Posted by linkadge on February 6, 2010, at 20:13:28 [reposted on February 22, 2010, at 1:21:02 | original URL]
In reply to Re: Did you actually read the studies you posted?? » linkadge, posted by bulldog2 on February 6, 2010, at 18:34:38
>Of course I read all the studies. It is not >valid to cherry pick when the study actually >backs up the dopamine theory.
You obviously have no idea what that first study is suggesting. The *whole* idea behind the first study is that increasing dopamine levels in mice leads to depresive like behaviors. If you are unable to realize that I think you need to read it again. This is not cherry picking - it is the *entire* point of that first study.
>Many of us are dopamine responders and that is a >fact for us even if you believe it is not true.
What does a "dopamine responder" mean? You can call yourself whatever you want. Provide me with logical, conclusive evidence that your depression responds to dopamine. As I have said, response to a stimulant does not mean you are low on dopamine.
>You always complain how horrible the current >drugs are yet you deny that dopamine may be a >player in depression.
I am just going in circles here. I did not say that dopamine is absolutely not involved in depression, I just said we have no proof that dopamine is low in depression. Response to a stimulant is not proof that your dopamine levels are low. Sorry - try again.
>Read And Enjoy from "The Good Drug Guide"
>THE DOPAMINE CONNECTION
>What's missing, crucially, is the therapeutic >enrichment of hedonic tone via a combination of >mu opioid pathway enhancement and prolonged >stimulation of meso(cortico-)limbic dopamine >function.The cover page to the "Good drug guide" is *not a scientific journal*. It is an opinion piece - basing its ideas on theories about the involvement of dopamine in depression. This is not evidence. Sorry try again.
Linkadge
poster:linkadge
thread:937616
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/neuro/20091104/msgs/937638.html