![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 47. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Jackster on November 27, 2002, at 12:28:22
I'd like to do a search on the net - but not sure what term to use.
Jackie
Posted by Squiggles on November 27, 2002, at 17:32:04
In reply to Is there a medical term for AD poop-out?, posted by Jackster on November 27, 2002, at 12:28:22
Tolerance.
Squiggles
Posted by Alan on November 27, 2002, at 19:39:33
In reply to Is there a medical term for AD poop-out?, posted by Jackster on November 27, 2002, at 12:28:22
> I'd like to do a search on the net - but not sure what term to use.
>
> Jackie
=============================================
The pharm co.s are misleadingly refering to it euphemistcially as poop out but it is in essence "tolerance" - this to avoid being associated with "addiction" or medical depencence that they've tried to differentiate themselves with being unlike their competitors the bzds, or any other psychotropic medication for that matter.Unfortunately because of FDA loopholes the co's have been able to claim non-addicting or non-habit forming in their test results when the test results that DID show the dependence/withdrawal phenomenon were legally thrown-out test results and hence were not shown to the FDA before the drug was approved. Nice, huh?
It can be a slimy business. But the cover-up always comes out in the end...with far worse results than just being up front about it.
Alan
Posted by ItsHowdyDudyTime on November 27, 2002, at 20:52:52
In reply to Is there a medical term for AD poop-out?, posted by Jackster on November 27, 2002, at 12:28:22
There is no formal medical term for antidepressant poop out to my knowledge. This just exemplifies the lack of interest within psychiatry to help the chronic TRD patient. They dont even have terms to accurately describe this common occurence known as antidepressant poop out.
However I can tell you that the term "tolerance" as one poster described, is not an accurate description of what is happening here. Tolerance is a term used with drugs of addiction...alcohol, cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, etc. With drugs of physical addiction, you need more and more drug to maintain the effect, this is due to "tolerance" and is well established in medical literature.
However, antidepressants are not controlled substances and are not physically addictive. Therefore "tolerance" is a very poor term to use to describe what you are describing. The most common theory concerning why ADs poop out revolves around subtle dopamine depletion over the longterm. Many ADs, particularly the newer SSRIs, slowly deplete dopamine over time. As dopamine levels deplete, activation of the antidepressant tends to decrease. This leads to AD poop out. Some claim that adding a dopaminergic agent to the SSRI such as Ritalin or a small dose of Amantadine or Wellbutrin can restore activation.
Other cases of AD poop out are supposedly due to misdiagnosis. In other words the patient was dxed purely as depressed but in actuality has other comorbid Axis 1 disorders such as bipolar disorder, a psychotic component to the depression, severe anxiety disorders such as OCD, etc. In these cases, coadministration of a mood stabilizer usually lithium can reactivate the antidepressant. Or addition of an atypical anti-psychotic can reactivate the AD.
However these strategies are still iffy and its rare that a person who clinically presents as a depressive really has bipolar disorder or is psychotic. Most of the time, the real problem is a simple lack of technological knowledge on the part of psychiatry to understand the true nature of the brain. To put it bluntly, psychiatrists really dontknow much about the brain and brain diseases. Many cases of TRD eventually turn out to be things like Parkinsons disease, MS and other Neurological conditions. Just sometimes the depression shows up first.
High technology added to psychiatry would go a long long way towards helping to solve problems like you are inquiring about. However psychiatry has little interest in high technology or in improving itself. This is why 30% of all depressives are not able to get out of depression no matter what they do. Its a simple lack of understanding in a hard science, neurological kind of way as to whats really going on in the brains of these individuals.
Its not a good thing
Howdy Doody
Posted by Squiggles on November 27, 2002, at 21:00:03
In reply to AD poop out, posted by ItsHowdyDudyTime on November 27, 2002, at 20:52:52
Eric, is that you?
Squiggles
Posted by ItsHowdyDudyTime on November 27, 2002, at 21:40:52
In reply to Re: AD poop out » ItsHowdyDudyTime, posted by Squiggles on November 27, 2002, at 21:00:03
> Eric, is that you?
>
> SquigglesUm, no my name is not Eric. I have no idea who you are talking about. My name is John.
Howdy Doody
Posted by McPac on November 28, 2002, at 1:53:53
In reply to AD poop out, posted by ItsHowdyDudyTime on November 27, 2002, at 20:52:52
"its rare that a person who clinically presents as a depressive really has bipolar disorder"
>>>>>>>Could you explain this statement?
thanks!
Posted by Alan on November 28, 2002, at 5:59:06
In reply to AD poop out, posted by ItsHowdyDudyTime on November 27, 2002, at 20:52:52
> There is no formal medical term for antidepressant poop out to my knowledge. This just exemplifies the lack of interest within psychiatry to help the chronic TRD patient. They dont even have terms to accurately describe this common occurence known as antidepressant poop out.
>
> However I can tell you that the term "tolerance" as one poster described, is not an accurate description of what is happening here. Tolerance is a term used with drugs of addiction...alcohol, cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, etc. With drugs of physical addiction, you need more and more drug to maintain the effect, this is due to "tolerance" and is well established in medical literature.
>
> However, antidepressants are not controlled substances and are not physically addictive. Therefore "tolerance" is a very poor term to use to describe what you are describing. > Howdy Doody=============================================
Just addressing the dependence/withdrawal phenomen - however technically one has the ability yet to describe it's scientific origins:As long as doctors are pushing an SSRI at every patient who even looks at 'em cross-eyed, there's not going to be any opportunity to observe drug-seeking behavior...or more accurately, the presentation of physical addiction. In fact, what they see right now is SSRI-avoidant behavior.
But let the doctors start withholding SSRIs and doing all they can to get people off of them (a day that may well come and arguably is already here), and then we will see drug-seeking behavior from people who might even prefer to be off but can't possibly quit over the two week period now recommended as a taper.
The complaint rate for dependence is currently much higher for SSRIs (in fact, globally the absolute numbers are unprecedented in recorded medical history), but that's probably the result of overoptimistic expectations created by misleading marketing. The manufacturers' unpublished rates of withdrawal in trials with healthy volunteers were equivalent to those for benzodiazepines. The World Health Organisation's report on worldwide complaints about withdrawal places the top drugs all as AD's with bzds lagging far behind - and the bzds were initially far less overprescribed than the AD's are being commercially pushed now.
Bottom line: dependence/withdrawal - in whatever "technical" terms one wants to describe it - is a wash. Neither type of drug can claim "dependence" doesn't happen. I would say that pragmatically speaking, based on the evidence, there will quickly be seen a sea change in the understanding of physical addiction and reorganisation or special classification of the AD's are soon to come.
If a case is serious enough or sufficiently biological in manifestation to require medication, the medication should be chosen according to individual response.
Alan
Posted by Jackster on November 28, 2002, at 12:30:45
In reply to Is there a medical term for AD poop-out?, posted by Jackster on November 27, 2002, at 12:28:22
Thanks for all your replies. It's amazing that given how common this seems to be - there's very little research/information on it out there.
Posted by Denise528 on November 28, 2002, at 12:58:44
In reply to Re: Is there a medical term for AD poop-out?, posted by Jackster on November 28, 2002, at 12:30:45
Alan,
I totally agree with you, I've done many searches on the net, trying to find an explanation to why they aren't working second time around to no avail.
From reading some of the threads on this board it seems fairly common and yet nobody is doing any research on it.
It's so frustrating.
Denise
Posted by Alan on November 28, 2002, at 13:18:48
In reply to Re: Is there a medical term for AD poop-out?, posted by Jackster on November 28, 2002, at 12:30:45
> Thanks for all your replies. It's amazing that given how common this seems to be - there's very little research/information on it out there.
==========================================
That's because of the lack of proper oversight and ground rules of the FDA...a government agency incestuously related to the pharm industries.Take oversight of clinical trials away from the FDA and give it to the NIH. That is, accept as evidence only trials designed and supervised by the NIH.
Failing that, ban cross-employment between the FDA and any company that it regulates for 10 or 15 years in either direction. Right now, there is a revolving door between the fox's house and the henhouse. It's bad enough that regulators are hired directly from the regulated companies. It's even worse that the FDA's "internal advocate" for a drug can and often does leave the FDA after approval of the drug to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year working for the maker of the drug.
Actually, we probably need both of the steps above.
And of course we need a law placing all directly or indirectly maker-funded research about a drug into the public domain when that drug receives FDA approval.
We need to change our laws so that as part of the price for approval of a drug, ALL studies on its use in humans (at the least) get placed into the public domain. That way it won't be as easy to make distorted claims. For instance, the public and the FDA have seen only a small fraction of SKB/GSK's studies on Paxil. In the majority of them it worked worse than placebo to a statistically significant degree*. At least that's what plaintiffs in one of the class-actions suits alleged, promising to provide supporting evidence. It just shouldn't be legal to hide things like that. And now that scandals like the HRT and cox-2 inhibitor surprises are emerging (i.e. it affects more than just us "head cases") I think there's some chance the regulatory environment may change.
On second thought, in the present political environment of deregulation for profit....
=============
* Still, that's an average response. It doesn't negate the fact that some people respond and some of those respond extremely well. Statistical truth and statistical inference, important as they are, have considerable limits. The closer you narrow it down to an individual case, the fuzzier the picture gets until there is no statistical picture at all when dealing with a sample of one. Just because the number of people doing well on a drug is less than the number doing well on placebo does not prove that all those people are experiencing a placebo effect or spontaneous remission. Some of them may very well be experiencing a bona fide pharmacologically therapeutic effect. It's just that one can't prove it statistically. With the right tools, one could hypothetically prove it chemically or by doing repeated double-blind crossover trials on one or more individuals.Alan
Posted by Alan on November 28, 2002, at 17:37:39
In reply to AD poop out, posted by ItsHowdyDudyTime on November 27, 2002, at 20:52:52
Tolerance is a term used with drugs of addiction...alcohol, cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, etc. With drugs of physical addiction, you need more and more drug to maintain the effect, this is due to "tolerance" and is well established in medical literature.
> Howdy Doody
================================================It is more appropriate to use the term "sustained medical dependence", as drugs of physical addiction abused by addicts are differentiated from others with dependence/withdrawal characteristics. Alcohol, cocaine, heroin, etc, are not being used strictly as a medicine.
For example, the vast majority of the panic disorder population taking bzd monotherapy long term, benzodiazapine levels remain constant or decrease over time, are not abused or "craved" to seek a high, and should not therefore be confused strictly speaking with addiction.
This is a good description by our own elizabeth:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010618/msgs/67768.html
also:
http://panicdisorder.about.com/library/weekly/aa031997.htm
Best,
Alan
Posted by Squiggles on November 28, 2002, at 17:53:30
In reply to Re: AD poop out » ItsHowdyDudyTime, posted by Alan on November 28, 2002, at 17:37:39
Hi Alan,
We've been through this debate before, so
there's no need to speak the King's English,
and a rose is a rose by any other name;But I am curious, with your reference to
"our" Elizabeth... you have often referred
to this person as such and i am curious
to know who your Elizabeth is... just
curious.Thanks
Posted by Alan on November 28, 2002, at 18:02:34
In reply to Re: AD poop out » Alan, posted by Squiggles on November 28, 2002, at 17:53:30
> Hi Alan,
>
> We've been through this debate before, so
> there's no need to speak the King's English,
> and a rose is a rose by any other name;
>
> But I am curious, with your reference to
> "our" Elizabeth... you have often referred
> to this person as such and i am curious
> to know who your Elizabeth is... just
> curious.
>
> Thanks
=============================================
Agreed, the distinction is not necessary for those choosing or not needing to make it.elizabeth has posted on and off here for quite awhile and is always impressive with her display of knowledge and compassion in eqivalent amounts....
Alan
Posted by SLS on November 28, 2002, at 20:46:59
In reply to Is there a medical term for AD poop-out?, posted by Jackster on November 27, 2002, at 12:28:22
tachyphylaxis
Posted by Squiggles on November 28, 2002, at 20:52:21
In reply to Re: Is there a medical term for AD poop-out?, posted by SLS on November 28, 2002, at 20:46:59
sorry, that would mean "fast-therapy" or
"fast-treatment"; maybe, "telophylaxis" as
in the limited life of telometers; you
might even use "oligophylaxis" as in a
small amount; i abstain from using terminus
for a prefix because it is Latin and you should
not mix Latin with Greek.Squiggles
Posted by Geezer on November 28, 2002, at 21:42:21
In reply to Re: Is there a medical term for AD poop-out? » Jackster, posted by Alan on November 28, 2002, at 13:18:48
> > Thanks for all your replies. It's amazing that given how common this seems to be - there's very little research/information on it out there.
> ==========================================
> That's because of the lack of proper oversight and ground rules of the FDA...a government agency incestuously related to the pharm industries.
>
> Take oversight of clinical trials away from the FDA and give it to the NIH. That is, accept as evidence only trials designed and supervised by the NIH.
>
> Failing that, ban cross-employment between the FDA and any company that it regulates for 10 or 15 years in either direction. Right now, there is a revolving door between the fox's house and the henhouse. It's bad enough that regulators are hired directly from the regulated companies. It's even worse that the FDA's "internal advocate" for a drug can and often does leave the FDA after approval of the drug to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year working for the maker of the drug.
>
> Actually, we probably need both of the steps above.
>
> And of course we need a law placing all directly or indirectly maker-funded research about a drug into the public domain when that drug receives FDA approval.
>
> We need to change our laws so that as part of the price for approval of a drug, ALL studies on its use in humans (at the least) get placed into the public domain. That way it won't be as easy to make distorted claims. For instance, the public and the FDA have seen only a small fraction of SKB/GSK's studies on Paxil. In the majority of them it worked worse than placebo to a statistically significant degree*. At least that's what plaintiffs in one of the class-actions suits alleged, promising to provide supporting evidence. It just shouldn't be legal to hide things like that. And now that scandals like the HRT and cox-2 inhibitor surprises are emerging (i.e. it affects more than just us "head cases") I think there's some chance the regulatory environment may change.
>
> On second thought, in the present political environment of deregulation for profit....
>
> =============
> * Still, that's an average response. It doesn't negate the fact that some people respond and some of those respond extremely well. Statistical truth and statistical inference, important as they are, have considerable limits. The closer you narrow it down to an individual case, the fuzzier the picture gets until there is no statistical picture at all when dealing with a sample of one. Just because the number of people doing well on a drug is less than the number doing well on placebo does not prove that all those people are experiencing a placebo effect or spontaneous remission. Some of them may very well be experiencing a bona fide pharmacologically therapeutic effect. It's just that one can't prove it statistically. With the right tools, one could hypothetically prove it chemically or by doing repeated double-blind crossover trials on one or more individuals.
>
> AlanAlan,
I like your idea here - the FDA is about as effective as the INS. I too would like to see some SCIENTIFIC testing and the inclusion of test results from Europe as part of full disclosure (that's where the significant numbers and long term data comes from).
Do you happen to know if SSRIs can regain their AD effect (after poop out) for a patient completing ECT? I have been struggling with Parnate for 3 weeks (it's like taking Thorazine, I can't even talk or walk straight), would love to go back to Prozac.....the best 18 months I ever had.
Thanks,
Geezer
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by ItsHowdyDudyTime on November 28, 2002, at 23:01:00
In reply to Re: Is there a medical term for AD poop-out? » Alan, posted by Geezer on November 28, 2002, at 21:42:21
completing ECT? I have been struggling with Parnate for 3 weeks (it's like taking Thorazine, I can't even talk or walk straight), would love to go back to Prozac.....the best 18 months I ever had.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Geezer
Geeezer, dopamine agonists can cause this stiffness you are talking about. Perhaps you are getting a bit too much dopamine from the parnate and have developed a "dyskinisia" from Parnate. Have you ever consulted the wonder psychopharmacology textbook "Kaplan and Saddock?" It contains a wonderful section on MAOIs as well as other useful info on neuroleptic induced movement disorders and a whole bunch of other stuff psychopharmacology related. Anyway, Kaplan and Saddock has an excellent MAOI section. Check your local medical library for a copy if you cant afford to get a copy yourself from Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble.Howdy Doody
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by ItsHowdyDudyTime on November 28, 2002, at 23:01:50
In reply to Re: Is there a medical term for AD poop-out? » Alan, posted by Geezer on November 28, 2002, at 21:42:21
completing ECT? I have been struggling with Parnate for 3 weeks (it's like taking Thorazine, I can't even talk or walk straight), would love to go back to Prozac.....the best 18 months I ever had.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Geezer
Geeezer, dopamine agonists can cause this stiffness you are talking about. Perhaps you are getting a bit too much dopamine from the parnate and have developed a "dyskinisia" from Parnate. Have you ever consulted the wonder psychopharmacology textbook "Kaplan and Saddock?" It contains a wonderful section on MAOIs as well as other useful info on neuroleptic induced movement disorders and a whole bunch of other stuff psychopharmacology related. Anyway, Kaplan and Saddock has an excellent MAOI section. Check your local medical library for a copy if you cant afford to get a copy yourself from Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble.Howdy Doody
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by ItsHowdyDudyTime on November 28, 2002, at 23:27:02
In reply to Is there a medical term for AD poop-out?, posted by Jackster on November 27, 2002, at 12:28:22
> I'd like to do a search on the net - but not sure what term to use.
>
> JackieJackie, I will reitterate what I said earlier only in simpler terms. Psychiatrists just dont know what causes antidepressant poop out. And they dont seem to be interested in finding out why or caring either. See, psychiatrists dont seem to be very interested in hard research or hard science. Mostly what they are interested in is psychobabble.
Psychiatrists want the same respect as other doctors in other branches of medicine that actually do real scientific research to back up their actions. But psychiatry doesnt do the hardcore kind of scientific research other doctors do in other branches of medicine. Yet they want the same respect, want to be called the title of "Doctor" etc. etc. It just doesnt jibe with me and a lot of others who have been there and done that. It also doesnt jibe with a lot of people who smartly use their internal medicine doctors or family doctors for their mental health needs and who wisely, are intuitively suspicious of psychiatrists and mental health professionals. I have oftentimes admired these kinds of individuals who refuse to see a psychiatrist, yet still are smart enough to get treated for their illness via a family doctor. Family and internal medicine doctors can prescribe many of the same drugs psychiatrists prescribe and in this era of SSRIs and atypical anti-psychotics, that is exactly what is happening oftentimes.
I wouldnt knock yourself out searching for an answer on this one. Because you wont find an answer and you will only be left feeling frustrated.
Howdy Doody
Posted by cubbybear on November 29, 2002, at 1:03:31
In reply to Re: Is there a medical term for AD poop-out?, posted by ItsHowdyDudyTime on November 28, 2002, at 23:27:02
The original question was: is there a medical term for AD "poop-out."? It's a good question. Until we know of one, any phrase that is short and to-the-point will do.
The pharmaceutical companies will no doubt come up with another silly euphemism for "poop-out"--as they did with "SSRI discontinuation syndrome" for the simple phrase "withdrawal symptoms".
In my own personal experience with poop-out, two months ago I wrote to Organon, manufacturer of Remeron, actually asking them if they could tell me why their medication QUIT WORKING. How's that? Simple and to the point. (By the way, I haven't heard a word yet from Organon. Does that tell you something?)
When speaking to your doctor (or writing letters of complaint) you can be short, straight and to the point. If you don't care much for the term "poop-out," just say that your med "quit working" or "stopped working." Even a medical quack will understand what you mean.
Posted by Geezer on November 29, 2002, at 11:19:35
In reply to Re: Is there a medical term for AD poop-out?, posted by ItsHowdyDudyTime on November 28, 2002, at 23:27:02
Hi Howdy,
First, thanks for your response to my question above about the Parnate - I will buy the book. You are probably "right on" with your assessment. I think you made the point in an earlier post that the right course of treatment for TRD is ECT and/or MAOIs, I believe you are correct on that point as well (I am just having a difficult time with Parnate)....for REAL TRD people to go from one SSRI to the next is total nonsense.
Where I agree with you the most is your point about the total lack of SCIENCE (PET scans and SPEC scans prove nothing) and lack of caring as to why drugs don't work in the field of psychiatry. I suppose the first clue that there is a lacking in the scientific area is the total inability to make an accurate DX...I have been diagnosed, missdiagnosed, and rediagnosed in the past year. After spending 30 years in the medical business I am of the belief that proper treatment follows a correct DX. When psychiatry comes up with some meaningful blood tests, some clue about genetic markers, and a few intra-cellular ADs, and some ANSWERS then maybe we will see some progress. Until that time I think I will try to work with my family doc.
Just curious.....are you old enough to remember Howdy Doody?
Thanks
Geezer
Posted by Peter S. on November 29, 2002, at 13:33:28
In reply to Re: Is there a medical term for AD poop-out?, posted by ItsHowdyDudyTime on November 28, 2002, at 23:27:02
I agree that psychiatry is not based in "science" at all. Very little (almost nothing) is understood about why anti-depressants work. Everything is completely speculative at this point. What role does serotonin or norepinphrene have in depression? Who knows? You read a lot of papers and articles and they are very confident in tone that we understand depression or bipolar disorders and that these drugs are great treatments. But when you actually talk to a lot of people you find out about the side effects the poop-out and the general ineffectiveness of many of them.But as far as psychiatrist go, there are huge differences between them. Many have no clue about different meds- they think that MAOIs are extremely dangerous and that you should only prescribe low doses. If traditional anti-depressants don't work, they throw up their hands. They don't bother keeping up with the latest cutting edge treatments because they are'nt required to. Psychiatry started out as primarily talk therapy (Freud) and I think is still rooted in this tradition.
However there are other psychiatrists who are up to date on meds and are willing to be creative and work with you on the meds. My doc is one of these- he is extremely patient and willing to listen to me and try many different alternatives. But even what these doctors do is not based in science. It is more trial and error.
Despite all this it does seem like things are inching forward- hey it's better than it was 100 years ago! I am considering getting a lobotomy though.
Peter
> > I'd like to do a search on the net - but not sure what term to use.
> >
> > Jackie
>
> Jackie, I will reitterate what I said earlier only in simpler terms. Psychiatrists just dont know what causes antidepressant poop out. And they dont seem to be interested in finding out why or caring either. See, psychiatrists dont seem to be very interested in hard research or hard science. Mostly what they are interested in is psychobabble.
>
> Psychiatrists want the same respect as other doctors in other branches of medicine that actually do real scientific research to back up their actions. But psychiatry doesnt do the hardcore kind of scientific research other doctors do in other branches of medicine. Yet they want the same respect, want to be called the title of "Doctor" etc. etc. It just doesnt jibe with me and a lot of others who have been there and done that. It also doesnt jibe with a lot of people who smartly use their internal medicine doctors or family doctors for their mental health needs and who wisely, are intuitively suspicious of psychiatrists and mental health professionals. I have oftentimes admired these kinds of individuals who refuse to see a psychiatrist, yet still are smart enough to get treated for their illness via a family doctor. Family and internal medicine doctors can prescribe many of the same drugs psychiatrists prescribe and in this era of SSRIs and atypical anti-psychotics, that is exactly what is happening oftentimes.
>
> I wouldnt knock yourself out searching for an answer on this one. Because you wont find an answer and you will only be left feeling frustrated.
>
> Howdy Doody
>
>
Posted by ItsHowdyDudyTime on November 29, 2002, at 14:57:43
In reply to Re: Is there a medical term for AD poop-out? » ItsHowdyDudyTime, posted by Geezer on November 29, 2002, at 11:19:35
> Hi Howdy,
>
> First, thanks for your response to my question above about the Parnate - I will buy the book. You are probably "right on" with your assessment. I think you made the point in an earlier post that the right course of treatment for TRD is ECT and/or MAOIs, I believe you are correct on that point as well (I am just having a difficult time with Parnate)....for REAL TRD people to go from one SSRI to the next is total nonsense.
>
> Where I agree with you the most is your point about the total lack of SCIENCE (PET scans and SPEC scans prove nothing) and lack of caring as to why drugs don't work in the field of psychiatry. I suppose the first clue that there is a lacking in the scientific area is the total inability to make an accurate DX...I have been diagnosed, missdiagnosed, and rediagnosed in the past year. After spending 30 years in the medical business I am of the belief that proper treatment follows a correct DX. When psychiatry comes up with some meaningful blood tests, some clue about genetic markers, and a few intra-cellular ADs, and some ANSWERS then maybe we will see some progress. Until that time I think I will try to work with my family doc.
>
> Just curious.....are you old enough to remember Howdy Doody?
>
> Thanks
>
> GeezerHi Geezer, I agree with everything you said. Im not an expert on SPECT and PET scans but how come you say these scans prove nothing? I was under the understanding these scans are showing the "functional" conditions of our brains when mentally ill. Could you please explain what you mean? I am interested in this subject. Psychiatry has historically been full of quackery and I certainly hope functional neuroimaging doesnt turn out to be another dead end area of psychiatry research.
As far as Howdy Doody, no I am a youngster, well relatively. Howdy Doody was long off TV when I was born. However it was my Dad's favorite TV show when he was a kid and he talks about it sometimes. I picked it to kind of describe how I perceive psychiatry...kind of like "hey...its Howdy Doody time" as in psychiatry is a big fucking joke.
Howdy Doody
Posted by ItsHowdyDudyTime on November 29, 2002, at 15:05:18
In reply to Psychiatry as a science, posted by Peter S. on November 29, 2002, at 13:33:28
Anybody who tells you there is real science in psychiatry is lying to you. There is no science in psychiatry and psychology is even worse. Psychiatry is a joke. Psychiatrists should be ashamed of themselves. If I was a psychiatrist, I wouldnt even be able to go out in daylight cause Id be so ashamed of myself. I couldnt live with the guilt of knowing I called myself a Medical Doctor, but had no real medical tests, no real medical knowledge to treat severe mental illness.
BTW, in one of Dr. Fuller E. Torrey's books he lambasts private practice psychiatry. He says the "ideal" psychiatry practice is one in which the psychiatrist sees as few psychotics and manics as possible...none if at all possible. And mostly only sees dysthymics and people with "Woody Allen syndrome." These are the folks who fuel the business of psychiatry...those with woody allen syndrome. The people with real deal mental illness are just ignored, shuffled from psychiatrist to psychiatrist because nobody really knows whats wrong with them in a medical sense and nobody really knows how to fix them.
Its sickening...
Howdy Doody
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.