by manowar on January 9, 2002, at 19:18:44
In reply to So what makes us continue?, posted by BarbaraCat on January 7, 2002, at 0:38:33
Hi BarbaraCat, I've got one word for you and that's "faith"
Yes, I agree, it totally sucks having depression. I hope you have times like I do of remission, where you feel normal. That really helps me keep going.
I read Lance Armstrong's book- you know the bicyclist that has won the last 3 Tour De Frances. He said that the cancer that almost killed him was the best thing that ever happened to him--he really meant it. It made him a man. His life is 100X better than it was before the cancer. It made him face the facts of life, and what really mattered in his life.
I'm optimistic, even though it’s hard-- that I'll get better. And when I do, I'll be a stronger, more successful, more compassionate human being than I ever thought about being before. I certainly will appreciate life a lot more than most.
I've also have gotten quite a layman's education on Psychopharmacology:)
Posted by BarbaraCat on January 9, 2002, at 19:33:04
In reply to Re: So what makes us continue? » BarbaraCat, posted by manowar on January 9, 2002, at 19:18:44
Thanks, Manowar for your words of wisdom. Yes, when I'm having a good day I'm grateful for the experiences that have made me a very strong and compassionate person. And has gotten me in touch with a loving Presence and Grace... Keeping a journal during those good times helps (however I never seem to keep up writing during those good times as I do when I'm down - just having too much fun I guess.)
I agree on the education received - how fascinating! If I can ever maintain a consistent level of health and motivation I'd like to go back to school and aim for using this hard won knowledge in a health/psych field. And I'm 50 years old, so having faith is necessary even in the best of times. Good luck to you.
> Hi BarbaraCat, I've got one word for you and that's "faith"
>
> Yes, I agree, it totally sucks having depression. I hope you have times like I do of remission, where you feel normal. That really helps me keep going.
>
> I read Lance Armstrong's book- you know the bicyclist that has won the last 3 Tour De Frances. He said that the cancer that almost killed him was the best thing that ever happened to him--he really meant it. It made him a man. His life is 100X better than it was before the cancer. It made him face the facts of life, and what really mattered in his life.
>
> I'm optimistic, even though it’s hard-- that I'll get better. And when I do, I'll be a stronger, more successful, more compassionate human being than I ever thought about being before. I certainly will appreciate life a lot more than most.
>
> I've also have gotten quite a layman's education on Psychopharmacology:)
Posted by manowar on January 9, 2002, at 20:18:48
In reply to Re: WHY are we all so 'chemically challenged'?, posted by OldSchool on January 6, 2002, at 13:07:21
> The psychiatrists dont really know whats wrong with us. The whole problem here is we suffer from serious brain based illnesses, which are in fact neurological problems basically. But instead are oftentimes treated like mere "emotional" problems by the mental health field. Its BS.
>
> Until the mental health field is formally handed over the Neurology field lock, stock and barrel someday, we "mental patients" will continue to be treated like second class citizens.
>
> Old School
************************************************I agree with you. The problem is that too many politicians and citizens have an 'old school' view concerning mental health (sorry for the pun). Let's face it; I would venture to say that 75-90 percent of healthy Americans view most-if not all- mental health problems as 'psychological'. --Thanks Freud
The mental health parity measure in Congress failed--why? Ignorance! Until the American people are educated that mental health is not simply a 'psychological' problem or even a problem with 'a chemical imbalance in the brain', we'll continue to see millions and millions of people suffer and die because of this illness.
For the most part, I think depressions are neurologically based. I'll never understand why doctors continue to scan people's kidneys, livers, hearts, lungs, bones etc. and it practically takes an act of Congress to get a brain scan. Please tell me why this is? The human brain is the most complex organ in the known Universe, yet unless someone has a stroke, a Neurologist won't even consider a brain scan for someone with major depression.
Most Psychiatrists don't seem to give a damn, and seem to be more like drug doctors. "Uh-let's see-you tried this-this and this, well let's try you on this--yea, here's a free trial to last you for a week". THEY'VE GOTTEN LAZY! (and fat too, from all the free dinners they get from drug reps.) I think most of them have sold out to drug reps that have them convinced that people that have depression have 'chemical imbalances in the brain'. –Like our brain is just a big sack of chemicals. B-S! It's not that simple.
Psychiatry and Neurology (and Psychology for that matter) seem to overlap, yet the disciplines seem to have their own agendas and don't seem to work at all at joining forces.
Someday I think Psychiatry and Neurology will merge. But it won't be anytime soon, that's for sure.
Posted by OldSchool on January 9, 2002, at 21:20:41
In reply to Old School nailed it » OldSchool, posted by manowar on January 9, 2002, at 20:18:48
>
> I agree with you. The problem is that too many politicians and citizens have an 'old school' view concerning mental health (sorry for the pun). Let's face it; I would venture to say that 75-90 percent of healthy Americans view most-if not all- mental health problems as 'psychological'. --Thanks FreudI totally agree. I try to point this out to so many people and most dont have a clue what Im even talking about. Most people just do not think of mental illness in terms of its a brain/CNS disease. It severely screws up your sleep, your appetite, your sexual drive and function...it screws up your cognition and ability to think clearly. These are all CNS controlled physiological bodily functions which in a normal healthy person they dont even think about and take for granted. In severe mental illness, these bodily functions get screwed up.
To me thats hard evidence mental illness is neurological. Who studies sleep? Who runs the sleep labs? Neurologists. Good sleep is critical for good mental health. Sleep is a CNS controlled function and its PHYSICAL not "mental."
>
> The mental health parity measure in Congress failed--why? Ignorance! Until the American people are educated that mental health is not simply a 'psychological' problem or even a problem with 'a chemical imbalance in the brain', we'll continue to see millions and millions of people suffer and die because of this illness.Yep...lots of stupidity surrounding mental illness. More so than any other type of medical problem. Stupidity sums it up good.
>
> For the most part, I think depressions are neurologically based. I'll never understand why doctors continue to scan people's kidneys, livers, hearts, lungs, bones etc. and it practically takes an act of Congress to get a brain scan. Please tell me why this is? The human brain is the most complex organ in the known Universe, yet unless someone has a stroke, a Neurologist won't even consider a brain scan for someone with major depression.I totally agree. All severe forms of mental illness are basically neurological problems. There are no diagnostic tests in psychiatry, like brain scans. Well actually there is the functional neuroimaging thing but thats still experimental and hasnt filtered down to clinical psychiatry yet.
Why are Neurologists ALREADY using brain scans like SPECT/PET and MRI to help diagnose Parkinsons, Alzheimers, dementia and other "mainstream" neurological disorders, but not severe mental illness? Answer? Stupidity.
>
> Most Psychiatrists don't seem to give a damn, and seem to be more like drug doctors. "Uh-let's see-you tried this-this and this, well let's try you on this--yea, here's a free trial to last you for a week". THEY'VE GOTTEN LAZY! (and fat too, from all the free dinners they get from drug reps.) I think most of them have sold out to drug reps that have them convinced that people that have depression have 'chemical imbalances in the brain'. –Like our brain is just a big sack of chemicals. B-S! It's not that simple.
>
> Psychiatry and Neurology (and Psychology for that matter) seem to overlap, yet the disciplines seem to have their own agendas and don't seem to work at all at joining forces.As far as Im concerned, Neurologists should be treating all severe forms of mental illness TODAY.
>
> Someday I think Psychiatry and Neurology will merge. But it won't be anytime soon, that's for sure.Agree...in reality its gonna be a long time before this ever happens. Sad
Old School
Posted by manowar on January 9, 2002, at 21:49:00
In reply to WHY are we all so 'chemically challenged'?, posted by BarbaraCat on January 6, 2002, at 0:16:07
> I know we're an imperfect species, we've had miserable childhoods for the most part, our aymgdalas are bonked out and there are many reasons for not feeling great, but have you all noticed how many of us suffer from depression -- 'chemical imbalances'? Any ideas why this might be? I've been exploring and researching everything from micoplasma infection (who knows, those chemtrails we've been spotting overhead are spraying something!) to substance P overload in the CS fluid to every thing I can get my hands on. I also have fibromyalgia along with severe depression and when I get depressed it's a TOTAL body thing. I hurt all over, every cell aches, I'm tired and I'm in deep despair. Yes, I take meds and it helps sometimes and sometimes not. But it makes me wonder -- what's going on? Why are we so sick? Any takers on this question of the ages?
************************************************Good thread,
First of all, the 'chemical imbalance' theory of depression is nonsense in my opinion. A 'chemical imbalance' may happen when the brain is not functioning the way it should, so it may be the EFFECT of improper brain functioning. The improper brain functioning could be due to psychological and/or physiological reasons.
And yes--in most cases depression can be treated by using meds that alter the improper functioning (THE CAUSE), not the 'chemical imbalance’ (THE EFFECT).
But to answer you're question, I have a theory. Viruses may cause many depressions.
Whatever happened to the 'Borna Virus' theory of depression? It was a major news story a couple years ago- haven't heard it mentioned since. Why is that?
We're not the only species to suffer from depression. I think that when a virus causes Horses to commit suicide by jumping off cliffs, we may be on to something.
Here's a story from 1998 from CNN-
August 31, 1998
Web posted at: 8:29 p.m. EDT (0029 GMT)
(CNN) -- New research from Germany indicates some cases of serious depression may be caused by a virus."We think that there is ... a lot of evidence that Borna virus has clinical significance for this type of disease," said Dr. Liv Bode of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin.
In the United States, at least 17 million people have some form of clinical depression -- not just a passing case of the blues, but a disabling and often long-term disease.
Scientists are still unraveling the causes of the disease: genetics, stress and possibly a virus.
The virus was first identified in the late 1800s among horses near the town of Borna, Germany. The horses stopped eating, walked in circles and got sick. Some even killed themselves.
Autopsies led scientists to the virus in the region of the horses' brains that controls emotions. Researchers in Berlin have found a similar strain in humans.
"I think it is supporting our hypothesis that this virus, this particular agent, has really something to do with this type of disorder," Bode said.
The anti-viral drug amantadine, used to treat Parkinson's disease, has been found to relieve some cases of depression. A trial is now under way.
"I think I'm one of the most skeptical people around ... but I have to face the fact that for about a year now, we've been treating patients and we've been seeing responses to amantadine," said Dr. Ron Ferszt of the Free University of Berlin.
German patient Rosemarie Wenzlaff, who suffered from depression for 10 years, says the medication changed her life.
"I didn't take care of myself when I was depressed; I couldn't eat," she said. "Now I'm thinking of cooking marmalade. I listen to music now. I watch TV. It's a totally different life."
Scientists in the United States say these early findings are interesting, but not conclusive. Results are expected later this year from clinical trials in Berlin that might demonstrate a link between the Borna virus and depression.
***********************************************Below is MAJOR speculation on my part. Either a brainstorm or a brain fart, but so what--I'm babbling-right?
I think a viral infection ATTACKING the brain, and DESTROYING cells and synapsis causing functional problems leading to ‘chemical imbalances’ is as just a viable theory as any.
-- Of course I could and probably am wrong:)
I had childhood encephalitis. I’m SURE that the virus did irreversible damage to my brain and how it functions, as I’m sure everyone reading my posts can attest to:)
Take care,
Tim
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.