Posted by Stephanie L. on April 30, 2000, at 12:01:30
In reply to Re: Dr Martin Jensen - JohnL, posted by Scott L. Schofield on April 29, 2000, at 10:50:36
> > If a med is a superior match for a person's chemistry, it will indeed provide fast results with few side effects.
>
> This is a wonderful ideal.
>
> I guess I am resistant to the universal accuracy and applicability of this idea. My resistance may not be too different from that you initially displayed towards it. If Dr. Jensen's methods work well, I think this is a good criterion upon which to judge their value. I hope they do. I could use a break.
>
> I think I understand somewhat the concept behind these two associations. Such a teleological concept certainly is appealing. Perhaps this notion will ultimately prove accurate once neuroscience advances to the point of providing us with all of the drugs necessary to realize it.
>
> A quick, robust, and continued response with no side effects would be the traits desired in a drug treatment. Such a drug would be a superior match de facto. As I see it, the problem with this statement is that the superior match of those drugs currently available for an individual's chemistry may still take 4 - 6 weeks to bear fruit. It may also produce more undesirable side effects than those drugs that have not worked adequately. I think your original caveat regarding short trial periods was a good one.
>
> > ANY med might take six weeks to work. But the BEST med will do so in a week or less. Now that you are aware, keep your eyes and ears open. You'll see real life proof of these quick responses.
>
> My eyes and ears are open, and they find too many examples that do not demonstrate these characteristics to make such generalized statements and act upon them. There may indeed be a trend in this direction, but again, I feel your original caveat MUST take precedence. I'm not sure it even makes sense to judge whether or not a better match exists for an individual if their reaction to a specific drug does not meet these BEST criteria. What is the ratio between the "week or less" and the "two weeks or more" scenarios for ultimate treatment effectiveness? If it is not 1:0, what decisions are to be made?
>
> I wish I had the gumption and mental energy to read Jensen's book.
>
> For me, a procession of anecdotal accounts would not be as persuasive as empirical investigation. I imagine the charts produced by Dr. Jensen. that you refer to demonstrate a statistical trend to support the above proposed tenet. Such results would merit further investigations in different milieus. I wish I could be so sure that these things were true as to be able to determine within two weeks whether or not to continue with a drug trial. But I am too afraid that I may miss the boat if I do.
>
> > The longer the wait, the farther away the med is from targeting the problem directly.
>
> Who said this? Please. We are not there yet. A target that produces quick and temporary relief of symptoms can be quite remote from the location of the first domino.
>
> > Instead there is a trickle down process that takes time.
>
> This makes a bit more sense to me.
>
> John, I can understand your enthusiasm about a doctor and a method that have worked so well for you when no others have. I am envious. I have already mentioned Dr. Jensen to my doctor. I believe that his methods as you have described them have great merit.
>
>
> - Scott
All I know that out of the l6 medications for depression that I tried, the two that worked worked within a few days (It might not have been a full-fledged "working" but the stirrings were definitely there.)
I know that many of us depressives become quite sensitive to what's going on inside of us; overtime, I found that I could tell pretty fast if an anti-depressant would be a "fit." If I had to go again through my 3-year-search for the right medication, II definitely would try Dr. Jensen.
poster:Stephanie L.
thread:31396
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000429/msgs/31759.html