- Berate your friends who take antidepressants about how they're dupes and should - nay, must - throw away their pills and start taking overdoses of niacin, St. Johns Wort and omega-3 fatty acids. Insist that "natural" chemicals are better than "manufactured" chemicals, though you can't actually explain what the difference is (you just know that the latter are BAD).
- March around carrying a six-foot tall cardboard syringe to show people that you're not insane, they are.
- Produce media reframing homelessness as "home-free" and liberating because society is the problem, not brain processes. Advocate closing more hospitals so lots of severely ill people you don't know can become home-free, too. Buy Google keyword ads, and network, network, network.
- Join an online drug buyer's forum to source the best prices on illegal online pharmacy Tramadol and Vicodin, because psychiatry has suppressed information on the effectiveness of opiates in treating depression and you'll show them.
- Prove that biochemistry isn't a factor in depression by drinking a lot of beer and jumping off a cliff. Martyrdom awaits.
- Launch a lawsuit against Eli Lilly because you became obese and diabetic after taking Zyprexa. Celebrate your fight against Big Pharma with a Coke at McDonalds.
- Create a web site about psychiatric conspiracies - especially as perpetrated against you personally - and post 8,000-word rants. Avoid learning web design except to make the fonts really big to emphasize injustice. Do not spellcheck, ever.
- Go to med school, become a psychiatrist, and then don't practice psychiatry. Instead craft numerous research "reviews" for academic journals about how mental illness isn't really based in the brain. Create a web site similar to 8, above, except with no content - unnecessary because the initials after your name are all the credibility you need. Do lots of mass media interviews with reporters who don't know lithium salt from table salt.
- Vehemently insist that you're not antipsychiatry and have nothing in common with Scientologists. You're a human rights advocate! If people die (or kill) from lack of treatment that's the fault of Blair and Bush; if only Teh System would change, in the ways you want it to...time to write another press release.
- If anyone publishes criticism of your "human rights advocacy," bombard their site with angry, incoherent comments. Become confused when the author giggles.
And finally...
Happy New Year! May this be a year with less suffering for everyone. We share that common goal. :-)
Comments
I like the ones that claim their product contains no 'chemicals', What's that leave, photons and vacuum?
Posted by: Roy | December 31, 2006 9:36 PM
This is why OmniBrain is my most favorite blog ever. I really enjoy laughing until I spit on my monitor.
Wishing you and yours a wonderful New Year. Behave yourselves.
Posted by: ClinkShrink | January 1, 2007 11:29 AM
Thanks ClinkShrink; spitting on your monitor is quite a compliment, heh.
Posted by: Sandra | January 3, 2007 10:38 PM
Good grief. You're running around spamming blogs with this? Well, this has been some formidable rhetoric all right, you should be proud of your contribution to our national discourse, now please excuse me while I go gouge out my eyes.
Posted by: flawedplan | January 4, 2007 7:50 PM
This is the best thing ever. Except all the drugs, that is. They're better. But this is really good.
Posted by: Brad | January 5, 2007 12:31 AM
flawedplan.... I was looking for you ;)
Posted by: steve | January 5, 2007 1:41 AM
I had a good laugh at this. PZ as a good point about ridicule being a good tool ;)
The one thing I would add is from my experience some people think that meds for mental problems are a crutch and should be thrown away. I know some people who are in Alcoholic Anonymous who think that meds are the same as drinking. A moderator at a bipolar support group I used to go to called them "fundamentalist AA people".
Posted by: JPS | January 17, 2007 10:12 PM
"Teh System"... ROFL!
Posted by: BrainyBear | January 18, 2007 8:51 AM
You know your an idiot when, you write stuff like this.
Posted by: Janie | February 8, 2007 11:40 AM
Thanks Janie for that nice comment!
We love you too!
Posted by: steve | February 8, 2007 11:43 AM
Ten top resolutions for personal opinion professionals (psychiatrists) masquerading as scientists.
1. When a four-year-old child dies after two years of taking clonodin (never approved by the FDA for children) say that the psychiatrist did nothing wrong. (See Rebecca Riley, Hull, MA, Boston Herald, Boston Globe February 8,9, 2007)
2. Send out prominent researchers funded by pharmaceutical companies saying that the treatment was proper.
3. Have prominent journalists host radio and TV shows blaming the parents.
4. Have the local DA arrest the parents for homicide.
5. Have drug company funded legislators appear on TV blaming the state social services Dept.
6. Ridicule any and all criticism of psychiatry as if it is being done by deranged morons. That is how to support free speech, by censoring criticism. Psychiatry is the truth. There is no possible opposition that is not irrational.
7. Have school administrators appear on TV blaming high school special education students for their irrational thinking after many years of anti depressants. (See Lincoln-Sudbury, MA high school, February, 2007, Boston Herald, Boston Globe, Metrowest Daily News)
8. Have same school administrators express anger at civil rights activists who protest forced drugging of students. Isn't that what schools are for? To drug students?
9. Have NAMI issue a statement saying that the media should not blame the drug companies for hiding studies that prove dangers of their drugs making students suicidal.
10. Create online blogs making fun of persons with disabilties. That is always good for a laugh. Isn't that what psychiatry is for to humiliate, to ridicule and to abuse persons accsued of illness? God bless the psychiatrists who help raise the self esteem of those they accuse of being ill. You can't help but love these psychopaths.
Posted by: Diogenes | February 9, 2007 5:29 AM
TOP TEN REASONS TO LISTEN TO THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SEE "YOU", "ALL YOUR FRIENDS", AND ALL THE "KIDS" IN THE WORLD ON ADDICTIVE MIND ALTERING BRAIN DAMAGING DRUGS!
1. These drugs and treatments are said to make one "feel good" and help them "do better" and we like the buzz we get off of them, we know that there is no scientific way to measure and define any chemical imbalance or balance either one that makes it easier to pull the wool over their eyes because we tell them how much we like them and how much they help us. And they cost us less if the government pays for them at the expense of those that are dying with real and actual diseases, but one doesn't need to worry about those kinds of things as long as they like them and they make them feel good.
2. You can get free vacations costing two or three hundred dollars a person sometimes thousands of the taxpayers hard earned dollars for every meeting that you can get to so they can say you were there and "pat" you on your head and refuse to listen to you or do any thing any different. This is to make sure the pencil pushers and paper wasters don't have to change what they are doing because they don't want to and it is easier to keep doing the same things and brain wash people into thinking that they are getting it right with your help. The gov. will pay from 1 to 10 thousand dollars a year per person on your drugs, more then that for you if you get to go to the hospital, even if it doesn't really help and often makes you worse off because you can't control your real self then. Plus then you can have them to sell and trade on the streets and get some more people addicted to and help fill up the jail cells so that you have someone to talk to when you are going to your probation officer or sitting behind those bars waiting for your trial or on that court bench waiting for the judge to pat you on your head and tell you that good little children don't act like that and you need to behave and take your medications no matter how bad what you have done might have been.
3. Society isn't any of the "problem" everyone has enough money, a good job, a good education, a good home, and proper medical care so why worry about this kind of thing when the tax payers can pay for it for you, let those that get paid for thinking about it get paid for thinking about it while they drive their mercedes. There are always hard workers out there that don't care to give up every penny they get in tax money to pay for this kind of thing and there always will be. It is better to have people think of it as a brain process then "laziness", "immaturity" and "can't help one's-selfitis". Make sure that you keep the hospitals open so that after someone does something to get attention because it is the only way they can get people to feel sorry enough for them to help them, then say that everyone with this label must need exactly the same thing, to go to a hospital and hospitals should be there for those that want to be treated as babies for the rest of their lives. Sure we know the truth is that NAMI, the APA, the Surgeon Generals office can't answer the following questions truthfully with more then textbook answers:
Medically consistent reliable and valid scientific
A. Evidence That Clearly Establishes the validity of "schizophrenia" "depression" or other "major mental Illnesses" as biologically-based brain diseases.
B. Evidence For A Physical Diagnostic Exam such as a scan or test of the brain, blood, urine, genes, etc that can reliably distinguish individuals with these diagnoses (prior to treatment with psychiatric drugs), from individuals without these diagnoses.
C. Evidence For a Base-line Standard of a neurochemically balanced "normal" personality, against which a neurochemical "imbalance" can be measured and corrected by pharmaceutical means.
D. Evidence That Any Psychotropic Drug can correct a "chemical imbalance" attributed to a psychiatric diagnoses, and is any thing more than a non-specific alterer of physiology.
E. Evidence That Any Psychotropic Drug can reliably decrease the likelihood of violence or suicide.
F. Evidence That Psychotropic Drugs do not in fact increase the overall likelihood of violence and suicide.
G. Finally, that they get this out into the mainstream media, that fact that the use of some psychiatric drugs create real structural brain changes or brain damage over time.
But, what does that matter if they say it is better for us to have a brain disease, at least we are not being called beggars, criminals, stupid, or lazy, even though many of us really do often wish there were a better way then this.
4. Make sure your friendly pharmacist never has to think of the ethicalness of being a drug pusher for those that like these drugs. That no one really has to admit that the following are the real and true and factual side effects of these drugs: Drug induced stuttering, Weight gain, Dizziness, Sleeplessness, Restlessness, Anxiety, Diabetes, Racing heart, Heart disorders, Suicide risk in children, Increased risk of pregnancy while changing from old to new and birth defects, White Blood Cell Disorders, Convulsions and Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome, Life threatening inflammation of the Pancreas, Illegal sales on the street, Illegal experimentation and addiction to drugs, Glaucoma, Harmful food and drug interactions, Synergistic and Anti synergistic affects, Unnatural and dangerous serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, Prescribing wrongfully, Dyskyntonia, Sudden Deaths, Drug overdoses, increase in suicides and homocides from these drugs, increased incarcerations in jails and dependence on the systems from these drugs, Drug induced psychiatric symptoms mainly violence.
5. It doesn't matter that one knows for a fact that biochemistry isn't a factor in being immature and needing others to take care of you and telling you what to do for the rest of your life, because it is better to give those with so called power and authority over us permission to live you life for you and tell you exactly what you can and can't do, it is a fair trade to be taken care of the government and NAMI becomes your parents and babysitters. Like all little children that never grow up you know that if you don't do what they say they can make you go to the hospital or take these drugs any time that they want to anyway,if you want to or not. But you can throw a little temper tantrum along the way and then once you get to suck the teat dry some more you can be happy and good once again, so they can change your diapers for you.
6. Don't bother with a lawsuit against any of the people that are doing this to you because after all you like it even if it is killing and destroying you and the rest of the world, and making you helpless and dependent on some thing that might not be there five minutes later. This magic carpet ride will surely never let you down, until it gets ready to and you can fuss to keep it going a little while longer maybe. You can go to McDonalds and get pizza and have parties as soon as the first or third of the month rolls around every month, so you can spend your money. That means you can keep getting that money, and even if you have to show that you spent you last penny on a peice of bubble gum then you can do that to, it doesn't matter if you have any when you really need it or not.
7. You have learned some new tricks you can create some web sites about anti-psychiatry conspiracies - especially as perpetrated against you personally - and post 8,000-word rants. You can avoid having to learn web design except to make the fonts really big to emphasize injustice of these people that are trying to stop you from doing this. You do not need to spellcheck, not ever or have any thoughts of your own because all of the brainwashing propaganda is already made up for you to use anyways. It is ignorant for one to go to a medical school, become a psychiatrist, and then not forget how to be ethical and honest enough to tell the truth about this even if it takes them a different way and a better road, they have no real obligation to uphold that oath that they took to do no harm, so they will listent to all of your lies and believe you and you can use people that don't quite understand what they are talking about yet to trick them by being on your side.
8. You can craft numerous phony and ghost written and underhanded and hidden research "reviews" for academic journals about how mental illness is really based in the brain. Create a phony website that makes you look scientific except with no real scientific valid and reliable evidence or content - because all of your followers believe what you say any way so you have them brainwashed already. You can do lots of mass media interviews with reporters who don't know lithium salt from table salt and tell them that you are speaking for everyone else that has these labels and not just for yourself and you know how great all this is even if you have no medical training in it.
9 You can vehemently insist that you're not an idiot and you know exactly what you are doing and talking about even though you understand that what having this brain disease says about you is that you are incapable of thinking for yourself, you are irrational, and illogical and not truly aware because of it, and you need the hospitals and the world to take care of you and change your diapers for the rest of your lives. You can tell others that you're a human rights advocate! If people die (or kill others) from this "treatment" or drugs, that's the fault of those that are trying to counter all the lies and ignorance so you can blame it on them and take your medications to make you feel okay about all of it again. If only The System would change in the ways you want it to...time to write another press release.
10. If anyone publishes criticism of your "human rights advocacy," bombard their site with angry, incoherent comments. Treat others with less dignity and humanity then you think you ought to have the right to, yourself, after all you can call your own thoughts about your own brain being diseased and dysfunctional scientific and so if you hurt others trying to get them to stop telling the truth what does it matter?
Posted by: Janie | February 9, 2007 9:31 AM
wow.. you guys are kinda incoherent aren't you?
Posted by: anon | February 9, 2007 10:22 AM
No more incoherent then anyone of the best. You are wrong. And the worst thing about it is you think it is funny. Is that what this site is about? How scientific is that, how good for mental health is that? To promote lies and propaganda? To push drugs because you all like them no matter what they do to people, how good is that? Drug pushers!
Posted by: janie | February 9, 2007 10:37 AM
Thus is the science behind ScienceBlogs---Our mission is to change the way the world sees science... We "believe" that science literacy is necessary for all modern societies. At a time when public interest in science is high but public understanding of science remains weak, we have set out to create media and "entertainment" products to improve science literacy and to advance "our" science "culture". So your lies and propaganda fit right in doesn't it and thus no one refuses it and thus it appears as though it might be truly scientific even if it is based on lies. How bright of you all.
Posted by: Janie | February 9, 2007 10:46 AM
Question... at what point to psychiatrists get initiated into the conspiracy? at the annual meeting?
Posted by: steve | February 9, 2007 11:05 AM
I learned something new today. Not only are Scientologists beliefs ridiculous and laughable, they also can't string together a coherent sentence in defense of themselves. Thanks, OmniBrain, for fleshing out my understanding of Scientology!
Posted by: Shelley Batts | February 9, 2007 11:27 AM
It strikes me as deliciously funny, Janie, that you -- an illiterate adherent to a pseudoreligion based on the ramblings of a science fiction writer -- are purporting to represent the interest of genuine science. No wonder you have it so fucked up.
Rather than waste the time of your intellectual betters here, why not go write someone higher in the scam hierarchy a big fat check while diddling yourself with an E-meter or something?
Posted by: I Come in the Name of Jesus | February 9, 2007 12:27 PM
It strikes me as deliciously funny, Janie, that you -- an illiterate adherent to a pseudoreligion based on the ramblings of a science fiction writer -- are purporting to represent the interest of genuine science. No wonder you have it so fucked up.
(Janie) I am not a follower of a pseudo religion, I think that is you. I also think you are the one that is illiterate. You seem to be speaking out your a hole here. You are the one that is f*cked up as you say here. The facts are the facts if you like them or not, take your drugs and shut up druggie you can stand the facts can you? Stop pushing them here and every where that you go just because it is legal now.
Rather than waste the time of your intellectual betters here,
(Janie) Intellectual betters, you mean those who believe that to be true are the brain dead from drug waste don't you, if anything? I didn't start this, but there is no one here or anywhere any better then me thank you.
why not go write someone higher in the scam hierarchy a big fat check while diddling yourself with an E-meter or something?
(Janie) I am entitled to write a check to anyone that I want to, and let me assure you anything that I may or may not diddle is none of your damn business, but I believe it was all of your friends that were trying to diddle me and diddling, while they were trying to talk to me, don't you? It wasn't me and you should prove that before you slander me like this to others that don't know me. I am just wondering if it was you too that might have been diddling all this while I have been busy trying to stop this stuff?
Posted by: I Come in the Name of Jesus
(Janie) Stop taking Jesus name in vain here. You have no right, in the name of Jesus if you knew someone named Jesus I think you would croak right this minute.
Posted by: Janie | February 9, 2007 9:03 PM
I'm with Diogenes, here. For some reason, you guys haven't answered him! :) Instead, everyone is dogpiling on Janie, who is 1/ not a scientologist and 2/ nonetheless entitled to live her life without medications if she chooses to.
And anyone who uses the phrase "intellectual betters" is hardly an award winning writer (haven't heard of you, bro) but should face the fact that they are pseudo-science based ideologue forced to lurk like a toad on a blog like this whilst insulting people. You're not impressing me as a self proclaimed savant. You are soo sad. And obviously not taking psychotropics yourself, because at least they would have the singular benefit of shutting you up.
Posted by: Jasmine | February 9, 2007 11:15 PM
Thanks for putting all of this in perspective, Jasmine and Janie!
If you could, please provide a link to peer-reviewed academic sources and references that have given you your particular perspective regarding psychology. It is CRUCIAL that other scientists be able to access information that would falsify their findings, because this would greatly inform current theories.
I realize that you might not believe that all scientists would just "give up" on their prior understanding of the way the brain works, but unless you provide us with factual evidence supporting your side of the story, the more reasonable researchers can't help you out.
Looking forward to getting some science FACTS for a change! Please post it here as soon as you can!
Posted by: Brian | February 10, 2007 1:48 AM
Science---i.e., the empirical evidence---does not support this view. See http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/120
While some antipsychiatry folks may not be all that articulate and while some may rant, the fact is that the observable data supports their general view far more than the POV of this writer.
Posted by: Dan Kriegman | February 10, 2007 5:36 AM
Please answer the hunger strike questions! When you can get these answers and give them to me other then in textbook form, I will have your answers reviewed by Mickey Weinberg, LCSW, he is not a scientologist nor a quack and will have a look at these answers and/or have them looked at for me, and please site your sources. Here they are again:
Medically consistent reliable and valid scientific
A. Evidence That Clearly Establishes the validity of "schizophrenia" "depression" or other "major mental Illnesses" as biologically-based brain diseases.
B. Evidence For A Physical Diagnostic Exam such as a scan or test of the brain, blood, urine, genes, etc that can reliably distinguish individuals with these diagnoses (prior to treatment with psychiatric drugs), from individuals without these diagnoses.
C. Evidence For a Base-line Standard of a neurochemically balanced "normal" personality, against which a neurochemical "imbalance" can be measured and corrected by pharmaceutical means.
D. Evidence That Any Psychotropic Drug can correct a "chemical imbalance" attributed to a psychiatric diagnoses, and is any thing more than a non-specific alterer of physiology.
E. Evidence That Any Psychotropic Drug can reliably decrease the likelihood of violence or suicide.
F. Evidence That Psychotropic Drugs do not in fact increase the overall likelihood of violence and suicide.
G. Finally, that they get this out into the mainstream media, that fact that the use of some psychiatric drugs create real structural brain changes or brain damage over time.
I am not a scientologist, my degree is actually psychology/health/counseling/gerontology. If you want to see some peer supported articles, I suggest that you join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IES-Matters/ and actually read the archives. Although this is a private group it has 3 years worth of articles and the majority of them are peer supported information, some of it is personal chit chat to keep the group going. I will try to get some links and post them here as well, thanks.
Posted by: Janie Lee, M.Ed. | February 10, 2007 10:36 AM
Janie the wonder freak:
"there is no one here or anywhere any better then me thank you."
The word you're looking for is "than," not "then," wise one. BA-DEE-BA-DOO-BA-DEE-DOO-BA-BA-BOO-DA-DEE-BOO!
"take your drugs and shut up druggie you can stand the facts can you? Stop pushing them here and every where that you go just because it is legal now."
Are you in high school yet? Do you know that "everywhere" is one word? Do you know the difference between "can" and "can't"?
These are things you ought to be aware of before your clam starts sprouting hair, and more importantly, before you start ranting on blogs.
Jasmine the orating anus:
"And obviously not taking psychotropics yourself, because at least they would have the singular benefit of shutting you up."
This shows that yoy understand antidepressant drugs as well as the other turd with lips. Since when do they "shut people up," ya big shitty-head? Knoweth though the difference between, say, Haldol and an SSRI? DAMN.
I don't take psych drugs myself. But did the man who wrote this post position himself as an advocate of taking them willy-nilly? No, which is why you need to leave and never come back until your neurons can passably perform their intended tasks. My Lord in Heaven, don't you twits have anything better to do than gather here like ADHD-riddled buzzards and done on at 100,000 RPM about the evils of...what is is exactly you're complaining about again?
Peace.
Posted by: I Come in the Name of Jesus | February 10, 2007 10:45 AM
Anyone who is having trouble finding empirical evidence for neurological disorders is clearly not looking for it.
A google scholar search answers essentially every point you bring up, Janie. I apologize for not posting the absolute b est examples here, since a google scholar of "empirical evidence for schizophrenia" yields over 22,000 hits, and a search for "benefits of medication in schizophrenia" yields 15,000. In about 5 minutes, though, these are some helpful links I found. Note that not all studies referenced here are in favor of a "counter-point" to your argument, but are just representative of what I found in a cursory glance over the literature.
(A) and (B):
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/158/7/1105
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/56/6/537
http://jnnp.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/77/2/229
(C): I'm not sure I understand the question in C. Most disorders occur in such a small fraction of a percent of the population that showing structural differences between this fraction of a percent, compared to other randomly chosen individuals, seems like a reasonable (if overly conservative, actually) comparison to a baseline.
(D):
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15328923
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/187/1/55
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=980693
(E):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8938199&dopt=Abstract
http://www.annalsonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/932/1/24
(E-alternative, supporting original point):
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowFulltext&ProduktNr=223864&Ausgabe=228954&ArtikelNr=68691
(F):
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/57/4/311
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/adis/cns/2004/00000018/00000015/art00006
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/158/9/1449
(G): Again, not sure I understand the question. These are drugs designed to do "something specific" to your brain, which is constantly changing its structure over time regardless of what you do. This question has to be MUCH more specific if it is going to be answered.
It tried to make me sign up for that message board you mentioned, and I generally don't like doing that. Are there actual studies (as opposed to, say, philosophical debates and well-worded opinions), presented in there as well? If so, I'll probably check it out. If not, I'm not sure how it has any bearing on the current debate.
Posted by: Brian | February 10, 2007 2:48 PM
Answer the questions, oh I see you can not answer them, I can see where your brains are, in the frying pan! Sizzle, sizzle, they are fried! You might as well go and drink your beer or booze and smoke your dope and do your coke, because what you are doing is no different actually.
The English language is like the DSM, put together and argued about by a body politic that changes over time, some goes in some goes out and no one fully agrees on any of it. This is true, and as any good writer knows, a good English teacher can mess up any great writer. As any survivor knows this system we have based on psychiatry can mess up any decent human being that it wants to. Hence, you are not a writer! You are a drug head, and that is why you refuse to answer the questions.
I had a profound thought today, I do not do what I do for or because of people like you. Not really! You are inconsequential to things, other then a waste of time and valuable resources.
I do what I do because I know the truth and we have some real and actual brain disases in our world, like tumors, seizures, viral menengitis, brain damage, and such, and those that are affected by them deserve to have some respect, some dignity, some hope. They deserve to have proper and adequate and informed real and valid and reliable research done so that we can possibly find ways of preventing these things and finding true and actual cures for them.
In this respect you are not even close to me or Jasmine, in regards to any humanity or decency, so anything that you have to say is null and void at this point until you can answer these questions from the strikers. And I want them in links with sources right here for all to see.
Posted by: Janie Lee, M.Ed. | February 10, 2007 6:11 PM
You want proof of the biological basis of mental illness? Do a PubMed search and you'll find hundreds of articles. Here's one for you: the finding of altered 5HT2A binding in unmedicated, remitted former depressives provides strong evidence against the "drug-centred" view of depression (e.g., see Moncrieff and Cohen), unless the proponents now want to postulate that drug effects linger on forever!
Zubin Bhagwagar, Rainer Hinz, Matthew Taylor, Sabrina Fancy, Philip Cowen, and Paul Grasby (2006). Increased 5-HT2A Receptor Binding in Euthymic, Medication-Free Patients Recovered From Depression: A Positron Emission Study With [11C]MDL 100,907. American Journal of Psychiatry 163: 1580-1587.
OBJECTIVE: A previous positron emission tomography (PET) study reported increased serotonin 5-HT2A receptor binding in unmedicated depressed patients with high scores on the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale. The purpose of the present study was to use the highly selective 5-HT2A receptor ligand [11C]MDL 100,907 in a PET imaging paradigm to assess 1) 5-HT2A receptor binding potential in euthymic subjects with a history of recurrent depression and 2) the relationship between receptor binding and scores on the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale. METHOD: Cortical 5-HT2A receptor binding was measured in 20 unmedicated, fully recovered unipolar depressed patients and 20 age- and gender-matched comparison subjects. Regional estimates of binding potential were obtained using a reversible plasma input function compartmental model and the cerebellum as a reference region to estimate the free and non-specifically bound [11C]MDL 100,907 in brain tissue. RESULTS: Relative to the comparison subjects, the recovered depressed patients demonstrated significantly higher 5-HT2A receptor binding potential in the frontal cortex (mean increase: 19%), parietal cortex (mean increase: 25%), and occipital cortex (mean increase: 19%). 5-HT2A receptor binding potential correlated negatively with age in both patients and comparison subjects and positively with the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale in the recovered patients. CONCLUSIONS: These findings should be considered preliminary but suggest that recovered subjects with a history of recurrent major depression have elevated binding potential of cortical 5-HT2A receptors. The correlation of increased 5-HT2A receptor binding potential with increased scores on Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale supports earlier work suggesting that increased 5-HT2A receptor availability characterizes a group of depressed patients with high levels of dysfunctional attitudes.
Posted by: The Neurocritic | February 11, 2007 1:42 AM
Thanks Neurocritic!
Also, you could point out the numerous studies that demonstrate structural differences in the brain between schizophrenic and non-schizophrenic patients.
A google scholar search for "empirical evidence of schizophrenia" yields well over 10,000 results.
Posted by: Brian | February 11, 2007 2:00 AM
wait.. but if it's a conspiracy all the psychiatrists must be lying about their results! hahah...
Posted by: steve | February 11, 2007 10:56 AM
Janie, how does it feel to have the weight of thousands and thousands of hours' worth of research, not the mention the Lord, against you? How does it feel to scream, in barely comprehensible English, about other people being poor writers?
Does it feel good just to let it out and be noisy even if the noise carries no truth, relevance, or meaning whatsoever? I hope so, because there are no drugs I am aware of that can make two-year-olds trapped forever in adult bodies grow up. You may wish to smoke dope to take the edge off.
You babble about how the psychiatry establishment is wrong wrong wrong WRONG, but you conspicuously fail to offer either EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS TRUE or ALTERNATIVES TO CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT. This means that you are a deluded shrieking moron whose output is not to be heeded. It is possible that you are literally a clown, one with face paint and floppy shoes and armloads of balloons.
I have emphasized that I happen not to be on any drugs myself, but I don't hesitate to use them as a first line of therapy in my patients. Often it takes two or three of them working in concert to get the right effect, but they work. I know this because I have a medical degree.
On that note, I suspect based on your incoherence that you don't really have a master's degree; even if you do have one, it is in education - mighty Christ, but what a waste of time.
I am guessing all of the foregoing makes you feel precisely like what you are: a screaming, enraged little infant with no recourse except to wail and gurgle. Thanks for bringing the stupid here for our collective amusement.
Now go get laid or something. Your clam clearly needs a little love.
Amen!
Posted by: I Come in the Name of Jesus | February 11, 2007 12:07 PM
A doctor? a medical doctor? and you sound like an idiot, that just goes to show what kind of idiots we really have out there working in this feild doing this kind of stuff to other people. Will you give your real name and credentials so that I can have you investigated by a medical board? Or do you have any of those? If you refuse then why? You do not even write well. I took my time and effort to answer this so called scientific post with this study and as we know many of these studies are paid for by the drug companies and ghost written. However, here is my reply to that:
You want proof of the biological basis of mental illness? Do a PubMed search and you'll find hundreds of articles.
(janie) Yes, this is what I said, and I found the address to PubMed and also sent them the questions that I have requested you answer point by point, their automated machine sent a note that they would have me an answer within 4 days. I will be waiting.
Here's one for you: the finding of altered 5HT2A binding in unmedicated, "remitted former depressives"
(janie) First of all this states that these people are currently off drugs and that they have taken them previous to this study. So this control group has been medicated. What would this look like with a different control group? Say one off the street that has not been labeled at all yet? One that no one has any presupposed presumptions about?
Zubin Bhagwagar, Rainer Hinz, Matthew Taylor, Sabrina Fancy, Philip Cowen, and Paul Grasby (2006). Increased 5-HT2A Receptor Binding in Euthymic, Medication-Free Patients Recovered From Depression: A Positron Emission Study With [11C]MDL 100,907. American Journal of Psychiatry 163: 1580-1587.
A positron emission tomography (PET) is said to generate an image of metabolic or physiologic activity within the body and is produced through the detection of gamma rays that are emitted when introduced radionuclides decay and release positrons. One only needs to look at the accuracy rates of these PETs to see where they fail in validity, reliability, cost, and danger, and to study the ethicalness of using such unreliable and dangerous risk of this test on people for the actual results. With part of the test being based on a "Dysfunctional Attitude Scale" such as some of you show, it would be very subjective and interpretative, thus not reliable or valid, also there are variations in the pictures that they produce over time and over subject.
fully recovered unipolar depressed patients
(janie) Which sets them up as a group of those that have been "diagnosed" and more then likely previously treated and said to be recovered
These findings "should be considered preliminary", but "suggest" ... "supports" earlier work
(janie) Which says that they are not final or reliable, that there may be a financial incentive to look further at these studies, and that it supports others work, and that is actually all this study says
Also, you could point out the numerous studies that demonstrate structural differences in the brain between schizophrenic and non-schizophrenic patients.
(janie) In fact these studies are only done after a person is labeled, and more then likely treated, so this is why there is a difference
A google scholar search for "empirical evidence of schizophrenia" yields well over 10,000 results.
(janie) Empirical=
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, "without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine".
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
Leave my clam or whatever you want to call it out of this, you grow up and if you want to state that you are a doctor give your name, your credentials, and where you got them at, and your place of work otherwise that is also null and void.
Posted by: Janie Lee, M.Ed. | February 11, 2007 12:37 PM
(janie) A positron emission tomography (PET) is said to generate an image of metabolic or physiologic activity within the body and is produced through the detection of gamma rays that are emitted when introduced radionuclides decay and release positrons. One only needs to look at the accuracy rates of these PETs to see where they fail in validity, reliability, cost, and danger, and to study the ethicalness of using such unreliable and dangerous risk of this test on people for the actual results. With part of the test being based on a "Dysfunctional Attitude Scale" such as some of you show, it would be very subjective and interpretative, thus not reliable or valid, also there are variations in the pictures that they produce over time and over subject.
I need to note that this is information that I found.
Posted by: Janie Lee, M.Ed. | February 11, 2007 12:46 PM
By the way who or what is the above picture taken from? You promote drugs and yet you say no forced treatment not ever? And then you would attempt to force it on me and others or at the least push it, how does that make sense?
Posted by: Janie Lee, M.Ed. | February 11, 2007 12:52 PM
The dangers of PET are minimal at worst (I'm not sure where you read that they're both unreliable and dangerous), but the same structural differences in schizophrenics can be shown with other "safer" imaging methods like fMRI.
Even if it were unethical and excessively dangerous to use PET, what bearing would that have on the actual results of the analysis? Does the number 3 get offended because we call it 'odd'? Does the number 7 care if you think it was lucky, or does 13 care if we think it's unlucky? Either way, they're still prime numbers.
Thank you, though, for the definition of empirical. I wasn't sure about what it meant, but decided to include it in my google search anyway. The results of the vast majority of those 10,000 google scholar hits ARE empirical studies, in which results are, as you point out, derived and/or guided by experience or experiment.
I really don't see what the problem is here. There's a mountain of evidence out there that you seem to be systematically rejecting because one of the words in the journal's name happens to be "psychology." I don't see a parallel critique of dermatology, oncology, gerontology, education, or economics, even though the fields often use essentially the same methods. Not liking a field is an insufficient reason to deny its contribution.
Posted by: Brian | February 11, 2007 1:15 PM
"By the way who or what is the above picture taken from? You promote drugs and yet you say no forced treatment not ever? And then you would attempt to force it on me and others or at the least push it, how does that make sense?"
I don't think you really understand sarcasm or irony.
Posted by: steve | February 11, 2007 1:49 PM
The dangers of PET are minimal at worst (I'm not sure where you read that they're both unreliable and dangerous),
(janie) I looked at PubMed! I asked for the accuracy articles and I read some of them, you could do the same thing.
but the same structural differences in schizophrenics can be shown with other "safer" imaging methods like fMRI.
(janie) the point is that they are neither reliable or valid data, that they do not show the same thing from picture to picture same person over time, so to promote harmful treatments because of this is unethical. I asked you to answer the specific questions that I sent this list, and they are not forthcoming where are they?
Even if it were unethical and excessively dangerous to use PET, what bearing would that have on the actual results of the analysis?
(janie) I told you what the analysis was that it was not definitive, that is was questionable, that it suggested not defined or declared in any scientific method that what is says is known fact and that the benefits outweigh any of the risk because they don't. That "is" unethical, especially if you are not one of the people that are having it forced on you and do not want it or think it is right. To brain damage or do other damage to a persons internal organs because of profits, what is ethical about that? In reality only because someone suggest that it might be good for them, and does not care to do harmful experimentation on other human beings? To hurt a child like this? It is the future of our world that is being destroyed!
Does the number 3 get offended because we call it 'odd'?
(janie) You have a right to call yourself anything that you want to, but namecalling certainly isn't right, and if it is in any professional manner it is unethical. I could imagine any real scientist or doctors views of what has been happening here on this board, they should and if they were honest and ethical would distance themselves from this. They would object loudly to what you all are promoting and the way that you all are doing this.
Does the number 7 care if you think it was lucky, or does 13 care if we think it's unlucky? Either way, they're still prime numbers.
(janie) So what we are not talking about numbers we are talking about human beings here, and real human pain and suffering and humiliation tactics and you are promoting this non scientific drugging as if it is great, when it is obviously harmful and there is no scientific medical evidence for it.
Thank you, though, for the definition of empirical. I wasn't sure about what it meant...The results of the vast majority of those 10,000 google scholar hits ARE empirical studies, in which results are, as you point out, derived and/or guided by experience or experiment "without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine".
I really don't see what the problem is here. There's a mountain of evidence out there that you seem to be systematically rejecting because one of the words in the journal's name happens to be "psychology."
(janie) Do not twist what I have said here around, this is not a game, this is serious, and if anyone reads what I write here I want it to be clear to them that I reject this because there is no valid and reliable scientific medical evidence to support it, not because of the name of it. When it is said to be "medical" scientific treatment then it gives those that do not have the knowledge or skill in seeking resources, to answer these questions, the idea that well if a good doctor is doing it then it must be right when it is not even proven scientifically. That is where the misinformation comes in to build coercion and force on. That is wrong, it is unethical, it is immoral, it is Orwellian. Not even to talk about it being against human rights!
I don't see a parallel critique of dermatology, oncology, gerontology, education, or economics, even though the fields often use essentially the same methods. Not liking a field is an insufficient reason to deny its contribution.
(janie) It is systemic for a fact, but it is based on propaganda, and it leads all of these feilds, and if it is based on lies and corruption and deciet then that is why we fight it can't you get that? Do you have some magical block in there like financial incentives or gain to keep you from seeing what is wrong with it? You are not helping anyone actually if that was ever really any of your true intentions here?
"By the way who or what is the above picture taken from? You promote drugs and yet you say no forced treatment not ever? And then you would attempt to force it on me and others or at the least push it, how does that make sense?"
I don't think you really understand sarcasm or irony.
(janie) What are you saying that all of this is only based on your sarcasm and pure irony? If that is the case then I can accept that and I am willing to stop at this point if this is what you are saying. When you attempt to make it look as if it is being based on scientific medical evidence then belittle those that try to explain that it is not, then that is not acceptable to me. No more will you walk over the people that are being or have been hurt by all of this, not as long as I have any ability to get the truth out. I will do that whenever I see the propaganda and lies. Some people have not had the opportunities that I have had and they deserve the best that I can give them and I am not even a doctor. That is what I owe back for all that I have been lucky enough to have been given in this life. There are other and better ways to do much of what is being done that is actually helping those that need assistance, and some truly do.
Posted by: Janie Lee, M.Ed. | February 11, 2007 2:27 PM
You might want to stop since no one here takes you seriously.
You lack a basic understanding of neuroscience and psychology. Whatever you disagree with is blamed on propaganda and some big conspiracy which one can't argue against if you can't see your own logical failings. The fact that your posts are little more than rants with poor logical progression and sentence structure doesn't help your case.
You are wasting your time ranting to people here since at this point people are just mocking you.
Posted by: steve | February 11, 2007 2:50 PM
You might want to stop since no one here takes you seriously.
(janie) I suppose that is because of the ignorance here, I write and think as well as any so called neuroscientist that is here or better, this is a joke of a blog actually, but it isn't mine. A place where you have already admitted it is all based on sarcasm and irony. And you have no actual science, probably no degrees, backing any of you all up. And you know this or you would not let me call you a liar and refuse to answer the questions, because you can not and you know this. If you could answer them you would, I have already given you several chances.
You lack a basic understanding of neuroscience and psychology. Whatever you disagree with is blamed on propaganda and some big conspiracy which one can't argue against if you can't see your own logical failings. The fact that your posts are little more than rants with poor logical progression and sentence structure doesn't help your case.
(janie) I have a good understanding of what I am writing about and also what you are writing about as well, just because you have no ethical way to prove it is not lies don't blame me please. I have answered directly post for post to what you all have said and made all of you all look like what you are idiots. No those that want to do this will laugh about it because that is the only thing you can do now, you have no logical defense and you have little common sense and decency and you know it. You have no respect for yourself or anyone else. The biggest thing that you do not have is any valid and reliable science behind what you do, what you promote, and what you are trying to push and sell to the world. LOL at you.
You are wasting your time ranting to people here since at this point people are just mocking you.
(janie) They can't, that is just their ignorance if they are
Posted by: Janie Lee, M.Ed. | February 11, 2007 5:12 PM
do me a favor and don't make me ban you.
I suggested you stop posting... please do so.
Posted by: steve | February 11, 2007 5:52 PM
"that just goes to show what kind of idiots we really have out there working in this feild...You do not even write well."
I see you didn't take me up on my suggestion to go get your womanly parts marauded. Why not? It's a drug-free "high," although I suspect any man in his right mind would have to ingest susbtantial amounts of alcohol and pot to tolerate sexual congress with the likes of Janie Lee, M. Ed.
Look: You need to get laid worse than anyone I've ever seen. Can't you at least try? Are you huge? Hairy? Do you emit foul odors from your crevices? Regardless, someone will boink you if you try hard enough. Shut the fuck up and do it, please.
Posted by: I Come in the Name of Jesus | February 11, 2007 5:56 PM
haha.. calm down man... calm down... lets keep attacks to intellectual ones :)
Posted by: steve | February 11, 2007 6:54 PM
do me a favor and don't make me ban you.
(janie) Ban me for what? For standing up to your crap? That is okay you go ahead and ban me, you can't ban every one from seeing this board unless you take it down
I suggested you stop posting... please do so.
(janie) Why, so that you all can keep acting like idiots? This is a great example of NAMI and TAC! You people represent them is that correct? I don't! Don't want to.
I see you didn't take me up on my suggestion to go get your womanly parts marauded. Why not? It's a drug-free "high," although I suspect any man in his right mind would have to ingest susbtantial amounts of alcohol and pot to tolerate sexual congress with the likes of Janie Lee, M. Ed.
(janie) That is really none of yours or this list business now is it, I do not even know who you are, but I still wouldn't even want you to touch me with a 10 foot pole! Even though from the attitudes here I can tell that you are pretty likely to believe in physical and mental rape, any time that you want to.
Look: You need to get laid worse than anyone I've ever seen. Can't you at least try? Are you huge? Hairy? Do you emit foul odors from your crevices? Regardless, someone will boink you if you try hard enough. Shut the fuck up and do it, please.
(janie) I see, of course this is a very scientific way to put things. and ban me I did not start this you are only banning me because you have no better way to respond and you are not professionals.
haha.. calm down man... calm down... lets keep attacks to intellectual ones :)
(janie) Why are you not threatening to ban the rest of these people? Oh I see they are your flunkies right? You ban me and I will do my best to see what I can do about having this blog bannned okay get it? Of course you all are not worth it, but do they really know what is going on here and on blogger? Geuss if I have to we will see? What school did you say that you attend or that you ??? at where is it that you said you got your degree from? Where are your answers to these questions? Thanks, Janie
Posted by: Janie Lee, M.Ed. | February 11, 2007 7:12 PM
Only one person has been making especially rude comments to you, and he's clearly an asshole. The rest of us have been trying to reason with you, and you refuse to listen. I've asked you, repeatedly, to cite an academic source that backs up your claims, and you've only posted newsgroups, forums, and other people's opinions. Real academic sources supporting your argument should be at your fingertips, so you can fight back with something more substantive than your personal beliefs.
You've asked us to provide sources, and we've done that. There are specific papers cited in the comments above, and examples of google scholar searches that will point you in the right direction. When I tried to give you searches to be helpful, you gave me a dictionary definition of "empirical" instead of actually reading the freely-available summaries of the papers.
When presented with counter-examples, you've claimed that none of us have degrees. In fact, you continue to make this claim. I have a masters degree in psychology from one of the top five schools in the country. I'd tell you which one but I'm afraid you (or someone else) would find me and kill me.
I'm not a member of "NAMI" or "TAC", and I couldn't even tell you what those acronyms meant. I'm just a guy who wishes you'd actually listen when people disagree with you, instead of assuming they were part of a giant conspiracy.
Anyway, these are wasted words, because I suspect that you STILL will assume I have no degree, am incredibly ignorant, and am part of a conspiracy. After all, denying it just makes me seem more guilty, right? Goodbye Janie.
Posted by: Brian | February 11, 2007 7:45 PM
I told you what I did to verify what information you gave me or did not give me. And you can not answer the questions that I poised to you. I am not a killer your or some of your friends here may be, I am not. Thank you.
Posted by: Janie Lee, M.Ed. | February 11, 2007 7:56 PM
uhh.. getting my blog banned? by whom? uhh.. what?
Posted by: steve | February 11, 2007 8:03 PM
By the way none of my friends, including the ones that posted here and may still post here again, are killers. They are all very good people, you might be surprised who some of them are. Why don't you open your minds and actually try to learn? What you're doing is hurting a lot of people more then helping anything. You lie when you say that you do not know who NAMI and TAC are you have links pointing to them on this list. I will try to get some links just as soon as I can and when I hear from MedPlus I will let you know. Other then that if I do not hear from you again, you will not hear from me until then.
Posted by: Janie Lee, M.Ed. | February 11, 2007 8:23 PM
Hi Brian,
It is thought that structural changes to the brains of those with schizophrenia happen as a result of the psychiatric drugs that they are on.
What do you think of Loren Mosher's work with Soteria? Two thirds of his patients did recover without medication. Any responses?
To the person who has a (self-proclaimed) medical degree and is clearly being inapproprately sexually aggressive toward Janie in what I can only deem a highly sociopathnic manner- I fully agree with her that you should be banned from this forum for your comments. Do you talk to your patients that way? I hope so. I would love to see you kicked out of the profession.
Before you start clogging the airways with even more nonsensical snottery about your achievements, let me assure you that I am also highly educated and that my my GPA in college is almost certainly guaranteed to be better than yours.
Look, if you were even an average debater, you would be able to defend your points without reverting to masochism and sexual sadism. As a woman, I feel that you have violated a sacred trust between yourself and any woman that that comes to you as a patient through your comments and their inherent disrespect for the female gender. How exactly you have managed to work references to a woman's sexual anatomy into a debate about psychiatry and then not been immediately jumped on by your confreres is truly stupendous. Sorry, Steve, "rude" doesn't cover it, really. In fact, all of this snickering, and the self-congratulatory nudges between friends on this board are making it start to appear as a fraught boys' club that is rife with misplaced chauvinistic arrogance. It doesn't look good, people. Janie may definitely have her issues, but that doesn't mean that you have to unveil some deep rooted psychological problems in your dealings with her. And before you start whining, this comment is nothing, hon, to what would happen if I sicced the feminists on you. Which I really should.
Posted by: Jasmine | February 12, 2007 12:06 AM
Hey hey,
What's the story boys? Why would you tell a woman you don't like to get screwed? Isn't that what men have been doing for milennia? I'm Jasmine's roommate, Leah. Amd I think you boys need some education around how to talk to women. We'd like to volunteer for the job, but we're too busy writing papers on how psychiatry is sometimes misused to socially control women.
So..ah..try to get it together on your own, kids!
Posted by: Leah | February 12, 2007 12:11 AM
uhh.. getting my blog banned? by whom? uhh.. what?
No, not you, Steve. I think that you should get "Come in the Name of Jesus" banned, instead of going "haha" at his misogynistic comments.
Thanks for letting me clear that up!
Posted by: Jasmine | February 12, 2007 12:21 AM
I am aware that there is a link between some structural differences in the brain and medication, however there is a growing body of evidence that important differences exist prior to medication:
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/153/2/191
This next paper provides moderate support for both points (non-medicated schizophrenics showed reduced thalamic volume compared to healthy adults, but some structural differences existed between medicated and non-medicated patients):
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/153/2/191
Reduced thalamic volume is, from what I can tell, very commonly associated with schizophrenia, and appears to exist prior to medication. As this has been demonstrated over a decade ago, I'm not sure why it's still called into question.
I am not personally aware of Mosher's work. I'll look in to it, so thanks for the heads up (though I do wonder about the remaining third... I'd imagine there's a link between the success of his treatment and the severity of the symptoms of schizophrenia?).
Also, if people are going to keep posting here, please make it at least relatively sciency? This is a thread that derailed a long time ago, so if it's just going to be more insults and threats, perhaps it's time to close it up for good.
Posted by: Brian | February 12, 2007 12:39 AM
What Brian Said,
And...admin has the right to ban anyone...anytime...for any reason ;)
Posted by: admin | February 12, 2007 12:48 AM
Brian,
Psychiatrists admit that they have diagnosed people with schizophrenia and they do not always have the brain changes- plus manic depression shows no palpable change to the brain, yet patients are often placed on the same medications.
According to established thinking in the field, schizophrenia is actually something like twenty different diseases, all masquerading as one. That would explain why some patients benefit from medication, and others genuinely don't need it; the difficult part of equation is identifying which are which. I am very pleased that you are going to look for Mosher's work. He has quite a following on the Internet and a google search should be able to provide you with the information you need, including the ability to order his wonderful, landmark book.
Its always good to get different sides of the debate talking to one another- so often they don't want to! ;)
Posted by: Jasmine | February 12, 2007 1:44 AM
I just read a nice review of Soteria by Ciompi and Hoffmann, who I think summarize the findings pretty well: individual problem-centered, context-related and personality-adapted can provide some of the benefits often ascribed to antipsychotic drugs. However, they note that in most cases, the treatment does not eliminate the need for these drugs (though the dosage is often substantially lower).
I suspect part of the reason that Soteria doesn't get more traction academically is that there is a) a seemingly unpredictable relationship between individuals who benefit from it (around 80%, according to what I read) and those who still require hospitalization, and b) there are too few Soteria-based treatment facilities to provide data with much statistical power. As a result, it ends up being hard to say with certainty that Soteria can be a viable solution for all (or most) patients. Perhaps that'll be less of a problem as more of these places become available.
Anyway, there MUST be a distinction between "what psychiatrists do" and "what happens to your brain." As I previously mentioned, there is a lot of evidence showing that something's up with schizophrenic brains, even prior to medication. In other words, there is something biological that causes schizophrenia (even the Soteria people don't argue with that!). Whether most psychiatrists use that information correctly or not is a completely different story. I'm not a psychiatrist, so I can't tell you what they're trained to do.
Posted by: Brian | February 12, 2007 2:07 AM
Sigh. Y'know, I was going to stay out of this (Janie - tl;dr though I am a bit flattered you wrote an 1847-word comment to my post) but then Jasmine said, "...manic depression shows no palpable change to the brain."
There are 607 studies in PubMed to the contrary, including dozens of reviews (not including studies on depression, just bipolar disorder). Many are on pediatric bipolar disorder, first-episode and drug-naive subjects. They include structural, functional, neuropsychological/cognitive and neurochemical brain imaging using MRI, fMRI, PET, MRS, VBM, DTI, and EEG. This also doesn't include post-mortem neuropathological studies on structural, cellular and chemical abnormalities.
Too much to summarize (except to say that the ventral prefrontal cortex, hippocampus and amygdala are frequently affected), so I picked just one particularly well-designed study. Cortical abnormalities in bipolar disorder investigated with MRI and voxel-based morphometry, Nugent et al., NeuroImage 2006 Apr 1;30(2):485-97. "This study revealed morphometric abnormalities in BD in regions of the medial and orbital PFC, STG and PCC that, together with anatomically related areas of the amygdala, hippocampus, striatum, thalamus, hypothalamus and brain stem, form part of a visceromotor network that regulates the expression and experience of emotion." View pretty pictures.
If you don't have access to the journal, there's a good rebuttal [free PDF] to the silly assertion depression is not brain-based in the current issue of the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. In part: "Structural imaging studies have demonstrated that recurrent episodes of depression and a longer duration of untreated illness correlate with decreased hippocampal volume and with neurocognitive impairment... Further, depression patients treated with antidepressants have shown improved performance on various neurocognitive measures, compared with untreated depression patients...regional brain abnormalities are present in depression, are reversed in antidepressant responders, and are not replicated by placebo." Similarly, lithium, valproate and other drugs have been shown to have neuroprotective and neurotrophic effects that prevent and possibly reverse the progression of bipolar disorder.
I could provide more but I suspect you're not going to read it anyway. Janie's convinced there's no scientific evidence even though she's never heard of PubMed, so why consider anything it indexes? If the webmaster actually does reply to your email, Janie, please do let us know, that'd be more shocking than any of this. I'm not going to answer the hunger strike questions myself in this comment, but watch for a new post.
I totally agree with you, Jasmine and Leah, that Mr. Name-of-Jesus and his dumb, crude, sexist comment about getting laid is way offensive. Perhaps he needs to remove the stick up his ass he's masturbating with. Gee, that's not offensive, is it? ;-)
A note: psychiatrists don't use neuroimaging in clinical practice. (Yet.) This research is about understanding pathophysiology, leading to improved treatment and diagnostics in practice down the road. But there are simple blood tests for cortisol, amino acids, etc. that theoretically could be used now, and EEG is pretty accessible.
Finally, empirical evidence clearly shows that a combination of meds with CBT talk therapy and psychoeducation is the most effective treatment for many mental illnesses. It's not all about the drugs.
Posted by: Sandra Kiume | February 12, 2007 8:11 AM
It does not actually bother me how you all talk, it shows that you all are just as human as anyone else, it is not what I would expect out of a "reputable" person that was going to help me with any of my so called troubles if I had any. Let me rephrase that as long as it is not hurtful, spiteful, ignorance directed at me or my friends, that is what got me here, but I think we can move beyond that hopefully?
This is what I want to say now, since again I am mentioned, I am busy now and will get back with you. I think that if you know I am waiting for PubMed to get back with me, then you know that I am at least by now aware of it.
I do appreciate the articles that you all submit, but you must pay closer attention to the "wording" in them. Even if I use a dictionary which is the most adequate resource that anyone can get at this point in time, it does matter what the definitions of words are, and not just how one would like to interpret them.
If I am not banned I will come back when I have some links and also like I said I need to give a few days to get an answer or not?
The only reason that you would have for banning me is that I stood up for myself and what I know to be facts. If you have other facts about the hunger strike questions then submit them to us for our review please? Thanks, Janie
Posted by: Janie Lee, M.Ed. | February 12, 2007 2:24 PM
just keep going...
Posted by: steve | February 12, 2007 2:35 PM
Hello, Janie, Jasmine, Leah, Brian, and Sandra;
(NOT "I come..", however, who's writing is so full of character and intelligence attacks and sexual agression that he readily demonstrates he doen't know how to form a coherent argument.)
If you don't mind, Sandra, I'd like to go back to the things you said in your satire about New Year's resolutions, at the start of this thread:
1. I, and the advocates I know personally, do NOT tell people to throw away their pills! We are all too aware, by direct observation,