![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 44 to 68 of 68. Go back in thread:
Posted by sid on January 13, 2002, at 10:26:44
In reply to Psychiatry -in its present form-SHOULD BE OUTLAWED » OldSchool, posted by manowar on January 13, 2002, at 1:18:27
I'm seeing a doc (in contrast to a pdoc because my father was treated by pdocs and it was a traumatizing thing to witness) for dysthymia and anxiety, and I had to have blood and urine tests done before starting on any medication, to rule out other possible causes, such as thyroid, liver or kidney problems. I'm surprised presumably specialized clinics (and their pdocs) don't do the same. It seems to go without saying that this must be done first.
> This is what I think:
>
> When you visit a clinic for the first time, they should be required to do blood work. Also, there should be a requirement that every pdoc have certified imaging technology at his disposal-- either at his clinic or at a hospital near by.
Posted by spike4848 on January 13, 2002, at 13:10:11
In reply to Psychiatry -in its present form-SHOULD BE OUTLAWED » OldSchool, posted by manowar on January 13, 2002, at 1:18:27
Hey Guys,
Dr Bob may ban me for this one, but ..... when I was going through medical school and residency in medicine, I met alot of psychiatrists in training. They actually are forced to work on the medicine floors for 6 months.
I hate to generalize, but they were very lazy and unmotivated. Psychiatry attracts these types, because of all the fields of medicine .... psychiatry is by far the easiest in term of life style and academic challenge. I would say 75% of my medical school peers going into psychiatry said they were doing it because of the "Easy Life Style" "It is 9 to 5" etc. One individual actually said .... "Hey I can pretty much sit back and sleep during office sessions, nod to the patient occassionally and hand them a prescription for prozac at the end of the visit."
And many of them are too scared to prescribe anything but and ssri or effexor or buspar...... scared to try MAOI, stimulants, benzo, TCAs because their afraid a patient may OD and family will bring a lawsuit.
Sorry to any quality Psychiatry out there.
Spike
Posted by spike4848 on January 13, 2002, at 13:20:43
In reply to Re: Old School nailed it » OldSchool, posted by manowar on January 10, 2002, at 20:47:45
> And yes, I do think that people with hard to treat psychiatric disorders should all have ‘their heads examined’. Why not? I think most people in America that have heart ailments get either an MRI, SPECT, or any number of imaging studies for it. Why should the brain be any different?
>> Take care,
>
> --TimTo Anyone,
Do you have to be off all meds for a brain spect to be accurate? I still take 0.5 klonopin to prevent disabling anxiety and panic attack ....
Spike
Posted by Bekka H. on January 13, 2002, at 13:52:12
In reply to Most Psychiatrists are Lazy!, posted by spike4848 on January 13, 2002, at 13:10:11
> I hate to generalize, but they were very lazy and unmotivated. Psychiatry attracts these types, because of all the fields of medicine .... psychiatry is by far the easiest in term of life style and academic challenge. I would say 75% of my medical school peers going into psychiatry said they were doing it because of the "Easy Life Style" "It is 9 to 5" etc. One individual actually said .... "Hey I can pretty much sit back and sleep during office sessions, nod to the patient occassionally and hand them a prescription for prozac at the end of the visit."
> Sorry to any quality Psychiatry out there.
Spike*************************************************
I think the last line of your post is most significant because there are some quality psychiatrists out there, but you have to search for them, and that is often difficult to do, especially when you are in distress and feeling desperate. There are, indeed, some terrible psychiatrists out there who are lazy -- or worse; however, that is true of people in EVERY specialty, in every profession. In every field, there are a few top notch people, there are many average people, and then, at the bottom of the barrel, there are a few terrible, lazy, unethical bad apples who should have never been admitted to medical school (or whatever field it is you're talking about) in the first place.
Posted by spike4848 on January 13, 2002, at 14:05:45
In reply to Re: Most Psychiatrists are Lazy!, posted by Bekka H. on January 13, 2002, at 13:52:12
> I think the last line of your post is most significant because there are some quality psychiatrists out there, but you have to search for them, and that is often difficult to do, especially when you are in distress and feeling desperate. There are, indeed, some terrible psychiatrists out there who are lazy -- or worse; however, that is true of people in EVERY specialty, in every profession. In every field, there are a few top notch people, there are many average people, and then, at the bottom of the barrel, there are a few terrible, lazy, unethical bad apples who should have never been admitted to medical school (or whatever field it is you're talking about) in the first place.
Hey,
This is very true. Actually, I have had been treated by 3 psychiatrists during my life .... I changed because I moved to different schools and hospital for my career over the past 7 years. My first psychiatrist was compassionate and extremely dedicated to his field. I would actually say he was the hardest working and motivated doctor in ANY FIELD I have every met. He worked harder then most surgeons.
Granted, psychiatrists must be given some credit .... I hate to listen to me when I am depressed .... I can't image listening to me 10 hours a DAY! And the salary is the lowest amongst all physicians .... very difficult to pay off 150,000.00 of medical school debt on their salary.
Spike
Posted by bob on January 13, 2002, at 14:26:58
In reply to Re: Most Psychiatrists are Lazy!, posted by spike4848 on January 13, 2002, at 14:05:45
Another thing not to be overlooked about psychiatrists is that the prestige of that particular discipline simply doesn't compare to surgeons, trauma doctors, etc. It also must be extremely frustrating at times if the doctor honestly wants to help his more troubled patients. Just a couple of reasons why it might be so difficult to find an excellent pdoc.
Posted by Emme on January 13, 2002, at 14:37:29
In reply to Most Psychiatrists are Lazy!, posted by spike4848 on January 13, 2002, at 13:10:11
> Hey Guys,
>
> Dr Bob may ban me for this one, but ..... when I was going through medical school and residency in medicine, I met alot of psychiatrists in training. They actually are forced to work on the medicine floors for 6 months.
>
> I hate to generalize, but they were very lazy and unmotivated. Psychiatry attracts these types, because of all the fields of medicine .... psychiatry is by far the easiest in term of life style and academic challenge. I would say 75% of my medical school peers going into psychiatry said they were doing it because of the "Easy Life Style" "It is 9 to 5" etc. One individual actually said .... "Hey I can pretty much sit back and sleep during office sessions, nod to the patient occassionally and hand them a prescription for prozac at the end of the visit."
>
> And many of them are too scared to prescribe anything but and ssri or effexor or buspar...... scared to try MAOI, stimulants, benzo, TCAs because their afraid a patient may OD and family will bring a lawsuit.
>
> Sorry to any quality Psychiatry out there.
>
> Spike
Okay, I've had it with psychiatrist bashing. Generalizations are bad. Yes, I know, there are lazy incompetent psychiatrists who practice bad medicine and have no business being in medicine. And yes, I've heard some horror stories. The same can be said for every field. For what it's worth, wanna know my experience?? Three psychiatrists so far, all *good* (I've changed due me moving, and one doctor relocating). My current doctor checked my B-12 blood levels and has made sure my bloodwork (including thyroid) are up to date and that I've seen my internist to rule out other problems. She's consulted a neurologist and dermatologist with questions when needed. She goes to lectures and stays on top of the lit. Always returns calls. Lazy- I don't think so. I know, this is just one person's experience. But since I've had a few psychiatrists like this, I expect there's a few more good ones out there mixed in with the not-so-good ones. Not every drug that we've tried has worked out, but hasn't been for lack of careful thought and attentiveness. Folks, we *can* get quality care - it's possible.Emme
Posted by spike4848 on January 13, 2002, at 16:10:47
In reply to Re: Most Psychiatrists are Lazy!, posted by Emme on January 13, 2002, at 14:37:29
I am simply saying the rigor of psychiatry is far below many other medical fields. Therefore, we can not expect as many advances in treatment like in other fields. The etilogy of AIDS by the human immunodeficiency virus was uncovered in less then about 8 years .... 8 years! Yet we still only spectulate on the causes of depression after 6 decades. The irony is up to 10% of of society suffers from depression .... which can be a deadly disease ... and less than 1/10% suffer from HIV/AIDS. Some of the most effective treatments such as ECT, TCA meds, MAOI meds have been around for 50 years. Advances will be made ... but at a slow rate as we suffer.
I say let the neurologist treat us!
And you can't argue when many pdoc admit themselves they pursued careers in psychiatry because of the lifestyle.
Spike
Posted by akc on January 13, 2002, at 16:19:35
In reply to Re: Most Psychiatrists are Lazy!, posted by spike4848 on January 13, 2002, at 16:10:47
> And you can't argue when many pdoc admit themselves they pursued careers in psychiatry because of the lifestyle.
>My psychiatrist pursued the field because she wanted to treat kids with psychatric disorders (which she was already doing, but she went back for another residency in her late 40's to get more training so she would have the most knowledge she could have to do the best she could by her patients).
My psychiatrist has had to field more after-hours and weekend calls than any surgeon that has ever treated me. Or even any primary care physician. As Emme points out about her doctor, mine has sent me for tests, made sure I see other specialist when it is called for, and is sending me for a second consult because I am having a hard time remaining stabilized.
Most -- no way. Are there bad apples in the bunch -- definitely. If you don't like your doctor, spike4848, go get yourself a neurologist, but lay off the slap in the face you are giving pyschiatrists. It is no better than lawyer bashing. It is not fair to the profession and those who work hard for their patients.
akc
Posted by manowar on January 13, 2002, at 16:31:49
In reply to Do You Have To Be Off all Meds For Spect Scan, posted by spike4848 on January 13, 2002, at 13:20:43
> > And yes, I do think that people with hard to treat psychiatric disorders should all have ‘their heads examined’. Why not? I think most people in America that have heart ailments get either an MRI, SPECT, or any number of imaging studies for it. Why should the brain be any different?
> >
>
> > Take care,
> >
> > --Tim
>
> To Anyone,
>
> Do you have to be off all meds for a brain spect to be accurate? I still take 0.5 klonopin to prevent disabling anxiety and panic attack ....
>
> SpikeIt's not a big deal. They would like it if a patient not have caffienated beverages, any nicotine, or be on any med THAT DAY. Of course, if someone has to be on one, it's not that big deal. .5 mg of Klonipin is a pretty small dose.
Posted by manowar on January 13, 2002, at 16:58:09
In reply to Re: Most Psychiatrists are Lazy!, posted by Emme on January 13, 2002, at 14:37:29
> > Hey Guys,
> >
> > Dr Bob may ban me for this one, but ..... when I was going through medical school and residency in medicine, I met alot of psychiatrists in training. They actually are forced to work on the medicine floors for 6 months.
> >
> > I hate to generalize, but they were very lazy and unmotivated. Psychiatry attracts these types, because of all the fields of medicine .... psychiatry is by far the easiest in term of life style and academic challenge. I would say 75% of my medical school peers going into psychiatry said they were doing it because of the "Easy Life Style" "It is 9 to 5" etc. One individual actually said .... "Hey I can pretty much sit back and sleep during office sessions, nod to the patient occassionally and hand them a prescription for prozac at the end of the visit."
> >
> > And many of them are too scared to prescribe anything but and ssri or effexor or buspar...... scared to try MAOI, stimulants, benzo, TCAs because their afraid a patient may OD and family will bring a lawsuit.
> >
> > Sorry to any quality Psychiatry out there.
> >
> > Spike
>
>
> Okay, I've had it with psychiatrist bashing. Generalizations are bad. Yes, I know, there are lazy incompetent psychiatrists who practice bad medicine and have no business being in medicine. And yes, I've heard some horror stories. The same can be said for every field. For what it's worth, wanna know my experience?? Three psychiatrists so far, all *good* (I've changed due me moving, and one doctor relocating). My current doctor checked my B-12 blood levels and has made sure my bloodwork (including thyroid) are up to date and that I've seen my internist to rule out other problems. She's consulted a neurologist and dermatologist with questions when needed. She goes to lectures and stays on top of the lit. Always returns calls. Lazy- I don't think so. I know, this is just one person's experience. But since I've had a few psychiatrists like this, I expect there's a few more good ones out there mixed in with the not-so-good ones. Not every drug that we've tried has worked out, but hasn't been for lack of careful thought and attentiveness. Folks, we *can* get quality care - it's possible.
>
> EmmeEmme,
You said the magic word-- that word being "she".Guys, you're going to hate me for this (and I hate saying this because I'm a guy), but I have to say it:
Sorry, and I know I am generalizing here, but quite frankly women make better doctors than men do. They tend to be a hell of a lot more compassionate and more caring than their male counterparts.
I especially like Nurse Practitioners (NPs). They're the best! They have the bedside manner of a wonderful nurse (because they have been nurses), with the same amount of knowledge that a regular doctor has. I think that NPs are better qualified to treat patients than doctors. I also think it wouldn't be a bad idea to pay them more money than regular doctors.
My family doctor is a NP, and she's 100% better than any other male GP I've ever dealt with. On my last visit, I asked her a million and one questions, and she answered every one of them.(Women smell a lot better too- and in her case look WAY better!)
I'm also lucky that my pdoc has a big staff of nurses and NPs. When I call to ask about a med or whatever, they are wonderful.
Let's face it-- and I hate to admit this, but it's a no-brainer: In general, women are better caregivers than men.
--Tim
Posted by OldSchool on January 13, 2002, at 17:19:15
In reply to Re: Most Psychiatrists are Lazy! » Emme, posted by manowar on January 13, 2002, at 16:58:09
> Guys, you're going to hate me for this (and I hate saying this because I'm a guy), but I have to say it:
>
> Sorry, and I know I am generalizing here, but quite frankly women make better doctors than men do. They tend to be a hell of a lot more compassionate and more caring than their male counterparts.
>
> I especially like Nurse Practitioners (NPs). They're the best! They have the bedside manner of a wonderful nurse (because they have been nurses), with the same amount of knowledge that a regular doctor has. I think that NPs are better qualified to treat patients than doctors. I also think it wouldn't be a bad idea to pay them more money than regular doctors.
>
> My family doctor is a NP, and she's 100% better than any other male GP I've ever dealt with. On my last visit, I asked her a million and one questions, and she answered every one of them.(Women smell a lot better too- and in her case look WAY better!)
>
> I'm also lucky that my pdoc has a big staff of nurses and NPs. When I call to ask about a med or whatever, they are wonderful.
>
> Let's face it-- and I hate to admit this, but it's a no-brainer: In general, women are better caregivers than men.
>
> --Tim
Now Ive gotta disagree with you on this one. I agree women are better caregivers in many ways than men. However in my particular case I prefer male doctors. Because I have a gruff personality, particularly when depressed and a fairly strong irritability component to my depression. I dont do well with female doctors because of this. I was even told point blank a few times by other male psychiatrists Id probably be best off avoiding female mental health workers due to my personality, gruffness, etc. This one psychiatrist, a quite good one BTW, just flat out came out and told me this. That I should probably try to avoid female mental health workers in the future cause of the way I am, gruff, irritable, strongminded, etc.If you have like a sappy, soppy kind "my puppy dog died" of depression sure women make great mental health workers. But if youre a guy and are irritable and agitated and stuff, um I dont feel comfortable using women doctors because I think they tend to be more tuned in to this irritability stuff than male psychiatrists. They make a bigger deal out of that than male doctors do.
Women are also more likely to dx you psychotic just for being irritable or agitated than male doctors.
Old School
Posted by manowar on January 13, 2002, at 18:00:22
In reply to Re: Psychiatry -in its present form-SHOULD BE OUTLAWED » manowar, posted by bob on January 13, 2002, at 2:11:06
>
> > --And if a person does not get better within a certain time period, psychosurgery should become a consideration. Why mess around with the Vagus Nerve, when a Neurologist can get right to the source (brain) and plug in a pacemaker, just like they do for heart patients?
> >
> > Let’s move on, we have the technology, and we can make it happen!
> >
> > --Tim
>
> Tim:
>
> What type of psychosurgery are you suggesting, cingulotomy, or something else? What do you mean when you say we should plug a pacemaker straight into the brain?
>
> Bob
Bob, yes- cigulotomy is one—though seems to be a last resort and I don’t know how effective it is.Electrode implants is another.
Its been a while, and being that it's Sunday and I want to watch football- I'm too lazy to try to find the articles on the electrode thing, so I'll do my best with the poor memory I have.
This may be and probably is pretty inaccurate, but here goes:
I read somewhere that way back after the James Olds findings about wire heading rats (back in the 50's), scientist and doctors began to perform psychosurgery by surgically implanting electrodes in the brains of humans. They experimented on just a few very, very ill patients (Extreme Schizophrenics, Catatonic depressives, etc...). All they did is implant an electrode to a certain area of the brain. The electrode had a wire that lead to like a nine-volt battery that the guy had in his pocket or something. The electrode automatically fired every few seconds or so, causing a cascading of neurotransmitter activity. I think there were some minor complications that were easily dealt with, but for the most part, these patients got better immediately.
I think, though, that a law was passed, outlawing this type of surgery. I guess the idea of multitudes of wire headed people repulsed enough doctors that they decided not to go down that road.
It is quite spooky, but so what if it works?
I also think that doctors can remove just a tiny bit of brain tissue, which completely relives depression. Isn't that basically what cigulotomy is?
Cigulotomy could be a very viable option for refractory depressives.
If anyone is interested in having this done, check out this website:
http://neurosurgery.mgh.harvard.edu/
Here is an article from the Harvard site:
**********************************************
Surgical intervention to treat a psychiatric illness
by G. Rees Cosgrove, M.D., F.R.C.S. (C.)
Neurosurgical Service
Massachusetts General Hospital--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We at the Massachusetts General Hospital perform a type of limbic system surgery called bilateral stereotactic cingulotomy. The primary indications for which this prodedure is considered is medically intractable obsessive compulsive disorder. Certain patients with chronic pain syndromes, refractory depression, and addictive disorders may also be candidates for the procedure.
Since it is our opinion that this operation is an adjunct to, but not a substitute for, ongoing psychiatric care, we require that a patient be referred by a letter from the treating psychiatrist. This letter should summarize the patient's history including the various treatments which have been tried. It should also provide evidence that (a) the patient has had all reasonable forms of non-operative treatment without benefit and (b) that the psychiatrist continue post-operative psychiatric care and supervision for as long as necessary. The patient and a close family member must give consent to the operation.
We are eager to be helpful to patients with obsessive-compulsive disorders, but it is our policy that those patients with obsessive and ritualistic behaviors have an adequate trial of exposure and response prevention behavior therapy before they are accepted for evaluation and that they are prepared to undergo similar behavioral therapy post-operatively.
A copy of the Behavior Therapy Guidelines for OCD written by Dr. Baer is available by contacting the MGH Cingulotomy Unit at the address below. If a patient has undergone such a trial, psychiatric records describing the type of therapy and the response to it should be supplied. But if the patient has not had this trial, it should be emphasized that this is an essential part of the treatment for OCD, that it has been proven to be as effective as medication and that ordinarily, both behavior therapy and medication must be used simultaneously (before operation and after operation) to help patients badly afflicted with OCD.
If you need assistance in arranging for this specific therapy, please contact the national headquarters which can be reached by writing P.O.Box 70, Milford, CT 06460 or calling 203/878-5669.
Before a patient can be considered for cingulotomy at MGH a refering physcian's form for cingulotomy needs to be completed. It can be obtained from the MGH Cingulotomy Unit at the address below. It should be returned with pertinent copies of hospital and treatment records.
After all of this necessary information is received, it will be reviewed by the MGH Cingulotomy Assessment Committee which consists of three MGH psychiatrists, two neurosurgeons and one neurologist. This Committee meets once a month, usually on the last Wednesday. The Committee may decide: 1. That the patient is a suitable candidate for cingulotomy or 2. That further information is needed to clarify the diagnosis and need for operation or 3. Additional non-operative treatment would be helpful or 4. That, regrettably, the patient is not a suitable candidate for surgery. The treating psychiatrist will be informed of the Committee's decision by one of its members.
If the patient is considered to be a possible candidate, he/she will be seen and interviewed by one psychiatrist, the two neurosurgeons and the neurologist. This evaluation is concerned with being certain about the diagnosis and that the patient and his/her family are fully informed about the risks and possible benefits of surgical intervention. On rare occasions these personal interviews yield further information that will cause the patient to be rejected for cingulotomy.
An account of our experience with stereotactic cingulotomy was published in Biological Psychiatry 1987; 22:807-819.
Referring physicians, the patient, or the patient's family should contact:
The MGH Cingulotomy Committee or
Dr. G. Rees Cosgrove for further information:
MGH Cingulotomy Committee
Neurosurgical Service--Edwards 410
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, MA 02114
phone: (617) 726-3407--Tim
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2002, at 18:29:47
In reply to Re: Most Psychiatrists are Lazy!, posted by OldSchool on January 13, 2002, at 17:19:15
> Now Ive gotta disagree with you on this one. I agree women are better caregivers in many ways than men...
I'd like the discussion here of caregivers (as opposed to tests or treatments) to continue at Psycho-Social-Babble:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020112/msgs/16720.html
Thanks,
Bob
PS: And of course discussion of posting policies should take place at Psycho-Babble Administration.
Posted by OldSchool on January 13, 2002, at 19:17:46
In reply to Psychosurgery in the new millennium » bob, posted by manowar on January 13, 2002, at 18:00:22
> Bob, yes- cigulotomy is one—though seems to be a last resort and I don’t know how effective it is.
>
> Electrode implants is another.
>
> Its been a while, and being that it's Sunday and I want to watch football- I'm too lazy to try to find the articles on the electrode thing, so I'll do my best with the poor memory I have.
>
> This may be and probably is pretty inaccurate, but here goes:
>
> I read somewhere that way back after the James Olds findings about wire heading rats (back in the 50's), scientist and doctors began to perform psychosurgery by surgically implanting electrodes in the brains of humans. They experimented on just a few very, very ill patients (Extreme Schizophrenics, Catatonic depressives, etc...). All they did is implant an electrode to a certain area of the brain. The electrode had a wire that lead to like a nine-volt battery that the guy had in his pocket or something. The electrode automatically fired every few seconds or so, causing a cascading of neurotransmitter activity. I think there were some minor complications that were easily dealt with, but for the most part, these patients got better immediately.
>
> I think, though, that a law was passed, outlawing this type of surgery. I guess the idea of multitudes of wire headed people repulsed enough doctors that they decided not to go down that road.
>
> It is quite spooky, but so what if it works?
>
> I also think that doctors can remove just a tiny bit of brain tissue, which completely relives depression. Isn't that basically what cigulotomy is?
>
> Cigulotomy could be a very viable option for refractory depressives.
>
> If anyone is interested in having this done, check out this website:
>
> http://neurosurgery.mgh.harvard.edu/
>
> Here is an article from the Harvard site:
>
> **********************************************
>
> Surgical intervention to treat a psychiatric illness
>
>
> by G. Rees Cosgrove, M.D., F.R.C.S. (C.)
> Neurosurgical Service
> Massachusetts General Hospital
>No old style psychosurgery for me, thank you. Id rather be a catatonic depressed bum on the street, eating out of garbage cans than have an old style psychosurgery. F*ck that. That is WAY too invasive for me. I prefer this modern stuff, like the SPECT scans. Thats why functional neuroimaging is so great...its totally noninvasive and very safe. It uses remote sensing technology to image the function of your brain and improve diagnosing.
Psychosurgery like you are talking about while it may get rid of your depression (for a while) that kind of psychosurgery also permanently changes your personality. Cingulobotomy is just a variation on a theme of the old frontal lobotomy.
WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO MESS WITH THAT?!!!?
Now some of these newer psychosurgeries like Deep Brain Stimulation are a totally different story. I can go with these modern, high tech psychosurgeries. DBS is considered to be a "MIBS" treatment for refractory depression. MIBS stands for "Minimally Invasive Brain Stimulation." The whole point of it is that its high tech and minimally invasive to your brain and body. But it gets the job done.
Thats the kind of stuff I like. The old style "psychosurgery" you can have that. NO THANK YOU.
Here is a website that talks about MIBS modalities for refractory depression:
http://www.musc.edu/psychiatry/fnrd/tms.htm
Old School
Posted by Blue Cheer 1 on January 13, 2002, at 23:40:47
In reply to Re: Psychosurgery in the new millennium, posted by OldSchool on January 13, 2002, at 19:17:46
> > Bob, yes- cigulotomy is one—though seems to be a last resort and I don’t know how effective it is.
> >
> > Electrode implants is another.
> >
> > Its been a while, and being that it's Sunday and I want to watch football- I'm too lazy to try to find the articles on the electrode thing, so I'll do my best with the poor memory I have.
> >
> > This may be and probably is pretty inaccurate, but here goes:
> >
> > I read somewhere that way back after the James Olds findings about wire heading rats (back in the 50's), scientist and doctors began to perform psychosurgery by surgically implanting electrodes in the brains of humans. They experimented on just a few very, very ill patients (Extreme Schizophrenics, Catatonic depressives, etc...). All they did is implant an electrode to a certain area of the brain. The electrode had a wire that lead to like a nine-volt battery that the guy had in his pocket or something. The electrode automatically fired every few seconds or so, causing a cascading of neurotransmitter activity. I think there were some minor complications that were easily dealt with, but for the most part, these patients got better immediately.
> >
> > I think, though, that a law was passed, outlawing this type of surgery. I guess the idea of multitudes of wire headed people repulsed enough doctors that they decided not to go down that road.
> >
> > It is quite spooky, but so what if it works?
> >
> > I also think that doctors can remove just a tiny bit of brain tissue, which completely relives depression. Isn't that basically what cigulotomy is?
> >
> > Cigulotomy could be a very viable option for refractory depressives.
> >
> > If anyone is interested in having this done, check out this website:
> >
> > http://neurosurgery.mgh.harvard.edu/
> >
> > Here is an article from the Harvard site:
> >
> > **********************************************
> >
> > Surgical intervention to treat a psychiatric illness
> >
> >
> > by G. Rees Cosgrove, M.D., F.R.C.S. (C.)
> > Neurosurgical Service
> > Massachusetts General Hospital
> >
>
> No old style psychosurgery for me, thank you. Id rather be a catatonic depressed bum on the street, eating out of garbage cans than have an old style psychosurgery. F*ck that. That is WAY too invasive for me. I prefer this modern stuff, like the SPECT scans. Thats why functional neuroimaging is so great...its totally noninvasive and very safe. It uses remote sensing technology to image the function of your brain and improve diagnosing.Neuroimaging technologies far outpace their application in psychiatric disorders, and they're of no clinical value in diagnosis and treatment. Even in bipolar disorder, an illness with many physiological features, functional neuroimaging isn't diagnostic of anything. I've had two SPECT scans and three MRI's (1990 to 2001). The most recent SPECT showed global, diffuse diminished cortical blood flow, and that when compared to the SPECT in 1990, basal ganglia dysfunction and increased activity in the tips of the temporal lobes had resolved. The diminished cortical blood flow was a reflection of the mood state at that time (depression), and in any case the findings weren't useful because multiple psychiatric drugs can also render the results inconclusive (no clinical significance). When beginning pharmacotherapy, neuroimaging is useful in order to rule out any brain pathology (e.g., tumors). Leading researchers such as Godfrey Pearlson, M.D. from Johns Hopkins and Perry Renshaw, M.D. from McClean Hospital will tell you it's not yet a diagnostic tool. A psychiatrist once told me that the state of neuroradiology today is comparable to going down into a subway concourse and tapping on various pipes leading to street level -- listening for different sounds that would tell you just what was happening up on the street (i.e., the brain). Well, it just doesn't work that way. :)
It's the nature of mental illness and the complexity of the brain; comparing it to AIDS is absurd. When do you suppose a vaccine will be found to cure AIDS? Not for a long time, I suspect. To think that "mental illness", given the countless variables in its expression, should be any different doesn't make sense to me. An _enormous_ amount of funding has gone into psychiatric research, including the 20 million dollar STEP-BD 5-year study.
I couldn't think of a more exciting field for a medical student to pursue right now. The psychiatrists I've had in the past and the present are the most acccessible and hard-working professionals I've known -- period.
Blue
>
> Psychosurgery like you are talking about while it may get rid of your depression (for a while) that kind of psychosurgery also permanently changes your personality. Cingulobotomy is just a variation on a theme of the old frontal lobotomy.
>
> WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO MESS WITH THAT?!!!?
>
> Now some of these newer psychosurgeries like Deep Brain Stimulation are a totally different story. I can go with these modern, high tech psychosurgeries. DBS is considered to be a "MIBS" treatment for refractory depression. MIBS stands for "Minimally Invasive Brain Stimulation." The whole point of it is that its high tech and minimally invasive to your brain and body. But it gets the job done.
>
> Thats the kind of stuff I like. The old style "psychosurgery" you can have that. NO THANK YOU.
>
> Here is a website that talks about MIBS modalities for refractory depression:
>
> http://www.musc.edu/psychiatry/fnrd/tms.htm
>
> Old School
Posted by Dinah on January 14, 2002, at 8:46:43
In reply to Re: Psychosurgery in the new millennium, posted by Blue Cheer 1 on January 13, 2002, at 23:40:47
Thank you for the information. It isn't really what I would like to hear, but since traveling for a SPECT would be a significant financial investment, I'm glad to have the information to make an informed decision.
It is so appealing to think that, after numerous diagnoses and multiple medications, there would be an objective test that could at least tell me what was wrong with me. It's become something of a quest for me, although I'm close to giving up because psychiatric diagnosis seems so amorphous anyway.
Posted by Blue Cheer 1 on January 14, 2002, at 20:41:52
In reply to Re: SPECT » Blue Cheer 1, posted by Dinah on January 14, 2002, at 8:46:43
> Thank you for the information. It isn't really what I would like to hear, but since traveling for a SPECT would be a significant financial investment, I'm glad to have the information to make an informed decision.
> It is so appealing to think that, after numerous diagnoses and multiple medications, there would be an objective test that could at least tell me what was wrong with me. It's become something of a quest for me, although I'm close to giving up because psychiatric diagnosis seems so amorphous anyway.I know what you mean. I've had at least a dozen diagnoses since 1964, and I'm still picking up new ones. :) I drove up and back to McClean last March for a fMRI. (I just *had* to have it.) I was scheduled for admission there, but when I was told that neuroradiology would only be a consideration as part of my evaluation, I left. It was really a misunderstanding and lack of communication. Now I just keep trying whatever meds I can tolerate (mostly anticonvulsants), and keep hoping for better drugs. My feeling about neuroimaging is that it should be discussed with the psychiatrist who knows you best,and then if s/he thinks there's an indication for it -- they'll refer you to a neurologist.
Just today, I was reading a recent Reader's Digest in a waiting room, and started to read an article about a young doctor, Andrew Newberg, at Penn, and how he was using SPECT scans in neurotheology. I forget the exact name of the book, but the article told about him giving Tibetan Monks and other highly spiritual people SPECT scans at the peaks of their highs. He was actually able to show the areas of the brains that involved "visions" -- something like that. So even imaging doesn't yet diagnose, it otherwise has some interesting applications.
Good luck to you.
Blue
Posted by spike4848 on January 15, 2002, at 0:06:01
In reply to Most Psychiatrists are Lazy!, posted by spike4848 on January 13, 2002, at 13:10:11
Posted by sjb on January 15, 2002, at 9:25:08
In reply to Re: WHY are we all so 'chemically challenged'? » sjb, posted by bob on January 11, 2002, at 14:51:02
Bob,
Yes, I've had a lot of pyschotherapy, although currently my PDoc is my therapist, which frankly is not enough. I plan on asking him tomorrow about additional therapy, perhaps group or something. I've had a lot of therapy, mostly the individual kind, and stopped going or changed therapists when I don't get any better.
Thanks - sjb
Posted by manowar on January 17, 2002, at 16:35:39
In reply to Re: Do You Have To Be Off all Meds For Spect Scan » spike4848, posted by manowar on January 13, 2002, at 16:31:49
> > > And yes, I do think that people with hard to treat psychiatric disorders should all have ‘their heads examined’. Why not? I think most people in America that have heart ailments get either an MRI, SPECT, or any number of imaging studies for it. Why should the brain be any different?
> > >
> >
> > > Take care,
> > >
> > > --Tim
> >
> > To Anyone,
> >
> > Do you have to be off all meds for a brain spect to be accurate? I still take 0.5 klonopin to prevent disabling anxiety and panic attack ....
> >
> > Spike
>
> It's not a big deal. They would like it if a patient not have caffienated beverages, any nicotine, or be on any med THAT DAY. Of course, if someone has to be on one, it's not that big deal. .5 mg of Klonipin is a pretty small dose.Uh, I forgot, the pdoc also wanted me off all ADs for a period of two weeks, which for me was no problem- because they didn't work.
-Tim
Posted by OldSchool on January 19, 2002, at 13:25:54
In reply to Re: Psychosurgery in the new millennium, posted by Blue Cheer 1 on January 13, 2002, at 23:40:47
>
> Neuroimaging technologies far outpace their application in psychiatric disorders, and they're of no clinical value in diagnosis and treatment.Oh yeah? Keep in mind nobody has said that functional neuroimaging is being used at the clinical levels of psychiatry yet. I already clearly stated that SPECT/PET/functional neuroimaging for psych disorders is still experimental.
However functional neuroimaging IS already being used in Neurology to aide the diagnosis of Neurological diseases like parkinsons, dementia, Alzheimers, etc. Why just today I was reading that brain scans are have potential use in early dx of MS.
Why in Neurology but not in psychiatry? HUH? Why? Why is that? Is it this double standard we have in our culture that mental illness is not a real disease? Id like to know.
Parkinsons disease, dementia and Alzheimers are "real" Neurological diseases. While severe clinical depression, bipolar manic depression and schizophrenia are only psychological or emotional disorders. I say BULL to that.
Mental illness is a neurological disease and should be treated like one. Bring on the brain scans.
Bad attitudes is what is keeping the mentally ill down. As long as so many have these ideas that mental illness is in the mind and not the brain, the idea of using functional neuroimaging in psychiatry will be criticized. "Oh this technology isnt clinically useful, its only experimental." BULL!!!
Get on the stick, spend the money and put some smart researcher people on it. There are very few smart people in psychiatry. Most of the smart people go into other branches of medicine. If given the budget, the leadership and the objective youd be surprised what could be done. If we can send a man to the mood, mental illness could be figured out.
Come to think of it, we probably know more about outer space and the moon than we do the human brain. Pathetic!!
>Even in bipolar disorder, an illness with many physiological features, functional neuroimaging isn't diagnostic of anything. I've had two SPECT scans and three MRI's (1990 to 2001). The most recent SPECT showed global, diffuse diminished cortical blood flow, and that when compared to the SPECT in 1990, basal ganglia dysfunction and increased activity in the tips of the temporal lobes had resolved. The diminished cortical blood flow was a reflection of the mood state at that time (depression), and in any case the findings weren't useful because multiple psychiatric drugs can also render the results inconclusive (no clinical significance). When beginning pharmacotherapy, neuroimaging is useful in order to rule out any brain pathology (e.g., tumors). Leading researchers such as Godfrey Pearlson, M.D. from Johns Hopkins and Perry Renshaw, M.D. from McClean Hospital will tell you it's not yet a diagnostic tool.Not yet a clinical diagnostic tool, but its improving diagnosis. Its giving neuropsychiatrists new insights into mental illness. BTW, I never heard of these guys...who are they? In science you can always find one scientist or doctor to criticize the results of another scientist or doctor.
> A psychiatrist once told me that the state of neuroradiology today is comparable to going down into a subway concourse and tapping on various pipes leading to street level -- listening for different sounds that would tell you just what was happening up on the street (i.e., the brain). Well, it just doesn't work that way. :)
>Who is this psychiatrist? They dont sound very knowledgeable to me. Many psychiatrists are not up on these new experimental technologies being developed in Neuropsychiatry. Ive run into several psychiatrists who never even heard of rTMS before and I had to give them the scoop on rTMS. I thought they were idiots.
I disagree with you and I think brain neuroimaging while far from being perfect, its certainly more advanced than the analogy you just gave.
> It's the nature of mental illness and the complexity of the brain; comparing it to AIDS is absurd. When do you suppose a vaccine will be found to cure AIDS? Not for a long time, I suspect. To think that "mental illness", given the countless variables in its expression, should be any different doesn't make sense to me. An _enormous_ amount of funding has gone into psychiatric research, including the 20 million dollar STEP-BD 5-year study.
Yeah but look at all the heavy duty, aggressive research going on in AIDS. Just in fifteen years science has gone from 0 MPH in being able to treat AIDS (if you caught HIV youd probably develop AIDS and die almost for sure) to now where AIDS is more of a manageable condition. Where you can stay alive. Thats because of heavy political pressure by gay groups to create hyperactive amounts of AIDS research and develop AIDS drugs fast.
AIDS research, which has accomplished a hell of a lot in a short period of time has occurred because of one simple reason. That reason is there is a strong will to stop AIDS. There is heavy political and cultural pressure to stop AIDS.
You dont see ANY real political pressure to fix the severe mental illness problem. We are medicine's forgotten redheaded stepchild that nobody gives a damn about.
AIDS research is done in a totally different manner than mental illness research. AIDS research is done in an expeditious manner...drugs are pushed thru the FDA fast and they cut thru the crap. In AIDS research, scientists get the job done and they get it done fast. The bull is cut thru there.
In psychiatry "research" things are notoriously slow and there is much lipservice. There is no sense of expedition to improve things, to get new treatments and methods of diagnosis fielded.
I think the AIDS research people would actually be a good model for the psychiatry research people. In short, get on the stick and cut thru the crap and start getting things done! People are sick, people are disabled! Why does it take FOREVER to get a new treatment?
I bet you this new Selegiline MAOI patch wont even be FDA approved because it causes "skin irritation." Give me a break. But I bet you AIDS drugs will continue to be passed thru the FDA which have a much worse side effect profile than the MAOI patch. And you know why? Because there is HEAVY pressure on the FDA to cut thru the crap with AIDS. Lipservice is not tolerated with AIDS research.
>
> >I couldn't think of a more exciting field for a medical student to pursue right now. The psychiatrists I've had in the past and the present are the most acccessible and hard-working professionals I've known -- period.Ive had very few hard working psychiatrists and most of the ones Ive had were full of sh*t. Ive also run into so many attitudes in psychiatry, where the psychiatrist seemed to almost have an aversion or something to the whole idea of trying to modernize psychiatry and merge it into Neurology.
I no longer have any faith in psychiatry and havent had any faith in psychiatry for years. I do not think the present state of psychiatry will ever fix the millions of people with resistant or hard to treat mental illness.
I am 100% FOR new developing technologies like functional neuroimaging and despite all the naysayers who bad mouth it, I think there is much potential in it. I am all for trying to improve the ability to accurately diagnose psychiatry illnesses. Its long overdue.
Anytime you try to do something new, there are gonna be people who badmouth you for it. With mental illness with all the attitudes surrounding it, this is going to be even more of a problem.
Because of all the attitudes surrounding mental illness (it aint real) Im very skeptical about the future surrounding psychiatry research. Nobody cares.
Old School
Posted by Blue Cheer 1 on January 19, 2002, at 16:45:22
In reply to Re: Psychosurgery in the new millennium, posted by OldSchool on January 19, 2002, at 13:25:54
> >
> > Neuroimaging technologies far outpace their application in psychiatric disorders, and they're of no clinical value in diagnosis and treatment.
>
> Oh yeah? Keep in mind nobody has said that functional neuroimaging is being used at the clinical levels of psychiatry yet. I already clearly stated that SPECT/PET/functional neuroimaging for psych disorders is still experimental.
>
> However functional neuroimaging IS already being used in Neurology to aide the diagnosis of Neurological diseases like parkinsons, dementia, Alzheimers, etc. Why just today I was reading that brain scans are have potential use in early dx of MS.
>
> Why in Neurology but not in psychiatry? HUH? Why? Why is that? Is it this double standard we have in our culture that mental illness is not a real disease? Id like to know.
>
> Parkinsons disease, dementia and Alzheimers are "real" Neurological diseases. While severe clinical depression, bipolar manic depression and schizophrenia are only psychological or emotional disorders. I say BULL to that.
>
> Mental illness is a neurological disease and should be treated like one. Bring on the brain scans.
>
> Bad attitudes is what is keeping the mentally ill down. As long as so many have these ideas that mental illness is in the mind and not the brain, the idea of using functional neuroimaging in psychiatry will be criticized. "Oh this technology isnt clinically useful, its only experimental." BULL!!!
>
> Get on the stick, spend the money and put some smart researcher people on it. There are very few smart people in psychiatry. Most of the smart people go into other branches of medicine. If given the budget, the leadership and the objective youd be surprised what could be done. If we can send a man to the mood, mental illness could be figured out.
>
> Come to think of it, we probably know more about outer space and the moon than we do the human brain. Pathetic!!
>
>
> >Even in bipolar disorder, an illness with many physiological features, functional neuroimaging isn't diagnostic of anything. I've had two SPECT scans and three MRI's (1990 to 2001). The most recent SPECT showed global, diffuse diminished cortical blood flow, and that when compared to the SPECT in 1990, basal ganglia dysfunction and increased activity in the tips of the temporal lobes had resolved. The diminished cortical blood flow was a reflection of the mood state at that time (depression), and in any case the findings weren't useful because multiple psychiatric drugs can also render the results inconclusive (no clinical significance). When beginning pharmacotherapy, neuroimaging is useful in order to rule out any brain pathology (e.g., tumors). Leading researchers such as Godfrey Pearlson, M.D. from Johns Hopkins and Perry Renshaw, M.D. from McClean Hospital will tell you it's not yet a diagnostic tool.
>
> Not yet a clinical diagnostic tool, but its improving diagnosis. Its giving neuropsychiatrists new insights into mental illness. BTW, I never heard of these guys...who are they? In science you can always find one scientist or doctor to criticize the results of another scientist or doctor.
>
>
> > A psychiatrist once told me that the state of neuroradiology today is comparable to going down into a subway concourse and tapping on various pipes leading to street level -- listening for different sounds that would tell you just what was happening up on the street (i.e., the brain). Well, it just doesn't work that way. :)
> >
>
> Who is this psychiatrist? They dont sound very knowledgeable to me. Many psychiatrists are not up on these new experimental technologies being developed in Neuropsychiatry. Ive run into several psychiatrists who never even heard of rTMS before and I had to give them the scoop on rTMS. I thought they were idiots.
>
> I disagree with you and I think brain neuroimaging while far from being perfect, its certainly more advanced than the analogy you just gave.
>
> > It's the nature of mental illness and the complexity of the brain; comparing it to AIDS is absurd. When do you suppose a vaccine will be found to cure AIDS? Not for a long time, I suspect. To think that "mental illness", given the countless variables in its expression, should be any different doesn't make sense to me. An _enormous_ amount of funding has gone into psychiatric research, including the 20 million dollar STEP-BD 5-year study.
>
> Yeah but look at all the heavy duty, aggressive research going on in AIDS. Just in fifteen years science has gone from 0 MPH in being able to treat AIDS (if you caught HIV youd probably develop AIDS and die almost for sure) to now where AIDS is more of a manageable condition. Where you can stay alive. Thats because of heavy political pressure by gay groups to create hyperactive amounts of AIDS research and develop AIDS drugs fast.
>
> AIDS research, which has accomplished a hell of a lot in a short period of time has occurred because of one simple reason. That reason is there is a strong will to stop AIDS. There is heavy political and cultural pressure to stop AIDS.
>
> You dont see ANY real political pressure to fix the severe mental illness problem. We are medicine's forgotten redheaded stepchild that nobody gives a damn about.
>
> AIDS research is done in a totally different manner than mental illness research. AIDS research is done in an expeditious manner...drugs are pushed thru the FDA fast and they cut thru the crap. In AIDS research, scientists get the job done and they get it done fast. The bull is cut thru there.
>
> In psychiatry "research" things are notoriously slow and there is much lipservice. There is no sense of expedition to improve things, to get new treatments and methods of diagnosis fielded.
>
> I think the AIDS research people would actually be a good model for the psychiatry research people. In short, get on the stick and cut thru the crap and start getting things done! People are sick, people are disabled! Why does it take FOREVER to get a new treatment?
>
> I bet you this new Selegiline MAOI patch wont even be FDA approved because it causes "skin irritation." Give me a break. But I bet you AIDS drugs will continue to be passed thru the FDA which have a much worse side effect profile than the MAOI patch. And you know why? Because there is HEAVY pressure on the FDA to cut thru the crap with AIDS. Lipservice is not tolerated with AIDS research.
>
> >
> > >I couldn't think of a more exciting field for a medical student to pursue right now. The psychiatrists I've had in the past and the present are the most acccessible and hard-working professionals I've known -- period.
>
> Ive had very few hard working psychiatrists and most of the ones Ive had were full of sh*t. Ive also run into so many attitudes in psychiatry, where the psychiatrist seemed to almost have an aversion or something to the whole idea of trying to modernize psychiatry and merge it into Neurology.
>
> I no longer have any faith in psychiatry and havent had any faith in psychiatry for years. I do not think the present state of psychiatry will ever fix the millions of people with resistant or hard to treat mental illness.
>
> I am 100% FOR new developing technologies like functional neuroimaging and despite all the naysayers who bad mouth it, I think there is much potential in it. I am all for trying to improve the ability to accurately diagnose psychiatry illnesses. Its long overdue.
>
> Anytime you try to do something new, there are gonna be people who badmouth you for it. With mental illness with all the attitudes surrounding it, this is going to be even more of a problem.
>
> Because of all the attitudes surrounding mental illness (it aint real) Im very skeptical about the future surrounding psychiatry research. Nobody cares.
>
> Old School
I agree with most of what you're saying. However, as much as I believe, too, that psychiatric disorders have neurological underpinnings, the precise mechanisms by which they're expressed (in addition to psychosocial determinants) are still too complex to be explained by neuroimaging. Still, there are many journals (e.g., _Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging_; published by the International Society for Neuroimaging, _Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry_, etc.) devoted to psychiatry and neuroimaging. I suggest you do a Google search using the terms "neuroimaging psychiatry usefulness" and go to www.fmri-network.com for more information. I've emailed Dr. Pearlson about neuroimaging for BD and OCD, and he was talking about how there were only some research studies being done at Johns Hopkins. Dr. Renshaw is at Harvard. One of my treating psychiatrists is both a neurologist and psychiatrist (MGH-trained). Former psychiatrists involved in my care (one active in rTMS; formerly PET imaging in OCD, and the other, a TRD specialist who took a 6-month sabbatical to study neuroimaging have told me the same.Neuroimaging will be a valuable diagnostic tool in the future, for sure, but now its use is mostly in neurodevelopmental disorders (as you mentioned). I agree with the inordinate funding dollars allocated to AIDS research, but AIDS is an infectious disease and *the* leading cause of death in some countries. (I was surprised to hear that the University of Pittsburgh recently did a liver transplant on an elderly AIDS patient -- until I heard he was a leading AIDS activist. :)
I really don't think psychiatry research is getting short shrift; maybe 10 years ago.
Blue
Posted by OldSchool on January 19, 2002, at 18:33:42
In reply to Re: Psychosurgery in the new millennium, posted by Blue Cheer 1 on January 19, 2002, at 16:45:22
> I agree with most of what you're saying. However, as much as I believe, too, that psychiatric disorders have neurological underpinnings, the precise mechanisms by which they're expressed (in addition to psychosocial determinants) are still too complex to be explained by neuroimaging.
But thats one of the main reasons FOR functional neuroimaging in psychiatry in the first place. To find out more about the neurological, brain based underpinnings of severe mental illness. Until functional neuroimaging began being used in psychiatry research ten or fifteen years ago, psychiatry had absolutely NOTHING to do real research with. No imaging or diagnostic tools to work with. Nothing. Zippo.
Until functional neuroimaging, all psychiatry had was psychology BS to go by. Psychiatry has rediscovered the brain in the last ten or fifteen years and much of that is due to functional neuroimaging.
Functional neuroimaging is the closest thing psychiatry has to the EEG. The EEG is Neurology's "core" diagnostic test. I think functional neuroimaging will lead to improvements in both diagnostic abilities and to new treatments.
Mark George told me himself personally, face to face in his office that functional neuroimaging will one day lead to new treatments in psychiatry. Thats part of the whole point of it...to research and find new things out about the brain as it relates to mental illness.
People who badmouth functional neuroimaging are just close minded (and sometimes intimidated by) the idea that mental illness really is in their brain. This is a huge obstacle that is so well entrenched in the mental health field...its a mindblock we all must overcome someday if severe mental illness is ever to be overcome. This mentality that mental illness is not brain based. Not until people ditch these psychological notions of severe mental illness, not until that day occurs will we ever have true equality and good quality medical research in psychiatry.
> Still, there are many journals (e.g., _Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging_; published by the International Society for Neuroimaging, _Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry_, etc.) devoted to psychiatry and neuroimaging. I suggest you do a Google search using the terms "neuroimaging psychiatry usefulness" and go to www.fmri-network.com for more information. I've emailed Dr. Pearlson about neuroimaging for BD and OCD, and he was talking about how there were only some research studies being done at Johns Hopkins. Dr. Renshaw is at Harvard.
I never heard of these people before. Keep in mind that with any new developing technology there are always going to be lots of people who badmouth new ideas. And science oriented people are particularly skeptical about new technologies. Its the "math" mentality. These people want to have everything proven to them.
Hell lots of people refuse to even admit mental illness is real and brain based. How then are you going to overcome this in the science field if so many have this mental block towards studying this area?
>One of my treating psychiatrists is both a neurologist and psychiatrist (MGH-trained). Former psychiatrists involved in my care (one active in rTMS; formerly PET imaging in OCD, and the other, a TRD specialist who took a 6-month sabbatical to study neuroimaging have told me the same.
Hmmmmm I was in the rTMS clinical trials at MUSC, the same program run by Mark George who is a bigshot neuropsychiatrist. The attitude there is rather, um, different than the attitudes expressed by the people you mentioned. They do more than a six month "sabbatical" to study functional neuroimaging there. Its more of a long haul kind of thing there.
You dont just study functional neuroimaging for six months and claim to be an expert on it.
>
> Neuroimaging will be a valuable diagnostic tool in the future, for sure, but now its use is mostly in neurodevelopmental disorders (as you mentioned). I agree with the inordinate funding dollars allocated to AIDS research, but AIDS is an infectious disease and *the* leading cause of death in some countries. (I was surprised to hear that the University of Pittsburgh recently did a liver transplant on an elderly AIDS patient -- until I heard he was a leading AIDS activist. :)Again, its the attitudes surrounding the whole entire atmosphere of the mental health field that blocks more aggressive research. Lots of bad attitudes in the mental health field. The psychology mentality is too well entrenched in the mental health field. It should be more of a hardcore Neurology mentality instead.
>
> I really don't think psychiatry research is getting short shrift; maybe 10 years ago.I disagree totally. I think there is very little really good research in psychiatry and what there is of it is not being expedited aggressively. Its slow as dirt and too little in quantity.
Old School
Posted by spike4848 on January 20, 2002, at 10:52:31
In reply to WHY are we all so 'chemically challenged'?, posted by BarbaraCat on January 6, 2002, at 0:16:07
Hey Guys,
Here what I was trying to explain a prior post.
http://www.psycheducation.org/depression/fitness.htm
Spike
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.