Posted by jay on October 3, 2003, at 22:09:28
In reply to maybe, posted by Eddie Sylvano on October 3, 2003, at 19:49:54
> I think that the tradional monoamine model tends to make people think within the confines of that handful of modulators. There are plenty of other chemicals at play, though. Nicotinic compounds, opiatelike compounds, GABA, glutamate, plenty o' hormones, nitric oxide, etc. The current drugs also don't just affect one transmitter, but initiate a cascade of effects, aftereffects, and similar changes when drug plasma levels drop and feedback loops come into play. It's a crazy, messy system that I think can >only be modeled through the gathering and >computer evaluation of lots and lots of >information on chemical states at various stages >in time. A computer is the only way to find >useful patterns in the reams of seemingly >disconnected events going on in the brain (or >any >natural system).
Yes. true, but the older meds do 'muck' around with a number of more systems than most newer ones. I still recall having times where I was on Elavil, felt a fair bit of side effects, but I didn't feel the 'numbness' and apathy the newer meds bring on, and the effects of older meds seemed to last as long as taking them. Some of those effects where nasty, but some where good. I have been taking a big amount of Prozac for months and in many ways I have looked back and craved some of the mild sedation, as well as some of the more 'jumpier' effects of the old meds. Some tricyclics (not all) also seem to be kind to the sexual function. Anti-cholinergic properties can sometimes be helpful in depression, acting in a pro-dopamine fashion.Now Prozac seems like a placebo pill to me. I honestly think that is why they have found combos of tricyclics with SSRI's sometimes work better than SSRI's.
IMHO...
Jay
poster:jay
thread:265309
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030928/msgs/265393.html