![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 7 to 31 of 38. Go back in thread:
Posted by saint james on November 27, 1999, at 0:43:54
In reply to Psychiatric drugs: Poison or panacea?, posted by Ali on November 24, 1999, at 23:55:49
The essence of this book, and of others he's written, as well as of a whole movement on the internet, seems to be that ALL psychiatric drugs are not only not helpful, they are harmful and should NEVER be used.
James here....The amount of people who are helped is huge so this statement is illogical. No one says these meds are perfict and my doc is always asking if my meds are of benifit and what downsides/sideeffects I am having. But to say all meds for mentally ill are bad is hogwash and has no scientific basis. I'm tired of interviews with MD's who say things like "Prozac can make you manic or Ritalin looks like cocaine chemically. The public latches on to this soundbite but does not have the knowlage that any AD's can make bi polar's go manic and in uni polor this effect is rare. In the cases of people really going off the end on an AD (and some that maded it to trial) most were more ill than realized (and many hid past attempts on their life or hospitalazations)
serotonin and nor-e look like LSD and other psychedelic drugs, in fact many chemicals resemble other chems, but have different effect.
It pisses me off when a scientist (with an agenda) pulls facts w/o giving full context. I am speaking generally here, as i have not read this specific book.In a funny twist of fate, we can thank the invention of anti psychotics (PHENOTHIAZINE's) for many of the homeless we have today in the USA. With the advent of antiphotics the hospitals emptyed. The insane were rendered sane buy these meds and now could function in the real world.
Some had support sustems (or money) to make sure they stayed on meds but many did not have this support. Today they live on the streets and if they are brought in by the police for being a nuisance, they are back on meds at the sanity hearing. They are ordered to take their meds and social services is to verify this. Social services can't be at their home everyday at pill taking time so they fall thru the cracks. Those of you in big cities know these people well, some with tin foil under their hats. They are called schizophrenics, who, on their anti psychotic meds
can be sane and functional for the most part.On this list there are many who are not doing well on their present meds abd are searching for knowlage on their condition generally and the meds used. Without the understanding that there are millions of people doing well on their meds (I'm like this) a persom viewing this site could
reason that meds don't work. I 'm just glad there is a place people can go to get info, even if they are not doing well on their meds. I have been on AD's since 1985, always tweeking the dose, which in me changes from time to time. I go thru breakthru depression every 5 years or so, but have always recovered with a change of dose or med. I am a happy camper 355 days of the year, we all have our crappy days !) My great doc and I have worked to find a combo that does not flatten the affect or make one feel flat so I do well and know many others that do well too. At least for those that are having med trouble there is a place where they can learn info so they become a partner with their doc in the treatment of their condition.j
Posted by JohnL on November 27, 1999, at 6:01:42
In reply to Psychiatric drugs: Poison or panacea?, posted by Ali on November 24, 1999, at 23:55:49
> This may not be at all what people talk about but I am currently reading a book called "Your drug may be your problem" by a Dr. P.Breggin.The essence of this book, and of others he's written, as well as of a whole movement on the internet, seems to be that ALL psychiatric drugs are not only not helpful, they are harmful and should NEVER be used.
"ALL" and "NEVER" are pretty big words. I would think "A FEW" and "IN SOME CASES" would be more realistic.
He (and others) claim that they CAUSE depression, suicidal thoughts, anxiety, psychosis etc. I used to be a great believer in biological psychiatry but suddenly find my faith rather shaken.
IF PSYchiatric drugs CAUSE depression, then how come thousands upon millions of people get better on them? I haven't read the book, but the basic views of the author in this post are so illogical and biased as to not even deserve a place on the bookshelf. I used to study statistics in college. I learned how statistics can be twisted, manipulated, and discriminately selected to defend any preconceived point of view. And they can be presented in such a way as to SEEM totally convincing. Yet it's like focusing in on a tree, totally oblivious to the fact that that tree is surrounded by a forest. And that most of the other trees in that forest are not like the one be looked at. I'm not sure what the author's agenda is. But it certainly isn't the wellbeing of suffering people. More likely money. Or ego. Or both.
But if the author is correct in his views, then we do indeed (as I think jamie said) have a "worldwide placebo effect" going on. (Laughing out loud) Yeah right!
P.S. Nice job, by the way, Elizabeth and St James...always love reading your posts.
Posted by Phil on November 27, 1999, at 7:27:44
In reply to Psychiatric drugs: Poison or panacea?, posted by Ali on November 24, 1999, at 23:55:49
Welcome to America. Was this type of book published before Prozac? Maybe so, maybe no.
America seems to pull for the underdog until it, they, whatever become topdog.
When 'whatever' gets a lot of press, suddenly the naysayers start digging for dirt.
Nothing in this great country of ours goes untouched by this little phenomenon.
Just my opinion,
Phil
Posted by SJ on November 27, 1999, at 19:56:14
In reply to Re: Psychiatric drugs: Poison or panacea?, posted by JohnL on November 27, 1999, at 6:01:42
I agree with John, that "all and NEVER" are extreme words for a doctor to use.
That being said, I have often wondered if I should just (gradually) discontinue my medications, because I have no idea if they are still working or not. I've gone from feeling suicidally depressed to what is closer to dysthymic (in the space of one and a half years). Maybe I would have gotten to this point on my own. Maybe the meds are preventing me from being as "upbeat" as everyone else. I don't know. I guess the true test would be to go ahead and stop, and see what happens. It's a big gamble, and I believe it's in my and my family's best interest to not try it at this time.
I don't know--to the casual observer, I'm a highly functioning kind of person. But what goes on in my head...a whole different picture of the world.I've read some of Breggin's work, and I do think he takes an extremist approach that seems unreasonable.
SJ
Posted by Deb R on November 27, 1999, at 21:01:25
In reply to Re: Psychiatric drugs: Poison or panacea?, posted by saint james on November 27, 1999, at 0:43:54
My Mum has been on antipsychotics for years and years and I truly believe she would be dead by now if she hadn't been on them - either by her own hand or some sort of horrible accident like getting run over by a car or something. The thing is that now that her body is starting to fail - one problem is much reduced liver function - plus there are many more things happening too numerous to mention. The drugs have helped Mum and I am thankful of that...but what happens now? I feel a great sense of failure that is eating me away big time.
However, I am glad to live in these times where people can be so actively involved in their meds, can find information to help them and can read alternate points of view. It is just too late for Mum.
Posted by Elizabeth on November 28, 1999, at 1:31:26
In reply to Re: Psychiatric drugs: Poison or panacea?, posted by Phil on November 27, 1999, at 7:27:44
> Welcome to America. Was this type of book published before Prozac? Maybe so, maybe no.
>
> America seems to pull for the underdog until it, they, whatever become topdog.
>
> When 'whatever' gets a lot of press, suddenly the naysayers start digging for dirt.
>
> Nothing in this great country of ours goes untouched by this little phenomenon.Hey Phil...this is really interesting, and of course you're right that no such book was ever published about, say, imipramine. (The very title seems to underscore the fact that Breggin isn't acting, only reacting.)
But anyway, I'm curious if you can think of other examples of the same phenomenon (backlash against hype)...I agree that it does happen but can't think of any other examples myself at the moment and was wondering if you had one or more in mind?
Posted by Phil on November 28, 1999, at 7:50:18
In reply to the underdog...., posted by Elizabeth on November 28, 1999, at 1:31:26
Hi Elizabeth,
I seem to be hitting on about 2 cylinders lately
and can't think of anything that has been pounced on like Prozac.
I'm sure it's out there. Or, maybe not.
Posted by Deb R on November 28, 1999, at 8:57:40
In reply to Breggin the question, posted by Sam on November 26, 1999, at 2:33:54
Sam, when I first came to this site I was looking for info. re: olanzapine/zyprexa. I did find a post which I responded to about the side effects of this drug, and the post was written by "Sam" - would this have been you? I found the posting by searching the archives and I think it was originally in '98 sometime? Please let me know as if it was you I would like to ask a few questions re: this drug. Many thanks.
Deb.
Posted by Ali on November 28, 1999, at 12:43:21
In reply to A question for Sam..., posted by Deb R on November 28, 1999, at 8:57:40
> Sam, when I first came to this site I was looking for info. re: olanzapine/zyprexa. I did find a post which I responded to about the side effects of this drug, and the post was written by "Sam" - would this have been you? I found the posting by searching the archives and I think it was originally in '98 sometime? Please let me know as if it was you I would like to ask a few questions re: this drug. Many thanks.
>
> Deb.Deb;
I would like to help if I can.What kind of questions did you have in mind?Ali
Posted by Sam on November 28, 1999, at 16:25:06
In reply to A question for Sam..., posted by Deb R on November 28, 1999, at 8:57:40
Sorry, wrong Sam.
Posted by Bob on November 28, 1999, at 19:47:22
In reply to Re: A question for Sam..., posted by Sam on November 28, 1999, at 16:25:06
No, not us ... Breggin and those looneys (and looney-tuners and lawyers) at www.antipsychiatry.org!
Sorry for the long post ... if you don't want to read it, scroll to the bottom in order to skip to my conclusions.
Ali, you're drawing a false dichotomy, but that's exactly what extremists want us to do. If Breggin has stats and KNOWS how to interpret them, then he would know just how unlikely it is that, within the usual allowance for error-due-to-chance, 9,999 people out of 10,000 on psychotropics not only do not need them, but are actually harmed by them. That's just for one study. Given that a collection of studies will fall across some range of results, to say that there is **no** statistical support makes his claims all the more ridiculous. Allow me to pick the studies for a meta-analysis, and I can give you any statistical spin you want, too.
Twain attributes this famous quote to Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Often it's misquoted (if a true quote in the first place!) as "liars, damned liars, and statisticians." Given the studies I've seen on the efficacy of psychotropic meds, either Breggin is worse than a damned liar, twisting the stats to say what he means, or there's a conspiracy out there to do the same in the opposite direction. As with most dichotomies, the truth probably lies somewhere in between (but skewed, IMO, HEAVILY towards Breggin).
I've been tempted to pick up Breggin's book when I've had a minute or two in a bookstore to browse, but I can't say that I've read it. All the same, the arguments I hear coming from that camp also make a different fundamental mistake in interpreting statistics. Statistical results apply to (at best) populations or (at worse) specific samplings of a population. They do not apply to individuals. For instance, tho it may no longer be the case, there was certainly a time when the Average US Citizen was of the ethnic group "Caucasion--of European Descent". That statistical description of the norm does not mean you can pick out Person X out of all US Citizens and say with no doubt that this person will be Caucasian.
There have been times when my meds have made me ill. There have been times, including the present, in which they have aleviated my symptoms. But I wouldn't call psychotropics poisons or panaceas (particularly the latter!).
For those thinking that the philosophic discussion from a few threads above (more Disraeli for those following it--"Where knowledge ends, religion begins.") has no contact with the real world, this whole issue contradicts that notion.
Breggin's extreme basically states that since there is no single known or identified biological cause for what we call mental illness, then it simply is a social construct foisted upon those of us who have it by those of us who can profit by it. The other extreme would be that all "mental illness" is primarily biological in nature and, therefore, can (only) be treated by meds. Then there is a camp similar to Breggin's, perhaps, in that it can be claimed that all "mental illness" *does* have a social cause, and therefore only X-brand of talk therapy can work.
All these extremes fall prey to the desire to identify a First Cause. Although Aristotle's four causes supposedly have no place in Science, this notion of a First Cause is just too irresistible to those capable only of arguing from a single cause, single effect logic with no possibility for any sort of "feedback loop" or mutual causation.
In my case, you could argue that the death of my brother when I was eight and the atrocious way my parents dealt with that loss "caused" my depression. You could also argue that since I have consistently demonstrated far worse symptoms of depression than my two living brothers over the last 29 years that there is something fundamentally different about me in comparison. Since this difference dates back to our collective life growing up in my parents' home, one might suggest that a biological difference is more likely than one brought about by environment. That there is a history of individuals (not everyone, but select individuals) on both sides of my family tree that have exhibited similar extreme symptoms of depression also suggests a biological link, much in the same way some of us have red hair and some of us do not. Finally, that I respond to psychotropic medication also suggests a biological component to my depression.
But can you tell me which came first?
The genes may have created a potential, but without my brother's death, would the potential ever have been realized?
I don't know about anyone else out there, but I doubt my depression has any one First Cause. As optimistic as one of my doctors would like me to be, I also don't believe it has a cure, or a reversal of some fundamental cause.
One thing for which I have to give the webmaster at antipsych some credit is that he includes critical email. Well, okay, the reason he does is so that he can present his "last word" to illustrate how these naysayers are wrong. But one of his smug answers is, I think, the best argument about why he (and his peers in the Movement) is (are) wrong. It gets back to another matter of creeping philosophy-- mind-body duality.
This one -- thinking the mind and body separate entitites -- is Descartes' fault, essentially. One writer tags the Webmaster as a dualist (a philosophical no-no in post-modern, post-structuralist circles). The Webmaster comes back stating that there must be a separation between mind and body. His explanations fail, tho. For example, he argues that if you could download all the thoughts and memories of someone with PTSD into a new body, the new body would still have PTSD. Therefore, the disease is the product of the mind and independent of the body. This would perhaps be true if all human bodies were created equal, but we all have different capacities for dealing with stress. We probably have internal differences in how we deal with typical stress from atypical, intense stress as well. Sure, you can argue that how one deals with stress is (at least in part) a learned behavior, but success at dealing with environmental stress is at the very heart of evolution and, therefore, at the heart of biology as well. Dealing with stress is a characteristic of all species and, one could argue, those species still around at this point in geological time must have highly-developed mechanisms for dealing with stress. But that only means that there is a range of functioning for individuals -- most being average for the species, some being exceptional in a positive sense, and some being exceptional in a negative sense.
Bottom line? Extremists like Breggin are useful for discussion in helping to draw the "black" and the "white" of the issue into focus for those of us who live in the gray. As for practice, I am willing to place my IRAs against anyone's accrued Social Security benefits, value to be determined at retirement age, that extremists such as Breggin cause more harm than they prevent, when their work is put into practice.
Okay, I've lathered on for long enough ... my two cents from the lunatic middle....
Bob
Posted by Deb R on November 28, 1999, at 20:39:31
In reply to Re: A question for Sam..., posted by Ali on November 28, 1999, at 12:43:21
Hi Ali - many thanks for your post, it is very kind of you to respond. I have been searching for info re: side-effects of Olanzapine mainly to do with Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome. There was a posting that I found from someone called Sam, but it was an old one - from Sept '98 I think.
I have had a good hunt around the web, but haven't found too much. I guess I just feel better if I am trying to do something to help my Mum. Mum developed NMS about three weeks after changing from Risperidone to Olanzapine and she was hospitalised for 4 weeks recovering.
I was hoping that the Sam on this thread was the same one as a while ago because that Sam mentioned he/she was searching for something similar...also to do with a family member.
Thats about it I guess - Mum is still on Olanzapine, although at a much reduced dose some problems still linger - some rigidity in the shoulders, liver and kidney problems, spiking temp and blood pressure to name but a few. I want her to come off all drugs, after all she is 73 years old and by all accounts, elderly folk should (?) be on much reduced doses I believe. Mum was on very high doses of Risperidone and Olanzapine before the NMS. I want to help her but am feeling pretty darn useless at the moment.
Thanks again Ali - my best wishes to you.Deb.
Posted by Deb R on November 28, 1999, at 20:42:07
In reply to Re: A question for Sam..., posted by Sam on November 28, 1999, at 16:25:06
> Sorry, wrong Sam.
Bummer, was really hoping it would be the same Sam. Oh well, thanks anyway.
Deb.
Posted by Ali on November 28, 1999, at 22:53:16
In reply to thanks Ali..., posted by Deb R on November 28, 1999, at 20:39:31
> Hi Ali - many thanks for your post, it is very kind of you to respond. I have been searching for info re: side-effects of Olanzapine mainly to do with Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome. There was a posting that I found from someone called Sam, but it was an old one - from Sept '98 I think.
> I have had a good hunt around the web, but haven't found too much. I guess I just feel better if I am trying to do something to help my Mum. Mum developed NMS about three weeks after changing from Risperidone to Olanzapine and she was hospitalised for 4 weeks recovering.
> I was hoping that the Sam on this thread was the same one as a while ago because that Sam mentioned he/she was searching for something similar...also to do with a family member.
> Thats about it I guess - Mum is still on Olanzapine, although at a much reduced dose some problems still linger - some rigidity in the shoulders, liver and kidney problems, spiking temp and blood pressure to name but a few. I want her to come off all drugs, after all she is 73 years old and by all accounts, elderly folk should (?) be on much reduced doses I believe. Mum was on very high doses of Risperidone and Olanzapine before the NMS. I want to help her but am feeling pretty darn useless at the moment.
> Thanks again Ali - my best wishes to you.
>
> Deb.Deb;
First some basic facts:
1.Olanzapine or "Zyprexa" is one of the new 'atypical' anti-psychotics alongwith Risperidone, Seroquel and Clozaril.
2.Supposedly, it has a lower incidence of NMS associated with it than the older drugs like Haldol etc. but it can occur.Why is your mom on it?(diagnosis?) How long was she on it before she developed NMS and on what dose? What dose is she on now? Has she had problems with other meds e.g Risperdal? Why did she have to get off that? Was the dx of NMS confirmed? Sounds from your description of residual symptoms that it was. Why is she still on it if she did indeed have NMS?
and lastly , the million dollar question, what symptoms does she have remaining after she gets off the drug.At 73, there may be other alternatives for her.
Let me know the answer to these questions and I may be able to give you some helpful hints. Of course, you must discuss these with her MD before making ANY changes in her meds.Good luck
Ali
Posted by Deb R on November 29, 1999, at 8:21:55
In reply to Re: thanks Ali..., posted by Ali on November 28, 1999, at 22:53:16
You are a gem Ali...here we go
> Why is your mom on it?(diagnosis?)
- Ali, Mum is Schizophrenic.>How long was she on it before she developed NMS and on what dose? What dose is she on now?
- Mum was changed from Risperidone (not sure of the dose of this, but very high) to Olanzapine about 3 weeks before developing the symptoms of NMS. Olanz dose was 27.5mg, along with Diazepam (not sure of dose, perhaps 5mg). Olanzapine dose is now 7.5mg, plus Diazepam about 2mg (is that dose possible? I think thats right anyway)>Has she had problems with other meds e.g Risperdal?
- Mum has had leg shaking and jerking for as long as I can remember, not as severe as when she was on Modecate injections, Mum then looked as though she had full-blown Parkinson's disease. I think the TD is permanent now - leg shaking mainly. Mum has the most amazing muscle development in her legs, she has beautiful legs for a 70+ year old, great shape etc. That might sound like a weird thing to say, but I guess its because they are constantly moving.>Why did she have to get off that?
- Mums Psych changed Mum to Olanzapine because she thought it would give some relief from all the "touching" things that were happening, Mum felt as though she was being touched by "someone" all the time, there is a name for this, but I can't remember what they called it.>Was the dx of NMS confirmed?
- Mum had all the symptoms of NMS although the level in her blood of something called Serum Creatinase (bleah, not sure if that is the right name for it.) while "very high" was not as extreme as is usual for NMS.>Why is she still on it if she did indeed have NMS?
- Exactly what I am trying to find out. The NMS diagnosis was confirmed by the Doctors (Mum was on a general ward while they discounted other medical conditions for nearly 2 weeks, still on the high level of drugs!) When I started to look into this NMS (Mum was admitted with this as a big query from her Psychiatrist) I started to ask questions, like why was Mum still on the drugs if she had NMS etc. Anyway, thats when they started to say that they werent convinced she did have it and they were still trying to work out what was happening. Mum did have it, I have no doubt. Especially when they actually got Mum's permission to video her for their teaching purposes!
>what symptoms does she have remaining after she gets off the drug.
-Ali, for one blissful week, Mum was off all drugs. You should have seen her animated face, she looked happy and actually smiled at me with her whole face, shining eyes. I was so happy after years and years of Mum with what I call 'the mask' on. Even the voices went!!! Mum wasnt hearing any voices at all!!! Why was that, when Mum said to the Docs (by this stage she was on the Psych ward) "I dont think I need the drugs as the voices have gone" ...they replied: "But what if they come back".>At 73, there may be other alternatives for her.
- Ali, I am so hopeful...there must be something out there that can help Mum have a break from the drugs at least until her body can recover a bit more.>Of course, you must discuss these with her MD before making ANY changes in her meds.
- Absolutely, I would be too scared to do it any other way. I have to be careful also to make sure it is what Mum wants to do, Mum is so compliant and will not question anything the Doc's tell her, years of conditioning I suppose. A lot has changed in Mental Health during my Mum's time. Thank goodness.Ali, it feels good to be writing all this down, there is soooo much more I could write, once I get started I have to make sure I re-read it all the time so I don't rave on too much...many thanks to you for any input you may have. I appreciate your interest so much and I am very grateful you responded to my post...
sincerely,
Deb.
Posted by CarolAnn on November 29, 1999, at 9:39:31
In reply to Letters from the lunatic fringe ... (long post!), posted by Bob on November 28, 1999, at 19:47:22
If I followed Bob correctly, he was basically saying that depression can be both biologically inherent *and* have a specific cause. I have to agree. As far as my biology: My father's whole family are alcoholics(in denial), and actually my grandmother(dad's mom) had(before dying) a history of depression including undergoing Electro-shock treatments! Most of my mother's family are drug addicts(also in denial). With these genetics is it any wonder that I would be predisposed to depression as well as substance abuse(although my "substance" of choice has always been food)??
Anyway, none of this was helped by being raised by a verbally abusive mother and an emotionally passive father. Now, according to some Doctors I should be cured of my depression after undergoing two years of talk therapy and totally resolving all my childhood "issues". Yet, here I am seven yrs. later and not only still suffering depression, but getting worse do to the difficulty of finding effective medication for my particular case. My bottom-line belief is that some people are born with a depression gene which gets "activated" by any number of causes: dysfunctional family, specific event(causing grief), traumatic experience, ect. There are probably some(very few,I would think) people who have the depression gene, but either never have anything happen to activate it or have the gene activated for no apparent reason. Regardless, depression must be treated a a true medical condition and not some kind of mental funk that will go away if we just ,"snap out of it!". CarolAnn
Posted by Bob on November 29, 1999, at 15:42:09
In reply to Yeah....what Bob said! (how my depression agree's), posted by CarolAnn on November 29, 1999, at 9:39:31
> If I followed Bob correctly, he was basically saying that depression can be both biologically inherent *and* have a specific cause....
Well, now that you mention it, I think I'd say there are two primary "dimensions" of the problem. One is the nature/nurture (HAH!, or lack thereof) thing -- to what extent is it from your genes or your environment? The second dimension is the single cause/cluster of causes -- to what extent are there a cluster of factors that each contribute in their own inimitable way, or is there some social/genetic "event" that turns the trick (activates it, knocks down the first domino)
Bob
... hmmm, any other applications of political science (other than the Domino Theory) to psychological science? When do we get our Marshall Plan to rebuild our lives? hmmm.....
Posted by Noa on November 29, 1999, at 15:54:26
In reply to Yeah....what Bob said! (how my depression agree's), posted by CarolAnn on November 29, 1999, at 9:39:31
Carol Ann and Bob, I would agree. But I would add that the influence goes in the other direction, as well. That is, whether it is one's predisposition toward depression, or environmental experiences that start the ball rolling, once one has depression, it instigates actual changes in brain chemistry and physiology. In essence, it becomes a complex system of mutual influences, and for some of us a perpetually growing problem.
I was reading a book, called "Mapping the Mind" (sorry, don't recall the author), and in it there was something about how some people are born with more sensitive amygdalas, which makes them more sensitive to the most subtle social cues and causes them to feel hurt by them. Of course, the amygdala is more developed and active in the infant and young child, well before the hippocampus and neocortex are fully able to process thoughts and memories. So, you have a sensitive infant, prone to picking up the slightest signs of maternal or paternal negative feelings, and that amygdala flares up big time, and the infant takes in the negativity. In a good environment, where the parents are sensitive to the child's needs, perhaps the child with the sensitive amygdala will do fine. But give that environment any significant emotional challenges, and it seems like a recipe for emotional distress, depression, anxiety, etc. I think someday we will be able to assess infants quickly and easily at birth, and to teach parents to know their children and their individual emotional styles and needs, and to know their own styles, as well, and how to optimize how the two coexist. For me, I think I am that sensitive infant who picks things up without knowing what they are, just on an intuitive, subconscious level. Like Carol, my mother was extremely critical and insensitive, and my father, passive. My extended family had less substance abuse issues, although there were some, which, of course, I never heard about until recently. Similarly with depression. Only recently did I learn my father's mother was treated with ECT in the late forties, early fifties. She had a hard life, but so did my grandfather, and he was always easygoing and calm. And my mother's father was an alcoholic, I think self medicating for a chronic depression triggered by the death of his two to three year old son, who was hit by a truck while playing ball (my mother was a baby at the time), not to mention many other losses in his life (he immigrated to the US by himself as a teenager, was joined by two sisters, but never saw the other sisters or his parents or extended family again; his parents died before WWII, I believe, and all the others were killed in the Holocaust-something he never ever spoke about).
In any event, I think the relationship between biology and environment is complex, mutually influential, and dynamic. It continues to evolve as we speak (each time I have an episode of depression, I know those seahorses are shrinking!!). As a society, we love simple answers, unambiguous and static. I guess that is what you are referring to when you use the term "first cause" (I only peripherally followed the whole evolution discussion; I am not familiar enough with the concepts to follow along easily and haven't had the energy to focus enough to learn right now). But, as the saying goes, nothing is simple, there are no easy answers. Breggin may have some good points, and clearly the pendulum is swung toward medication which means there is going to be some overdiagnosis, misapplication of drug therapies, etc., as well as too frequent dismissal of the efficacy of various other forms of treatment, or problem solving strategies, including talk therapy. Not to mention "side" effects. On the other hand, that is no reason to condemn the entire practice of using psychotropic medication, as many of us know we have been helped at least to some degree by them. For me, my talk therapy is very helpful, but without some modicum of stability from medication, I would not make good use of the talk therapy, nor would I be able to put any of my insights or improved cognitions into action.
And it is never simple. I have been on a repeated quest to find a good combination of medications that work and are tolerable.But our society loves simplicity, and simplicity is in vogue right now. The media loves simple, dichotomous controveries. When the big Prozac article appeared in Newsweek a few years back, it irritated the hell out of me, as many blockbuster Newsweek stories do, because of how the story is structured in that dichotomous either/or way. AARRGGHH. But even more, the media was playing up the hype that Prozac, et al. give people a whole new personality, one that is based on 1990's values of productivity, etc. I was so irritated. I was on prozac at the time, and did not feel it changed my personality at all. But it did help me fell less depressed. And to have the media making a moral issue out of a medical treatment that I was needing and getting help from, well,,,,,AARRGGHHHH.
The Newsweek headlines are a good barometer of how our society likes to think--in all or nothing, either/or terms. Is Day Care Bad for Babies? Do Parents Matter? And so on.
But we, here, at Babble, are a smarter than the average bear bunch, and can tolerate ambiguity and complexity, no?
Posted by Zeke on December 1, 1999, at 20:07:24
In reply to Re: Yeah....what Bob said! (how my depression agree's), posted by Noa on November 29, 1999, at 15:54:26
Like many others, I want Breggin and the anti-psychiatry folks to be able to have their say. But they seem to me to be extremely biased and selectively ignore crediable science that doesn't fit their view. And this has the potential to do much harm to desperate persons unfamiliar with modern psychiatry and neuroscience.
My personal beef with Breggin is his attack on Ritalin, Dexedrine and other ADD meds. But rather than babble myself, I recommend you read Dr. Russell Barkely's review of Breggin's book, "Talking Back to Ritalin," available at the CHADD website: http://www.chadd.org/news/Russ-review.htm (regardless of whether ADD is your concern.)
One observation about Breggin is that he seems to complain that psychiatry conferences are biased in the other direction -- pro med -- it almost sounds like a conspiracy theory. But then when he is invited, I see comments about how must interrupt his busy schedule to prepare for and attend these meetings. In the Colorado case he had to fly in from London. I suspect Breggin spends much of his time in the well paid role of expert witness in court cases, testifying to 'Prozac Rage' and the like.
Breggin seems to find endless behavioral side effects od psychiatric meds -- eg, stimulant cause obsessions; antidepressannts cause mania. Though very overstated there is some truth here. The problem here is that if substances can produce behavioral effects, then some substances -- some effects -- should be beneficial and therapeutic for certain behavioral disorders. But for Breggin, any effect is a bad, dangerous and potentially fatal effect.
Now before many of you go out and buy his books, I suggest you visit his website: http://www.breggin.com/
Since schizophrenia is a central theme of this thread, I might also suggest an article by Dr. Al Siebert (who is an advisor to Breggin's organization), "If Schizophrenia is a Disease or Illness Why Doesn't it Act Like One?": http://www.thrivenet.com/schizo/articles/proofact.html My question is, how is a disease or illness supposed to act? Actually schizophrenia is probably better considered a disorder than disease -- by which Siebert means infectious disease. His opening anecdote about no vaccine for schizophrenia meaning that is is not a disease is nonsense -- I don't know od a vaccine for epilepsy either -- so is epilepsy also unreal? He also interprets studies such that hospitalization makes schizophrenia worse -- but he fails to see or note the obvious logic that the less severe the illness, the less hospitalized one would be. He is right that some recover completely without any treatment, but this is simply consistent with the rule of thirds.
In re Noa's comments on the amygdala: Please look at the research done by Dr. Joseph LeDoux, who is certainly an expert on the amygdala. LeDoux focuses on fear and the amygdala and asserts that "fear is forever" -- once a fear is learned it can't be simply unlearned (by the amygdala) but has to be compensated for by the (frontal) cortex. I suggest the following URLs:
http://salon.com/books/it/1999/04/07/neurology/index.html
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/dept/news/nytimes0299.html
http://www.feedmag.com/brain/parts/ledoux.html
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct97/ledoux.htmlLastly, take a look at these columns from the Denver Post re Breggin and company...
http://www.denverpost.com/news/carman1111.htm
http://www.denverpost.com./news/green1112.htm
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/edits1114a.htmAs Diane Carmen says in her Denver Post article, "And doesn't it seem peculiar that drugs such as Ritalin and Luvox are commonly prescribed to treat attention deficit disorder in countries all over the world but they only produce school shootings among American kids?"
Posted by bigbertha on December 1, 1999, at 23:32:03
In reply to Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists, posted by Zeke on December 1, 1999, at 20:07:24
>Since schizophrenia is a central theme of this
thread, I might also suggest an article by
Dr. Al Siebert (who is an advisor to Breggin's
organization),
"If Schizophrenia is a Disease or Illness Why
> Doesn't it Act Like One?":Well stated, Zeke. In addition, today it was
announced by US and British researchers that
chromosome #22 had been completely gene-mapped.
Some of the genes on this chromo. are those
that cause leukemia AND schizophrenia!
Oh well, somebody has to graduate at the bottom
of the class.
Posted by Noa on December 2, 1999, at 8:11:05
In reply to Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists, posted by bigbertha on December 1, 1999, at 23:32:03
Zeke, thanks for the info.
As for Breggin, I have heard him speak as a participant in conferences offering voice to a number of perspectives.
I just received a brochure for a conference that I would like to go to (the Family Therapy Networker). It is usually a great conference, and they offer a lot of good workshops. But I was dismayed to see that Breggin is one of the presenters, and that there is another presenter who has a similar anti-psychiatry approach, but there are no pro-psychopharmocology presentations. I am inclined to write them a letter of complaint, because it worries me that all these mental health practicioners are there to learn how to help clients, and they are offered two possible workshops on pharmocology that are ANTI pharmocology, and there are no opportunities to learn how medication can help their clients. It seems irresponsible, if you ask me. I don't know if I will muster up the energy to write such a letter.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 2, 1999, at 18:37:53
In reply to Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists, posted by Noa on December 2, 1999, at 8:11:05
> I just received a brochure for a conference that I would like to go to (the Family Therapy Networker). It is usually a great conference, and they offer a lot of good workshops. But I was dismayed to see that Breggin is one of the presenters, and that there is another presenter who has a similar anti-psychiatry approach, but there are no pro-psychopharmocology presentations. I am inclined to write them a letter of complaint...
Or you could go and complain in person: during the question-and-answer periods after their presentations! :-)
Bob
Posted by Bob on December 2, 1999, at 20:51:30
In reply to Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists, posted by Dr. Bob on December 2, 1999, at 18:37:53
> > I just received a brochure for a conference that I would like to go to (the Family Therapy Networker)....
> Or you could go and complain in person: during the question-and-answer periods after their presentations! :-)Hey Noa! Where's the conference at? Maybe I'll go and challenge him to spend two weeks with me off in the woods somewhere -- he can say "Just get over yourself already" as often as he likes and I'll even let him take an ax ... hell, a chainsaw if he prefers ... me? No meds and a swiss army knife.
Only one of us is gonna walk outta those woods in one piece.... ;^)
Bob
Posted by Noa on December 2, 1999, at 20:56:55
In reply to Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists, posted by Dr. Bob on December 2, 1999, at 18:37:53
Well, that isn't really my style. Plus, I am not going to waste my precious conference time going to those particular sessions. They'll just irritate me. There are lots of other sessions that are much more worthwhile.
And, actually, it is the conference organizers with whom I have the beef. I can't fault Breggin (and whoever the other guy is, I forget) for speaking about what they believe in, but I fault the conference organizers for not offering more of a balance, and for not seeing the education of non-medical therapists about psychopharmocology as valuable.
Hey, Dr. Bob, you interested in attending? Maybe you could be a speaker at their conference next year. They hold it every year in Washington.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 1999, at 0:14:50
In reply to Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists, posted by Noa on December 2, 1999, at 20:56:55
> Hey, Dr. Bob, you interested in attending? Maybe you could be a speaker at their conference next year. They hold it every year in Washington.
I think I'm already going to be going to Washington once, I think that'll be enough, but thanks for thinking of me. :-)
Bob
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
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.