![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 26. Go back in thread:
Posted by Cam W. on April 5, 2000, at 11:08:16
In reply to So Many Posts about Medication(s) - How Come?, posted by FP on April 5, 2000, at 9:42:36
FP - Welcome. The reason we harp about medications on this board is that most of us believe that they "put the floor under us" so that the other therapies you mention will be effective. They bring us to an emotional level that allows us to understand what the therapist is saying, instead of sitting inside ourselves, afraid to come out. As you follow this board, you will come to realize that most of us do not consider medications "cures", but rather "bandages". To stop the "bleeding" we sometimes need "bandages" before we can get the "stitches". Hope this partially clears up why we talk meds all the time. There have been some very good posts on talk therapies, but usually they are just implied or taken for granted. - Cam W.
Posted by FP on April 5, 2000, at 11:16:42
In reply to Re: So Many Posts about Medication(s) - How Come?, posted by Cam W. on April 5, 2000, at 11:08:16
Thanks for making that clear - I've seen you on a number of posts, so I gather you've been here awhile.
Thanks,
FP
Posted by NikkiT on April 5, 2000, at 11:46:06
In reply to So Many Posts about Medication(s) - How Come?, posted by FP on April 5, 2000, at 9:42:36
Hi,
I think, I, for one, am currently relying on my meds for lack of other options, and a lack of belief that I am worthy of any other help.
I live in London, England, and over here there doesn't seem to be the support system that youy get in the US, for me it's been a long hard fight to get refferred to any sort of psychologist. IN the mean time, I do need some help.
Plus, I work a 50/60 hour week, and find it so hard to manage to fit anything else into my life.
please forgive me for trying to cope the best I can at the moment.
Posted by saint james on April 5, 2000, at 13:43:52
In reply to So Many Posts about Medication(s) - How Come?, posted by FP on April 5, 2000, at 9:42:36
For many of us mental illness is a medical problem so it gets a medical treatment.
james
Posted by DC on April 5, 2000, at 14:43:46
In reply to Re: So Many Posts about Medication(s) - How Come?, posted by saint james on April 5, 2000, at 13:43:52
James is right: mental illness is a medical problem. But medical doesn't just mean pills; medicine means treatment. I think it would be good for this board if we broadened the base a little bit. FP is right: there really are other treatments and if they work, they work. We ought to be more open-minded here.
Posted by Noa on April 5, 2000, at 15:38:30
In reply to So Many Posts about Medication(s) - How Come?, posted by FP on April 5, 2000, at 9:42:36
Because this board is related to the Dr. Bob's Psychopharmocology Tips site.
Posted by bob on April 5, 2000, at 16:22:03
In reply to Re: So Many Posts about Medication(s) - How Come?, posted by Noa on April 5, 2000, at 15:38:30
Hey, I don't tell ANYONE what goes on between my therapist and me.
If you stick around, you'll see threads pop up about all sorts of therapies -- whether its someone's views on Freudian or Jungian analysis, EMDR, CBT, ECT, and all sorts of other acronyms.
I think meds get the focus because they have the biggest bang-for-the-buck potential. They also have the most observable problems. Medication issues are always in your face, while other therapies can work more slowly, more behind the scenes.
It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
Another thing comes to mind -- that while meds do different things to different people, their effects are far more predictable than discussing what ten years of 4 sessions/week of psychoanalysis is going to do for or to you.
My therapist talks about meds as giving you a window on feeling different. Now, I may have been experiencing changes through all the work I was doing with her, but I felt a new me within 30 minutes of the first pill I ever took. After years and years of gradual shifts, I found a new view of the world -- one I never had been capable of even imagining -- in 30 minutes.
And no, it doesn't trouble me, because I don't sit back and take whatever's given to me. THAT, I think, is the character of 90% of the medications discussions here -- not being a mindless zombie patient, but being an informed consumer and an active participant in your own health care.
my $1.35
bob
Posted by Ant-Rock on April 5, 2000, at 18:26:28
In reply to So Many Posts about Medication(s) - How Come?, posted by FP on April 5, 2000, at 9:42:36
FP,
These things you mention are all valid when one is mildly or moderately depressed. The problem is that depression encompasses a wide spectrum, and when someone is "severely" depressed, these other forms of treatment are just not sufficient. For instance, the hopelessness that encumbers one in a severe depression usually makes it hard to even believe in a god. Meditation can be extremely helpful for anxious depressions, but for someone who's to fatigued to leave the house or just feels numb, as with anhedonia as part of the depression, meditation probably won't even make a dent.
Remember, nobody here wants to have to rely on a med to get them out of this suffering, but sometimes its the only option left.
Anthony
Posted by Joy on April 5, 2000, at 18:34:33
In reply to Re: FP has good point, posted by DC on April 5, 2000, at 14:43:46
Thank-you FP,thank-you DC. I agree! Broaden those bases!
> James is right: mental illness is a medical problem. But medical doesn't just mean pills; medicine means treatment. I think it would be good for this board if we broadened the base a little bit. FP is right: there really are other treatments and if they work, they work. We ought to be more open-minded here.
Posted by AprilA. on April 5, 2000, at 20:39:22
In reply to Re:FP has good point..as does DC, posted by Joy on April 5, 2000, at 18:34:33
> Thank-you FP,thank-you DC. I agree! Broaden those bases!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > James is right: mental illness is a medical problem. But medical doesn't just mean pills; medicine means treatment. I think it would be good for this board if we broadened the base a little bit. FP is right: there really are other treatments and if they work, they work. We ought to be more open-minded here.
-----------------
I agree. There are unfortunately people who are not helped by medication and there are people who are still living with damage caused by "psychiatric treatment". I think the board would be better with a wider range of topics and a wider range of posters.Everyone's experience is valuable. Just because I disagree with the prevailing philosophy here doesn't mean I don't respect the people who believe that mental illness is comparable to diabetes. Anyway, diabetes is also treated with lifestyle changes.
There are also people who aren't going to get "well" according to society's standards and need to find a way to live with being different. So I'm with those who say broaden the bases!!A.
Posted by dove on April 6, 2000, at 9:40:22
In reply to Re:FP has good point..as does DC, posted by AprilA. on April 5, 2000, at 20:39:22
I have no intention of stomping on toes here, but there needs to be some clarification in regards to meds versus *other*. Why shouldn't every post be about meds? Humans have searched for an eternity to find the fix to their soul-wrenching pain and illness, every flavor, color and song has been dug up and digested. What has been utilized to cure these diseases: religion, meditation, cult-suicides, alcohol, sex, and the list goes on as far as the eye can see. Obviously, these are not the cure for all who search, as evidenced by their own destruction.
Treating mental illness, whether it's depression or OCD, with a scientific/medical model is fairly new in comparison to holistic/talk-therapy approaches. We have new break-throughs in treating mental illness, never before seen in history, and why should I ignore material and physical evidence? How many millions and millions of people have sought the "cure" and died miserable and broken, and long before any medical model for treatment was available.
I know that the meds we have currently are not the panacea to-end-all panaceas, and most likely they will never be. Never-the-less, they are the greatest improvement we have seen for the treatment of mental illness. I also recognize the danger inherent to psycho-effective meds, I have tasted their poison first hand, yet, they hold so much more promise than nothing at all!
Holistic approaches have been utilized for eternity and if they held so much power, why haven't they ended the battle? One approach will never fit everyone, nor do I believe that one approach (as in monotherapy of whatever flavor) will cure even one person's illness by its own conflagration. However, I do know that without the meds we would be right back where it started, and I for one, don't view that prospect with anything akin to fondness.
dove
Posted by AprilA. on April 6, 2000, at 10:48:08
In reply to Re: Meds kick butt in comparison, posted by dove on April 6, 2000, at 9:40:22
> I have no intention of stomping on toes here, but there needs to be some clarification in regards to meds versus *other*. Why shouldn't every post be about meds? Humans have searched for an eternity to find the fix to their soul-wrenching pain and illness, every flavor, color and song has been dug up and digested. What has been utilized to cure these diseases: religion, meditation, cult-suicides, alcohol, sex, and the list goes on as far as the eye can see. Obviously, these are not the cure for all who search, as evidenced by their own destruction.
>
-------------------------------------
Dove, you're not stepping on my toes. I wanted more information and personal experience about all therapies including medication, not instead of medicine. But anyone who looked at this medication saturated society would not see much difference would they? As a whole I mean not in specific cases. After all there are individual cases where religion magic etc do cure. Even in the Pharmaceutical studies there's usually a one third placebo response isn't there? And I wonder how many suicides die with antidepressants in there bloodstreams?
------------------------------------------------
> Treating mental illness, whether it's depression or OCD, with a scientific/medical model is fairly new in comparison to holistic/talk-therapy approaches. We have new break-throughs in treating mental illness, never before seen in history, and why should I ignore material and physical evidence? How many millions and millions of people have sought the "cure" and died miserable and broken, and long before any medical model for treatment was available.
> ---------------------------------------I wasn't suggesting that anyone ignore anything,just that people question everything.
-----------------------
> I know that the meds we have currently are not the panacea to-end-all panaceas, and most likely they will never be. Never-the-less, they are the greatest improvement we have seen for the treatment of mental illness. I also recognize the danger inherent to psycho-effective meds, I have tasted their poison first hand, yet, they hold so much more promise than nothing at all!
>
> Holistic approaches have been utilized for eternity and if they held so much power, why haven't they ended the battle? One approach will never fit everyone, nor do I believe that one approach (as in monotherapy of whatever flavor) will cure even one person's illness by its own conflagration. However, I do know that without the meds we would be right back where it started, and I for one, don't view that prospect with anything akin to fondness.
>
> dove
----------------------
Dove, I'm glad medicine is working for you. I think we agree more than disagree. I'm not trying to take anyone's medicines away! I guess I don't know who you mean by "we" would be right back where it(what?) started. I just want to opt out of the we and speak for myself.
Good wishes A.
Posted by saint on April 6, 2000, at 11:39:40
In reply to Re: FP has good point, posted by DC on April 5, 2000, at 14:43:46
> James is right: mental illness is a medical problem. But medical doesn't just mean pills; medicine means treatment. I think it would be good for this board if we broadened the base a little bit. FP is right: there really are other treatments and if they work, they work. We ought to be more open-minded here.
James here...
You mis understood me. Mental illness is many times a medical problem (biological, neurological, biochemical) so it needs a medical (medication to regulate) treatment. If you don't treat the underlying medical problem with meds it is of no good to try other treatments
j
Posted by bob on April 6, 2000, at 12:25:56
In reply to Re: FP has good point, posted by saint on April 6, 2000, at 11:39:40
If you want to talk about a non-medical therapeutic approach, you can *always* start a new thread.
As I mentioned before, if you've been around here long enough, you've seen them come and go, just like any thread topic comes and goes.
James is right: medical problems need medical solutions. Which means those saying we should talk about approaches other than psychopharmacology are also right -- my GP may prescribe Lipitor for my high cholesterol, but he busts my chops about diet and exercise as well if I've been slacking there. Behaviors do contribute to medical problems and medical solutions as much as drugs or clinical procedures.
So, again, if someone out there wants to start a thread about therapy, well, start a thread about therapy and let's chat!
This thread itself has been quite interesting nonetheless. Perhaps it answers its own question of why are there so many threads about medication. This thread is, in essence, a thread about a type of therapy far more than it is about the efficacy, merits, dangers, etc. of any one specific medication. And it continues to focus on that one specific therapeutic approach while failing to spawn any new threads about other approaches. That has to say something in and of itself ... so give it some thought.
I'm not one to believe in the purported objectivity of science, medical or otherwise, but the one thing that psychopharmacology has compared to just about any other approach to treating mental disorders is that it is arguably the most "scientific." What is it that makes a psychiatrist out of a psychologist? The sort of training in a "hard science" (biology, chemistry, and all the specializations medicine has from them) that those in the "soft sciences" (i.e., social sciences) don't get.
I think we spend so much time talking about meds here for many reasons -- the speed in which they work, the hope that can engender, the problems they cause when they fail -- but it is the verisimilitude of scientific objectivity and generalizability that allows us to believe that the way Drug A works for you means it may very well work the same way for me, regardless of the environmental or contextual particulars of our different psychological problems.
That generalizability of effect cannot be said for any other approach or treatment.
Well, with the exception of, perhaps, a frontal lobotomy.
cheers,
bob (with a bottle in front of me)
Posted by bob on April 6, 2000, at 12:29:25
In reply to Re: Meds kick butt in comparison, posted by dove on April 6, 2000, at 9:40:22
[ps to dove ... you go, girl!]
[cheers,]
[bob]
Posted by dove on April 6, 2000, at 14:18:07
In reply to Re: Meds kick butt in comparison, posted by AprilA. on April 6, 2000, at 10:48:08
> ----------------------
Dove, I'm glad medicine is working for you.
---------------<Hate to do this, but, the meds aren't working for me :-P The only med that has ever really truly done anything for me is Verapamil, a calcium-channel blocker for high blood pressure, which I was taking for migraines.
And by *we* I meant we the population of the earth, and *where* we started is referencing the frontal lobotomies, sterilizations, brain-damaging ECTs, drugs that turned patients into the walking dead, blood-letting, padded cells, human sacrifices, yapping and yapping 'til blue in the face, ice-baths, exterminations, and annihilation.
And to Bob, thank you so much for the encouragment! Just what I need :-P
dove
Posted by AprilA. on April 6, 2000, at 17:04:22
In reply to Re: meds and yapping, posted by dove on April 6, 2000, at 14:18:07
> > ----------------------
> Dove, I'm glad medicine is working for you.
> ---------------
> Hate to do this, but, the meds aren't workingSorry Dove ,how do you manage? (If you feel like talking about it-if you don't that's ok too.)
I've tried most of the things you mentioned (except lobotomy and human sacrifice ) and I didn't think too highly of them either! I just wonder how to live when nothing does help-I never made plans for that. Thanks for answering. A.
Posted by boB on April 6, 2000, at 19:18:47
In reply to Re: meds and yapping, posted by AprilA. on April 6, 2000, at 17:04:22
Friends,
I agree that the reason there are so many posts here about meds is that this is a
psychopharmacology site. I came in through the front door, looking for ppharm
articles, and stumbled across this discussion.I am not an advocate of meds, but maybe a close friend of mine who might be
just like me but doesn't want to cop to a crime used outlaw meds for a long
time. From that experience, having a lot of respect for my friend who could
almost even be me, I have no moral high ground from which to damn people
who toy with their neurochemistry.Say this friend started out as a teen and young adult trying anything and everything, until a friend died of an OD and others spiraled into crime and confusion.
But say this friend had higher ideals, like being for a peaceful fair society, and
this friend who is a lot like me noticed that wherever he found lots of
musicians, and artists, and people whose life was an art form of sorts, planting
gardens, and wearing long folksy dresses (on the ladies) and building
pay-as-you go homes, and generally living against the tide of industrialism,
among all these groups he found a common thread, especially the use of
cannabis and hallucinogens.Well, this friend, who isn't me, so don't get a search warrant, or put a PIN
register on my phone, Mr. Government Man, soon found that the frustration of
standing against the direction of mainstream society was fatiguing.This friend, who is not me because I can't risk the professional stigma of
copping to these things, found that smoking cannabis provided welcome relief
to some of these frustrating symptoms that are described here and in DSM-IV as
depression.But this friend felt a lot like I do on one point. Me and my friend thought it was
appropriate to be sad for a long time because something very sad was
happening.Me and my friend didn't think that, once the six o’clock news was
over, the suffering of the people on the news went away.We did not thing it was anti-social to be sad and to refuse our participation in some of the competitive self-serving aspects of society, we thought it was empathetic. We thought many of the apparently happiest people in our society were actually manic and acting inappropriately happy in the face of a lot of destruction of species and of habitat and of old cultures, and of human beings.
Well, I held on to my supposedly depressed, anti-social personality, and pretty
soon (in eternal terms - it actually took a long time), those things that would
have been diagnosed as depressive anti-social symptoms became valid critiques
of my culture, and some people asked me to help articulate publicly some of
these critiques.I felt better, but I still thought cannabis did something to make my friend feel better. I now have a hunch the cannabis was boosting my friends dopamine and serotonin levels, and am a little perplexed at why some bunch of men in smog-belching limousines take issue with the way my friend chose to clog his own lungs.
Anyway, the illegal med use was not much of an issue, because I learned that
lots of people use illegal meds and just stay pretty quiet about it. I realized that a
lot of the people providing counseling, and writing insightful books, movies
and entertainment programs were the same people who secretly and intuitively
regulated their neurotransmitters with illegal medicines.So, I can't complain that people try to refine their psychopharmacological
regimes.I remember an old song, from my friends (not me, please mr. customs man)
hippie days. It said the dealer he's your friend, but goddamn the pusher man.And I realized (I mean my friend realized) that a lot of people were may be taking medicines and calling themselves sick because DSM-IV does not include nomenclature to describe a sick, poisoned, destructive, hypermanic culture.
And certainly pharmaceutical manufacturers have little incentive to give up incomes of $100,000 and up to promote instead a society of sharing, of not-excessively demanding work environments and of stable families grounded in stable communities with fair economies.
So this gets back the that rude post thread I started earlier.
I say, lets take drugs and be happy.NOT? Okay, lets stop calling ourselves sick every time we get the mental sniffles and instead lets start sweeping out some of this emotional dust that is poisoning our society.
I have no problem with treating mental discomfort with meds, or with using meds to address some of the pervasive mental conditions that effect our society, but I am concerned when, as an industry, the pharmaceutical monopoly (licensed practitioners) uses their hold on science to discourage efforts to address underlying social causes of unrest.
Someone started a private e-mail dialogue with me on this site, at once trying to
ferret out my position and perhaps responding with their own uncertainty that
any individual can effect collective change.
I replied with a couple of suggestions.One was for a study of: Neurotropic Effects on Individuals of Living in
Populations Exposed to Extreme, Varied and Frequently Changing Sources and
Levels of Sensory StimulusAnother was a frank expose of the circular logic of AA and the common practice
of courts who try to treat alcoholism with mandatory participation in a vague religious
group such as AA.
The following is a snippet of that dialogue:
I recently read a Johns Hopkins book about psychotherapy for alcoholics,
which presented the following logic for prescribing AA and for calling
alcoholism a disease:
_________________________________________________
There is some evidence that alcoholics share a common personality trait but the
evidence is not conclusive.The book does not say what the trait might be.
Since alcohol has a physiological effect, it is okay to call alcoholism a disease.
AA seems to work. Alcoholics tend to be obsessive, so telling them they have a
disease, and then prescribing AA as a treatment for the disease meets the needs
of their obsessive personality.AA alone is unlikely to permanently resolve the personality disorders of
alcoholics. Only prolonged therapy is likely to reach the causes of the disorder,
but most alcoholics never have the opportunity or inclination to attend such
therapy.
___________________________________________________Hey friends, talk about meds all you want. My desire is that an understanding
of neurochemistry and neurobiology will go beyond making new drugs and
begin to address collective, multigenerational behavioral and cultural conditions
that excite mental illness.I for one would like a med to cure this need to go on and on in discussion
boards and to repeat phrases over and over like...Lets study: Neurotropic Effects on Individuals of Living in Populations
Exposed to Extreme, Varied and Frequently Changing Sources and Levels of
Sensory StimulusLets study: Neurotropic Effects on Individuals of Living in Populations
Exposed to Extreme, Varied and Frequently Changing Sources and Levels of
Sensory StimulusLets Study: Neurotropic Effects on Individuals of Living in Populations
Exposed to Extreme, Varied and Frequently Changing Sources and Levels of
Sensory Stimulus
Posted by Elizabeth on April 6, 2000, at 22:41:32
In reply to Re: FP has good point, posted by saint on April 6, 2000, at 11:39:40
> You mis understood me. Mental illness is many times a medical problem (biological, neurological, biochemical) so it needs a medical (medication to regulate) treatment. If you don't treat the underlying medical problem with meds it is of no good to try other treatments
I wouldn't really call any of those other things a "treatment." They're things anyone can do, and many people (including those who are not mentally ill) have claimed to feel better, be better human beings, etc. as a result. They are appropriate for the social, cultural, and personality "ills" that boB describes. But they aren't appropriate for depression, mania, schizophrenic psychosis, etc. - ills which occur across cultures.
Posted by Your focus is too narrow on April 7, 2000, at 1:52:17
In reply to treatments, posted by Elizabeth on April 6, 2000, at 22:41:46
I agree that certain ailments like schizophrenia and manic depression require medication. But things like exercise, nutrition, prayer meditation can make a big difference. And if you put all your hope and expectations in meds you miss out on these things. I have the feeling that many people here dismiss things like exercise and nutrition without even trying them. And there is scientific evidence. My mother who is a pediatrician recently told me about a major study she read about exercise and depression. One group of depressed patients was given prozac and the other group was put on a program of aerobic exercise three times a week. At the end of three months the prozac group and the aerobic exercise group showed equal improvement. I know it's hard when you are depressed to get yourself to exercise, but it really can make a difference. I've been doing it for a week--in addition to celexa and adderal--and I already notice an improvement in mood.
Posted by boB on April 7, 2000, at 11:54:25
In reply to Re: treatments, posted by Your focus is too narrow on April 7, 2000, at 1:54:31
Mental diseases occur across cultures, but they occur with greater frequency and intensity in some cultures. The conclusion that mental diseases are medical problems evades a common reality to medical problems, and that is that things cause medical problems. Oxygen treats the ill effects of prolonged tobbacco use, but smoking is the underlying problem. The DSM-IV nomenclature allows practitioners to isolate the result and not to consider underlying causes.
Posted by Cindy W on April 7, 2000, at 22:06:02
In reply to Re: treatments, posted by boB on April 7, 2000, at 11:54:25
> Mental diseases occur across cultures, but they occur with greater frequency and intensity in some cultures. The conclusion that mental diseases are medical problems evades a common reality to medical problems, and that is that things cause medical problems. Oxygen treats the ill effects of prolonged tobbacco use, but smoking is the underlying problem. The DSM-IV nomenclature allows practitioners to isolate the result and not to consider underlying causes.
A lot of information about medication is disseminated on this board and I think that's appropriate. Having taken antidepressant medications for about 28 years, for major depression and OCD, I have found them invaluable and indispensable to keep me from offing myself and to help me get my energy up to undertake other therapies (talk therapy, exercise--well, at least some!, hobbies, work, proper nutrition, etc.).
Posted by William on April 9, 2000, at 22:14:34
In reply to Re: treatments, posted by Cindy W on April 7, 2000, at 22:06:02
I know with out a doubt that my form of depression
is caused by an endocrine imbalance. I suspect many other depression suffurers have an endocrine
problem. Unfortunatly the endocrine systom is so
poorly understood. For the curious, my condition
i believe is caused by a low production of Inhibin
b. It is a long story why I have come to this conclusion. Some day the endocrine system will be
more clearly understood and I think many of us will be more effectively treated. For the present
I must keep trying meds till that day that proper
treatment is available. A few things work quite well for a short time then quit helping, then its
on to the next. I am not a brilliant person. But like all of you, I know myself and my experiences
like no one else will ever know. I must admit some
resentment to suggestions of behavioral treatment.
It seems to me to have similarities to the idea that since everything about evolution is not totaly understood we should abandon it and go back to some primative theory.
> > Mental diseases occur across cultures, but they occur with greater frequency and intensity in some cultures. The conclusion that mental diseases are medical problems evades a common reality to medical problems, and that is that things cause medical problems. Oxygen treats the ill effects of prolonged tobbacco use, but smoking is the underlying problem. The DSM-IV nomenclature allows practitioners to isolate the result and not to consider underlying causes.
>
> A lot of information about medication is disseminated on this board and I think that's appropriate. Having taken antidepressant medications for about 28 years, for major depression and OCD, I have found them invaluable and indispensable to keep me from offing myself and to help me get my energy up to undertake other therapies (talk therapy, exercise--well, at least some!, hobbies, work, proper nutrition, etc.).
Posted by Cindy Wdeatr on April 10, 2000, at 9:46:46
In reply to Re: I have absolutely no use for behavioral treatments, posted by death camps on April 9, 2000, at 23:35:37
> William,
>
> i am glad the meds are working for you.
>
> i am planning to set up a network of death camps, for the systematic extermination of people who practice or advocate bahavioural therapies. Perhaps you would like to work there as a guard, or processing employee.
>
> On the other hand, maybe the meds have not sufficiently expanded your mind to the point you realize everyone is not like you and that even your understanding of your own circumstance might be limited. I will seek a second opinion before I go forward with my death camp plan, but do consider the offer.
death camps, I hope you are being sarcastic. I've found meds have really alleviated my OCD and my depression...but as a therapist myself, and one who relies on cognitive behavior therapy myself also, I see no reason to exclude using any techniques which will help. Behavior therapy can provide a synergistic effect, used with meds.
Posted by Cindy W on April 10, 2000, at 22:00:42
In reply to Re: I have absolutely no use for behavioral treatments, posted by Cindy Wdeatr on April 10, 2000, at 9:46:46
> > William,
> >
> > i am glad the meds are working for you.
> >
> > i am planning to set up a network of death camps, for the systematic extermination of people who practice or advocate bahavioural therapies. Perhaps you would like to work there as a guard, or processing employee.
> >
> > On the other hand, maybe the meds have not sufficiently expanded your mind to the point you realize everyone is not like you and that even your understanding of your own circumstance might be limited. I will seek a second opinion before I go forward with my death camp plan, but do consider the offer.
> death camps, I hope you are being sarcastic. I've found meds have really alleviated my OCD and my depression...but as a therapist myself, and one who relies on cognitive behavior therapy myself also, I see no reason to exclude using any techniques which will help. Behavior therapy can provide a synergistic effect, used with meds.Oops, I was so tired (was caught in a freeway "detour" yesterday, on l0l in Southern California, requiring a 4 hour detour through the mountains and then another 2 l/2 hour drive back home, so I was brain-dead this morning and misspelled my own name!). Sorry.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.