![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 29 to 53 of 75. Go back in thread:
Posted by linkadge on April 27, 2012, at 19:34:45
In reply to Re: so what's the answer? » SLS, posted by JohnLA on April 26, 2012, at 22:24:58
I think for me, the shift has become from looking externally for hope to looking interally.
When you're caught in that mindset, all you can believe is that somethink "out there" will make things right.
I'm definately doing better off meds. Been on every antidepressant out there, mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, benzodiazapines, stimulants, you name it.
Its all the same. I am looking for something external to fix an internal problem.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on April 27, 2012, at 19:37:05
In reply to @ scott again. alternatives, posted by JohnLA on April 26, 2012, at 23:08:14
And yes, depression is addictive. Most of us spend so much time there, we don't want to get better. If we got better, we feel that the suffering would be in vain.
Instead of just moving on and letting go of the past, we want something that makes the suffering make sense. To know that we are chemically imballanced, legitimitizes it all.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on April 27, 2012, at 19:40:00
In reply to Re: @ scott again. alternatives » JohnLA, posted by SLS on April 27, 2012, at 6:30:54
Some people will *never* admit that psychiatry has f*ck*d them up more than they ever would have been. Their mind has set up mental roadblocks that prevent this from ever happening. They are too trusting. Its a personality trait. A too high oxytocin / phenylethylamine ratio maybe
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on April 27, 2012, at 19:41:00
In reply to Re: @ scott again. alternatives » JohnLA, posted by gadchik on April 27, 2012, at 9:09:34
Or maybe they truly are insane. I.e. repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Linkadge
Posted by ron1953 on April 27, 2012, at 20:24:00
In reply to Re: @ scott again. alternatives, posted by linkadge on April 27, 2012, at 19:41:00
Your observations are all very good ones! I think what I try (emphasis on try) to put across is that we don't have to just "go along with the program" like compliant little children. We have every reason and right to question what we're doing and what "they" are doing to us. And we might do well to ask whether we're asking for the impossible, and not willing to accept and/or compromise in regard to our "condition". Let's face it - it's a pretty weird and often cruel world; is it any surprise that some us us don't cope as well as some others?
Like, is it "social anxiety", or just shyness, or, in my case, just finding a lot of people annoying? Is it "ADHD" or just being distractable, or maybe being in the wrong line of work? Heck, I got the ADHD label slapped on me, and I'm incredibly organized, neat, efficient, etc. - I'm just restless, that's all. But I guess I scored enough DSM points to warrant the diagnosis. I'm sure they would give me drugs in grade school if it were today. And the whole ADHD thing is ridiculous anyway, because of a stupid and unreasonable expectation that ALL kids should be able to sit still for 6 hours in an incredibly boring schoolroom.I could go on, but others have done a much better job of explaining this BS than I could ever do.
Posted by Phil on April 28, 2012, at 22:40:25
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper » bleauberry, posted by gadchik on April 27, 2012, at 18:13:02
These kinds of threads always make me want to ditch the meds. I've been on many over a 30 year period mostly at high doses. I don't feel brain damaged or any other kind of damaged.
I've never felt that the doctors I've had were doing anything other than trying to keep a wicked disease under control. I don't feel like a chump eager to do anything my doctor says.
I don't believe that all psychiatrists are evil or stupid trying to get the whole planet strung out on drugs.
I've never had a hideous discontinuation syndrome but I've had side effects. If they were bad I would find something hopefully better.
Who knows? Maybe if I got off of everything I might feel better or the same. But I remember the crushing depression I had before meds and I have gotten off TCA's once or twice. The depression was waiting.
I don't think that it would be wise for 'me' to drop medication. Everyone has a choice and I respect that. There are tons of people online that said psych meds screwed them up so they got off of them. Then some say, well orthomolecular medicine helped them or a constantly rotating mess of handfuls of herbs, vitamins, SJW, colon cleansing, massage, chiropractic, etc. Many have absolutely no idea what they're doing but in their minds it's better than a pill. More power to you.
I trust my doctor more than I trust 99% of the crazy sh*t some people buy into to treat their disorder.
Maybe I am a chump. But having this 'inherited' disease for 30 years and to say I'm still on this planet is enough for me. Maybe tomorrow I'll change my mind, but it won't be because I'm brain damaged. I guess I'm not enlightened and 20 years from now this time in psychiatry will be compared equally with lobotomies and asylums.
With my family history I doubt I'll be around for people to tell me I told you so.
Posted by SLS on April 29, 2012, at 1:55:33
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper, posted by Phil on April 28, 2012, at 22:40:25
Hi Phil.
You said much of what I was thinking and feeling, but that I didn't have the motivation to write. This is an old topic, and I have had my fill of addressing it the way I have in the past. However, I would be interested to see the actual research paper that is being referred to in the article introduced here. Perhaps I would have commented on it.
I thank God for the true scientists and doctors who study and treat mental illnesses. Without them, I doubt that I would have allowed myself to suffer beyond the 1980s. I am guessing that we were born 50 years too early to have been cured of these illnesses. I am just grateful that I was born late enough to have some chance of being treated successfully and living the last third of my life happily and free of psychic pain.
The treatment of mental illness is not a free ride. Usually, one must make compromises and sacrifices in order to tolerate the adverse effects of the currently available therapies. Do psychiatric drugs leave indelible footprints in the brain? The answer to this question seems to be yes. This is important information. However, it is a matter of perspective that influences the decisions made using this information. Attitude affects perspective. I will continue to work with the attitude that the fields of neuroscience and psychiatry are genuinely interested in healing people and preventing the induction of these illnesses. The resulting perspective for me is that drugs are better than no drugs. They are imperfect tools to be sure. They have their liabilities. So, too, do a great many drugs used in other fields of medicine. If cancer doesn't klll you, the chemotherapy used to treat it might do so first. It is a difficult decision to make to treat an illness with a harmful substance. Yet, that is precisely what many of us agree to, whether it be for depression or for gout.
Okay, so we remove every psychiatric medication that has been shown to produce adverse side effects = get rid of them all. What do we do next? Nothing? Not treat? Blame "Big Pharma" for not discovering and developing better drugs? Shall we also remove those drugs for HIV AIDS that have side effects = remove them all? What about NSAIDS and fatalities from bleeding ulcers = remove them all? I will leave for others the attitude that greed alone drives medicine. Yuck.
- Scott
-------------------------------------
> These kinds of threads always make me want to ditch the meds. I've been on many over a 30 year period mostly at high doses. I don't feel brain damaged or any other kind of damaged.
> I've never felt that the doctors I've had were doing anything other than trying to keep a wicked disease under control. I don't feel like a chump eager to do anything my doctor says.
> I don't believe that all psychiatrists are evil or stupid trying to get the whole planet strung out on drugs.
> I've never had a hideous discontinuation syndrome but I've had side effects. If they were bad I would find something hopefully better.
> Who knows? Maybe if I got off of everything I might feel better or the same. But I remember the crushing depression I had before meds and I have gotten off TCA's once or twice. The depression was waiting.
> I don't think that it would be wise for 'me' to drop medication. Everyone has a choice and I respect that. There are tons of people online that said psych meds screwed them up so they got off of them. Then some say, well orthomolecular medicine helped them or a constantly rotating mess of handfuls of herbs, vitamins, SJW, colon cleansing, massage, chiropractic, etc. Many have absolutely no idea what they're doing but in their minds it's better than a pill. More power to you.
> I trust my doctor more than I trust 99% of the crazy sh*t some people buy into to treat their disorder.
> Maybe I am a chump. But having this 'inherited' disease for 30 years and to say I'm still on this planet is enough for me. Maybe tomorrow I'll change my mind, but it won't be because I'm brain damaged. I guess I'm not enlightened and 20 years from now this time in psychiatry will be compared equally with lobotomies and asylums.
> With my family history I doubt I'll be around for people to tell me I told you so.
Posted by zazenducke on April 29, 2012, at 6:53:35
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper » Phil, posted by SLS on April 29, 2012, at 1:55:33
> Hi Phil.
>
> You said much of what I was thinking and feeling, but that I didn't have the motivation to write. This is an old topic, and I have had my fill of addressing it the way I have in the past. However, I would be interested to see the actual research paper that is being referred to in the article introduced here. Perhaps I would have commented on itWell that is an option-I provided a link in the second post - Primum Non Nocere :)
>
Posted by SLS on April 29, 2012, at 14:45:32
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper » SLS, posted by zazenducke on April 29, 2012, at 6:53:35
> > Hi Phil.
> >
> > You said much of what I was thinking and feeling, but that I didn't have the motivation to write. This is an old topic, and I have had my fill of addressing it the way I have in the past. However, I would be interested to see the actual research paper that is being referred to in the article introduced here. Perhaps I would have commented on it
>
> Well that is an option-I provided a link in the second post - Primum Non Nocere :)Sorry. Thank you. I missed it.
"Primum Non Nocere." How would you apply this principle to cancer chemotherapy?
The judgment of treatment justification seems more complex to me than simply determining if there are any adverse effects associated with it. Dry mouth causes tooth decay. Shall we remove all drugs that produce xerostomia as a side effect? I guess lines must be drawn somewhere. Many of them are bound to be fuzzy.
As for the article, I find it to be cleverly written, but little more than conjecture and speculation supported by unsubstantiated suppositions. It reminds me of the stuff that Whitaker writes. He produces references, but uses only strategically placed excerpts that are out of context. Facts are used, just not all of them. Such use of medical literature can be quite compelling, but very much wrong. Those are my initial comments. They really don't prove anything, though. It would be quite a project to challenge the thesis of the paper by refuting each contention offered by the authors. I don't know that I am qualified to do this. Perhaps I'll pick out a few of the easier to recognize errors to work with. I hope someone who is qualified to respond to this paper will write an article or editorial to challenge it. It is still quite new. I am not swayed by the presence of valid facts interspersed throughout the treatise that serve to bolster its credibility. This is what I see here. Still, I have proven nothing. There are pro-drug papers that are driven by agenda just as there are anti-drug papers driven by agenda. I think that this is one of those papers.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on April 29, 2012, at 14:55:47
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper » zazenducke, posted by SLS on April 29, 2012, at 14:45:32
> There are pro-drug papers that are driven by agenda just as there are anti-drug papers driven by agenda. I think that this is one of those papers.
... That is not to say that there isn't a place or function for agendas. There are. Important ones, too. Agendas are not in and of themselves invalidating of the suppositions and conclusions they portray.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on April 29, 2012, at 14:56:35
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper, posted by SLS on April 29, 2012, at 14:55:47
> > There are pro-drug papers that are driven by agenda just as there are anti-drug papers driven by agenda. I think that this is one of those papers.
>
> ... That is not to say that there isn't a place or function for agendas. There are. Important ones, too. Agendas are not in and of themselves invalidating of the suppositions and conclusions they portray.Obviously, I have my own.
- Scott
Posted by ron1953 on April 29, 2012, at 15:52:25
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper, posted by SLS on April 29, 2012, at 14:56:35
There is obviously one here who goes by the adage, "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullsh*t". The read-and-regurgitate crowd are among the most clueless around.
Posted by SLS on April 29, 2012, at 18:28:53
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper, posted by ron1953 on April 29, 2012, at 15:52:25
> There is obviously one here who goes by the adage, "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullsh*t". The read-and-regurgitate crowd are among the most clueless around.
The gentleman doth project too much, me thinks.
Clueless.
- Scott
Posted by ron1953 on April 29, 2012, at 19:06:58
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper, posted by SLS on April 29, 2012, at 18:28:53
The gentleman doth wonderith about the dangers of giving and taking medication advice to/from strangers, however well-spoken, on the Internet. He is astounded by such cavalier arrogance about the dangers of such a practice, or the naivete to follow such dubious advice.
Posted by SLS on April 29, 2012, at 19:20:54
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper, posted by ron1953 on April 29, 2012, at 19:06:58
> The gentleman doth wonderith about the dangers of giving and taking medication advice to/from strangers, however well-spoken, on the Internet. He is astounded by such cavalier arrogance about the dangers of such a practice, or the naivete to follow such dubious advice.
Words. I notice that you are particularly fixated on the word "arrogance". Why does my existence bother you so? Surely, I am not the only one on this board behaving the way you portray me as behaving.
You still wish that you were me. It is so obvious. Either I am your hero, or you are your own worst enemy. For you, there is nothing in between.
How is that for getting personal?
It is no act of brilliance to be different for the sake of being different. Perhaps it is a way to fulfill one's desperate need to feel significant in the world.
The truth shall set you free.
Give me a break.
- Scott
Posted by ron1953 on April 29, 2012, at 19:54:15
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper » ron1953, posted by SLS on April 29, 2012, at 19:20:54
How very revealing
Posted by SLS on April 29, 2012, at 20:00:34
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper, posted by ron1953 on April 29, 2012, at 19:54:15
> How very revealing
Now, you're talking.
- Scott
Posted by sigismund on April 29, 2012, at 20:04:54
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper » zazenducke, posted by SLS on April 29, 2012, at 14:45:32
> How would you apply this principle to cancer chemotherapy?
Avoid it if it is not likely to be useful.
This is why many doctors are content to die without heroic measures being practised on them.
It could be a bit hard. You would need to accept the reality that you are dying.
Posted by SLS on April 29, 2012, at 20:08:29
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper » SLS, posted by sigismund on April 29, 2012, at 20:04:54
> > How would you apply this principle to cancer chemotherapy?
> Avoid it if it is not likely to be useful.Someone close to me made that decision. She died peacefully.
> It could be a bit hard. You would need to accept the reality that you are dying.
- Scott
Posted by AlexanderDenmark on April 30, 2012, at 5:22:24
In reply to ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper, posted by zazenducke on April 25, 2012, at 14:18:47
This article enforces my own view and experience.
AD's have contributed immensly to ruining my life and have done more harm than good. Not that they have done anything good really.
You know SLS, allopathic medicine is not the only ones who treat psychiatric disorders.
Posted by SLS on April 30, 2012, at 7:06:12
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper, posted by AlexanderDenmark on April 30, 2012, at 5:22:24
> This article enforces my own view and experience.
>
> AD's have contributed immensly to ruining my life and have done more harm than good. Not that they have done anything good really.
>
> You know SLS, allopathic medicine is not the only ones who treat psychiatric disorders.Yes, I know, but I doubt homeopathic medicine is of any use. However, I think the "naturopath" or "integrated" approaches are worth exploring. If my sister were to accept medicating herself for her mild, but chronic depression, I would rather see her try St. John's Wort or L-methylfolate than to take Prozac. I don't want the more potent SRIs coursing though her brain if it can at all be avoided. She is actually a responder to Nardil, and has needed it for the more severe depression, GAD, and panic attacks that she experienced. She now does okay without it, and I am happy for the decisions she has made for herself.
We keep hearing stories about people for whom pharmacotherapy is either a blessing or a curse. Both are true, of course.
Some people mistake "homeopathic" for "naturopathic".
Homeopathy (homeo = same) is the use of minute amounts of the same substance that would bring out identical symptoms when large amounts are applied to a healthy person.
Allopathy (allo = different) is a method of treating disease with remedies that produce effects antagonistic to those caused by the disease itself.
Naturopathy (naturo = natural) is more of a philosophy or set of principles than a prescribed methodology. Above all, it honors the bodys innate wisdom to heal. Naturopathy is sometimes referred to as being holistic medicine. This is wrong.
Holistic (holos = whole) medicine is considered to be an art and science of healing that addresses care of the whole person - body, mind, and spirit. The practice of holistic medicine integrates conventional and complementary alternative therapies to promote optimal health, and prevent and treat disease by addressing contributing factors.
Integrative (integrate = bring together) medicine uses an ecclectic approach to enhance the health of the individual. It postulates that one is more than the sum of his illnesses. The therapeutic modalities employed integrate methods drawn from a great many sources. These include allotropic medicine as well as naturapathic philosophies.
- Scott
Posted by AlexanderDenmark on April 30, 2012, at 9:38:37
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper, posted by SLS on April 30, 2012, at 7:06:12
> > This article enforces my own view and experience.
> >
> > AD's have contributed immensly to ruining my life and have done more harm than good. Not that they have done anything good really.
> >
> > You know SLS, allopathic medicine is not the only ones who treat psychiatric disorders.
>
> Yes, I know, but I doubt homeopathic medicine is of any use. However, I think the "naturopath" or "integrated" approaches are worth exploring. If my sister were to accept medicating herself for her mild, but chronic depression, I would rather see her try St. John's Wort or L-methylfolate than to take Prozac. I don't want the more potent SRIs coursing though her brain if it can at all be avoided. She is actually a responder to Nardil, and has needed it for the more severe depression, GAD, and panic attacks that she experienced. She now does okay without it, and I am happy for the decisions she has made for herself.
>
> We keep hearing stories about people for whom pharmacotherapy is either a blessing or a curse. Both are true, of course.
>
> Some people mistake "homeopathic" for "naturopathic".
>
> Homeopathy (homeo = same) is the use of minute amounts of the same substance that would bring out identical symptoms when large amounts are applied to a healthy person.
>
> Allopathy (allo = different) is a method of treating disease with remedies that produce effects antagonistic to those caused by the disease itself.
>
> Naturopathy (naturo = natural) is more of a philosophy or set of principles than a prescribed methodology. Above all, it honors the bodys innate wisdom to heal. Naturopathy is sometimes referred to as being holistic medicine. This is wrong.
>
> Holistic (holos = whole) medicine is considered to be an art and science of healing that addresses care of the whole person - body, mind, and spirit. The practice of holistic medicine integrates conventional and complementary alternative therapies to promote optimal health, and prevent and treat disease by addressing contributing factors.
>
> Integrative (integrate = bring together) medicine uses an ecclectic approach to enhance the health of the individual. It postulates that one is more than the sum of his illnesses. The therapeutic modalities employed integrate methods drawn from a great many sources. These include allotropic medicine as well as naturapathic philosophies.
>
>
> - ScottHi Scott
I was talking more about Traditionel Chinese Medicine, Ayuervedic Medicine and Tibetan Buddhist Medicine.
Systems of medical practice which has been used for centuries, I think the problem is that we catogerize all branches of medicine that is not allopathic into "Alternative" which we equate with snake oil.
There is alot more to things like TCM than acupuncture and moxibustion. However I think it's difficult to find authentic quality doctors in these types practice in the west unless you know your stuff.
I know that Tibetan buddhist medicine has medcines that have been tried and tested with succes for depression and anxiety. I bet formulas like Semde and Bimala would trumph western antiedepressants in a clinical trials. And without side effects.
Of course some TBM practices are buddhist in nature. Depression with be associated with attachment. Also strong attachment to the body, which is why we often see people with predisposition to depression to have a hypochondrial side. A buddhist practice for these people would be Chöd.
Posted by AlexanderDenmark on April 30, 2012, at 9:38:53
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper, posted by SLS on April 30, 2012, at 7:06:12
> > This article enforces my own view and experience.
> >
> > AD's have contributed immensly to ruining my life and have done more harm than good. Not that they have done anything good really.
> >
> > You know SLS, allopathic medicine is not the only ones who treat psychiatric disorders.
>
> Yes, I know, but I doubt homeopathic medicine is of any use. However, I think the "naturopath" or "integrated" approaches are worth exploring. If my sister were to accept medicating herself for her mild, but chronic depression, I would rather see her try St. John's Wort or L-methylfolate than to take Prozac. I don't want the more potent SRIs coursing though her brain if it can at all be avoided. She is actually a responder to Nardil, and has needed it for the more severe depression, GAD, and panic attacks that she experienced. She now does okay without it, and I am happy for the decisions she has made for herself.
>
> We keep hearing stories about people for whom pharmacotherapy is either a blessing or a curse. Both are true, of course.
>
> Some people mistake "homeopathic" for "naturopathic".
>
> Homeopathy (homeo = same) is the use of minute amounts of the same substance that would bring out identical symptoms when large amounts are applied to a healthy person.
>
> Allopathy (allo = different) is a method of treating disease with remedies that produce effects antagonistic to those caused by the disease itself.
>
> Naturopathy (naturo = natural) is more of a philosophy or set of principles than a prescribed methodology. Above all, it honors the bodys innate wisdom to heal. Naturopathy is sometimes referred to as being holistic medicine. This is wrong.
>
> Holistic (holos = whole) medicine is considered to be an art and science of healing that addresses care of the whole person - body, mind, and spirit. The practice of holistic medicine integrates conventional and complementary alternative therapies to promote optimal health, and prevent and treat disease by addressing contributing factors.
>
> Integrative (integrate = bring together) medicine uses an ecclectic approach to enhance the health of the individual. It postulates that one is more than the sum of his illnesses. The therapeutic modalities employed integrate methods drawn from a great many sources. These include allotropic medicine as well as naturapathic philosophies.
>
>
> - ScottHi Scott
I was talking more about Traditionel Chinese Medicine, Ayuervedic Medicine and Tibetan Buddhist Medicine.
Systems of medical practice which has been used for centuries, I think the problem is that we catogerize all branches of medicine that is not allopathic into "Alternative" which we equate with snake oil.
There is alot more to things like TCM than acupuncture and moxibustion. However I think it's difficult to find authentic quality doctors in these types practice in the west unless you know your stuff.
I know that Tibetan buddhist medicine has medcines that have been tried and tested with succes for depression and anxiety. I bet formulas like Semde and Bimala would trumph western antiedepressants in a clinical trials. And without side effects.
Of course some TBM practices are buddhist in nature. Depression with be associated with attachment. Also strong attachment to the body, which is why we often see people with predisposition to depression to have a hypochondrial side. A buddhist practice for these people would be Chöd.
Posted by AlexanderDenmark on April 30, 2012, at 9:42:25
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper, posted by AlexanderDenmark on April 30, 2012, at 9:38:37
I also communicate with a TBM doctor who also is a Dzogchen teacher. He says that allopathic medicine is best for things that require surgery, but not really so much else. That has really been my experience all along.
Posted by SLS on April 30, 2012, at 10:11:25
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper, posted by AlexanderDenmark on April 30, 2012, at 9:42:25
> I also communicate with a TBM doctor who also is a Dzogchen teacher. He says that allopathic medicine is best for things that require surgery, but not really so much else. That has really been my experience all along.
Thanks for the information. There was a time when I thought to try acupuncture. However, I was short on cash at the time. Also, the Korean practitioner that I saw could not describe for me a specific treatment to address depression. I am sure that there are some, but I didn't pursue it.
- Scott
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.