October 15, 2007

Meds Or Vitamins As Cure For Bipolar Disorder?

Over the years I've met several bipolars who claim they were cured through diet and vitamins. They are always very passionate when talking about their cure and, as dubious as I tend to be of any claims of a "cure," I usually walked away partly jealous of the people who claim themselves cured and wondering if there wasn't something to their approach. Such a question isn't exactly asked by researchers and advocates for the mentally ill, even though they often pay lip service to such notions as nutrition and physical health. At the same time, psych docs do a poor job of monitoring whether their patients are even eating at all, much less what they are eating. The proportion of folks with depression and schizophrenia, for example, whom I've watched literally starve themselves is astounding. It's a phenomenon that the mental health industry would do well to pay more attention to.

Here's an article on a woman named Autumn Stringham from Alberta, Canada, who was seriously doped upon five meds. Her father and others started a nutritional treatment company--Truehope--and she was "cured." The company and its products have been the source of much friction involving researchers and the Canadian government, which eventually went after the company for making claims it felt were unsupportable.

I'm a bit dubious about claims that diet and nutrition can cure bipolar disorder or other mental illnesses, but I am just as dubious that Seroquel or Effexor can do the same. But I've run into enough cases over the years of people reforming their behavior through the vitamin cure that I'd be a fool to discount their claims too much.

Posted by Philip Dawdy at October 15, 2007 10:55 AM
StumbleUpon Toolbar del.icio.us Digg it reddit
Comments

Eating well, keeping alcohol/caffeine intake to a moderate level, getting exercise, and setting a consistent sleep schedule will go a long way toward "curing" someone of just about anything. Because people naturally self-medicate with food (and its effects on blood sugar, serotonin, et al), a good, person-specific diet can both remove stressors and add to someone's capability to handle fluctuations. Throw in some CBT, and that's even better. It may not be a cure-all, but it certainly could be a cure-a-lot, and one whose effects endure.

Posted by: MvB at October 15, 2007 12:19 PM

Hm. Well, I'm on 900 mg lithium, 200 mg Lamictal (when it was discovered the lithium was not enough to keep the swings at bay), plus I take fish oil caplets and a full multivitamin with iron. I find that both in tandem are necessary for me, because when I'm not properly nourished, I'm moody anyway, but vitamins alone definitely weren't enough to "cure" my disorder. I wouldn't say I'm "cured" now (I don't think it's possible to say I'm cured when if I'm off the meds, I'm basically non-functional), but I am definitely stable.

So, I'd say both have their merits, and that even if you're on meds, it's important to be well in body. I would also say that I wouldn't be surprised if it was eventually found that poor diet/nutrition are huge triggers for mental illness. Sort of like the people who have bipolar disorder "induced" through anti-depressants, but are fine once they go off the Zoloft or whatever, it's possible that there are people who are actually triggered by poor diet who improve dramatically once their body is in proper working order.

Posted by: Meredith at October 15, 2007 01:16 PM

There are mothers who have used this in the United States, "EmPower", with Dr. Charles Popper, read a bit here:EmPower/Truehope/Harvard.
When the Childhood Bipolar Paradigm based on adult criteria w/Pharmaceuticals was becoming popular at the same time it happened to my daughter. Some parents took the EmPower route, and ditched Zoloft etc., and I like a fool still listened "to authority".

~other mothers challenged the thought leaders at CABF bp kids dot org.[Biederman]

Posted by: Stephany at October 15, 2007 05:33 PM

I wouldn't have been able to withdraw from 50 mg Seroquel, 200 mg Zoloft, 200 mg of Lamictal and 11 mg of Risperdal if it hadn't been for my diet and nutrition. It's not all smooth sailing, but I'm not relapsing or getting emotionally ill. I am physically ill right now. The drugs wreck your body and withdrawal is hard on it.

This is 20 years of drugging I'm leaving behind in large part because I've changed my diet and nutrition and I'm now adding meditation. No one has to believe, but not even trying healthy ways to help oneself is just stupid.

Posted by: Gianna at October 15, 2007 06:26 PM

I think you are right that psychiatrists merely "pay lip service to such notions as nutrition and physical health", and it is tragic. Having seen two psychiatrists, neither have ever directly or indirectly asked me what I was doing to take care of myself.

Fixing my erratic college-student sleep cycle helped me dramatically. And oddly enough, drinking enough water has enormously as well. I also eat tons of greens, and swim a mile every other day.

I would never say nutrition and exercise can replace medication, but I think no one conducts research on less expensive alternatives because they are simply not profitable.

Posted by: NAP at October 15, 2007 06:48 PM

I know many of the folks who make or use supplements are in terror that Pharma and the FDA will capture their businesses, grab them away, then charge giant prices for the products. I see this all the time in alternative medicine publications. How real this may be I don't know. But my daughter is about to try orthomolecular psychiatry. Everything else has been a disaster.

Posted by: Affecta at October 15, 2007 08:01 PM

Most placebo-controlled studies of Omega-3 fatty acids suggest that they're marginally effective in bipolar disorder. There's also a study that I'm aware of that suggests they're marginally effective in the treatment of borderline personality disorder.

Posted by: Simon at October 15, 2007 08:41 PM

All my psychiatrists have encouraged me to exercise / continue to exercise my running of 3 miles a day. They're always on me for the sleep schedule which I just can't seem to manage. It seems they're open to that there are certainly other non-med things that can at the very least help with stability. They haven't ever said much about diet except limiting alcohol.

I doubt that just vitamins can be a "cure" or anything close. For the most part I'm an extremely healthy individual and I always have been but that didn't keep me away from any erratic mood cycles. Hell I was training for a triathalon and... all hell broke loose.

Posted by: Nathaniel at October 15, 2007 09:15 PM

Oh, as far as the product you mention above by Truehope. The ingredient list doesn't impress me in the least, but I have had a number of people stop by my blog and say it has worked for them, so I won't deny their reality. Personally I feel better about controlling each nutrient I put in my body and feel that some of the stuff in their product is not at optimal levels and one of the ingredients I know made me manic when I tried it, so I wouldn't try their product for anything. Everyone is unique. I trust it works for some. I rather do the research and come up with a formula unique for myself.

Posted by: Gianna at October 16, 2007 03:53 AM

Nathaniel, it's good that you exercise. Just remember not having a regular sleep cycle is one of the things pathologized by mental health professionals. Sure, if you have an extreme manic state where you don't sleep at all for a week or so, that's serious. Insomnia, however is a normal part of the human condition. If you compare sleeping drug commercials to bipolar commercials, note this: in the bipolar commercials you usually see a woman, like the abilify piece with the woman walking through the woods, obviously a housewife; in the sleep commercials you usually see a professional man, like that darned beaver/Abe Lincoln series. Message: Women who don't sleep are crazy, men who don't sleep have insomnia. Except that you're a guy which blows my theory a little.

I think the placebo effect can make a person sick, i.e. if a doctor tells you you are unstable and can't control yourself, you can't. And then he gives you drugs to make this a physical fact. So someone, terribly upset about something sees a phrink. He says there's nothing in your life that should be upsetting you so much but your brain is abnormal and makes you think there is. So you act this way. Sort of like when someone tells you you don't look well and find an ache to focus on.

On the other hand, if you believe that vitamens will make you stable, they will. And then there are people who are born more emotionally volatile than others. If you see this as debilitating to you, a valid choice, you have every right to take medication and to be given honest information about this medication.

No I don't have any research to back up this theory and don't mean to belittle what others believe.

Posted by: Sally at October 16, 2007 05:27 AM

I have found yoga and being a vegeterian helpful. I stopped my Lithium after many bouts of projectile vomiting. I still have bad day, and wonder if meds are the answer, but I am very aware each day to get out in the sun, and stick to a routine that includes the gym, even for 30 minutes. My therapist always asks about my sleeping, which is better lately. I am trying to believe that acute awareness of my triggers (stay away from triggers) and yoga have really helped me. I have been in the medical field for 20 years, and it is rare to meet someone who considers nutrition & exercise first or in combination therapy. I believe the drug companies have infiltrated medical schools and pushed the write a prescription to the point that it is second nature for a provider.

Posted by: L at October 16, 2007 05:53 AM

Physical exercise, a regular sleep pattern, minimizing alcohol and eating well appear to be crucial for me staying well. I doubt vitamin therapy, on its own, could come close to having such an impact.

Just as psychiatrists ignore the basics (e.g. nutrition) and whip out their prescription pads, I fear that patients, too, ignore the basics and pop pills (vitamins or psych meds). We, as a society, are in love with the idea of popping pills. The truth is that staying healthy is pretty simple.

Posted by: Francesca Allan at October 16, 2007 09:19 AM

I can't speak for BP, but I can speak for my fiance's progress in managing schizophrenia. He's been adapting some of the suggestions published by Dr. Abram Hoffer, a Canadian doctor (find him on Wikipedia) with a focus in orthomolecular psychiatry, specifically focusing on Niacine/Niacinimide/B3, and while it's not a total fix like Hoffer seems to think it might be, in conjunction with a low dose of antipsych it's working very well. Cure? I don't know. Manage: definately.

It would certainly not surprise me if other physio/psychological issues could be treated in such a way.

Posted by: Lissa at October 16, 2007 09:52 AM

don't know if you got this:

Oh, as far as the product you mention above by Truehope. The ingredient list doesn't impress me in the least, but I have had a number of people stop by my blog and say it has worked for them, so I won't deny their reality. Personally I feel better about controlling each nutrient I put in my body and feel that some of the stuff in their product is not at optimal levels and one of the ingredients I know made me manic when I tried it, so I wouldn't try their product for anything. Everyone is unique. I trust it works for some. I rather do the research and come up with a formula unique for myself.

Posted by: Gianna at October 16, 2007 10:06 AM

Hi, I found your site through the Bipolar Blast blog. If you have any doubts about the efficacy of vitamins, amino acids and whole foods in healing for mental health, I would like to suggest that you read the book, "Depression Free, Naturally" by Joan Mathews-Larson, founder of the Health Recovery Center. This book is both practical and enlightening. -- Believe me the answers are out there, if you search for them. I am a psych survivor and if not for the healing power of whole foods, vitamins and amino acids, omega-3, etc., I would not be in recovery today. It takes a combination of treatments. The psych meds that were forced upon me for years have caused me serious side effects, including tardive dyskinesia. Psych meds made me feel spiritually dead inside and wreaked havoc on my body. Everyone has a right to feel whole in mind, body and spirit and psychiatric drugs kill, but vitamins heal. It is possible to get better with proper diet and nutrition, but it dangerous to do it alone or go cold turkey. The psych meds take years to withdraw from because of the horrible addictive qualities. I am slowly recoverying, but I am recovering due to healthy alternatives....we must fight for our health. It is a human right and a quality of life issue. Other experts in the field include Dr. Jay S. Cohen (medicationsense.com), Dr. Joseph Mercola (mercola.com), Dr. Andrew Saul (doctoryourself.com).

Posted by: Denise at October 16, 2007 10:47 AM

I'm not trying to start a flame war but I have to say I really can't stand Dr. Hoffer a.k.a. The Vitamin King. He spent a lot of time researching electroshock and niacin on schizophrenics and claimed results that could not be duplicated. Hoffer is from my home town and I used to see him a lot on the psych ward and found him to be a bit of a pompous git.

I have an issue with the whole idea that any mental illness is about chemical deficiencies/abnormalities, whether we're talking about neurotransmitters or vitamins. These theories are simply not supported by the research so let's move on, please.

Supportive environments (decent housing, meaningful work, access to social programs) are well-known to be helpful to the mentally ill. In the absence of any better option, could we not put our treatment dollars there? It cost them $800 a day to incarcerate, torture and humiliate me. Had we spent that money on setting up housing for me instead, we'd all be better off.

Posted by: Francesca Allan at October 16, 2007 01:41 PM

A spot on Good Morning America just spurred my memory. Part of my saga involves sleeping through a final in my third semester of law school. I was exhausted. I went to a phrink (yes, I'd seen them in the past due to family probs and their effect on me and because I'm trained as a counselor and I still believe voluntary, anonymous counseling works and everyone should try it at least once). I wanted the pshrink to write me an adderall prescription so I could compete with all of the other students who were high on it but as I have a heart murmur and a drug addict mother, in the end both the doc and I were afraid of the effect that might have on me so he explained he thought I had dysthemia and I started on effexor.

I did mention to him that I was exhausted and having heart palpatations. We both thought panic attacks and depression. He didn't run a blood test.

Finally months later when I couldn't afford the effexor and didn't like it because as I told him it took away my anxiety but I was still tired so I was left with a horrible non anxious knowledge I had a lot to do, I went to a regular doctor, told him I was tired. He ran a full blood test and called me later to say, "no wonder you are tired, you are severly anemic" and since it was Alabama, recommended a hysterectomy. Finally I ended up at the local health food store and told the vitamen girl able my plight - anemia so severe a doctor recommended a hysterectomy, and she recommended an iron supplement. I've been through hell since then, but I've not been tired.

And I might add, Alabama has both a horribly backwards traditional medical community, and a pretty amazing forward thinking alternative health and healing community.

Still, I must partically retract my previous statement that vitamens can heal mental illness due to the placebo effect. That can happen and when it does, it is great, but it is also true that physical problems have psychological symptoms and can be cured with vitamens, herbs, nutrients, and even, at times, traditional medicines, and they said so on Good Morning America today (which does not make if false;).

Posted by: Sally at October 18, 2007 05:44 AM

I cannot resist a number of comments about
the comments... "email style".....


> Over the years I've met several bipolars who claim they
> were cured through diet and vitamins. They are always very
> passionate when talking about their cure and, as dubious
> as I tend to be of any claims of a "cure," I usually
> walked away

"Cure"?! Doubtful, but possible. "Controlled", probably.

> I'm a bit dubious about claims that diet and nutrition
> can cure bipolar disorder or other mental illnesses, but I
> am just as dubious that Seroquel or Effexor can do the
> same.

Right. At least with diet and nutrition there is the
possibility of real healing, whereas the drugs never heal.
Which is not to dismiss drugs. They're often helpful. They
sometimes give the body (preferably the well-nourished
body!) a great opportunity to heal. Nothing against them.
But they do not, themselves, heal.

> I think you are right that psychiatrists merely "pay lip
> service to such notions as nutrition and physical health",
> and it is tragic. Having seen two psychiatrists, neither
> have ever directly or indirectly asked me what I was doing
> to take care of myself.

Right. Par for the course. I used to get upset about this,
until finally realized that it is not their business. They
are not in the health business, they are in the disease
business. They treat diseases. And that's fine. It is very
necessary. But taking care of your health is a different,
larger matter for which YOU are responsible, not them.

> Most placebo-controlled studies of Omega-3 fatty acids
> suggest that they're marginally effective in bipolar
> disorder.

True. The reason to get a goodly amount of omega-3 fatty
acids is to build a healthy brain, and to secure the
manifold benefits of that (less bipolar, less cognitive
problems, less risk of Alzheimer's, and much much more) --
NOT to "cure" a disease. Nutrients are for the purpose of
building health. They work well for that.

> I still have bad day, and wonder if meds are the answer,
> but I am very aware each day to get out in the sun,

Great idea! Vitamin D deficiency is pandemic. And it
appears that vitamin D is required for a healthy brain and
normal mood. (Not only vitamin D, but you get better
nighttime melatonin release when you've been in the sun
the previous day.)

vis:

http://www.cholecalciferol-council.com/Depression.pdf
Major Depression and Vitamin D

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/91/101374.htm
Low Blood Levels of Vitamin D May Be Linked to Cause of
Depression

http://www.cholecalciferol-council.com/Vieth'sStudyDepression.pdf
Press Release: Vieth Vitamin D & Mood Study

http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/8
Randomized comparison of the effects of the vitamin D3
adequate intake versus 100 mcg (4000 IU) per day on
biochemical responses and the wellbeing of patients

> I can't speak for BP, but I can speak for my fiance's
> progress in managing schizophrenia. He's been adapting
> some of the suggestions published by Dr. Abram Hoffer, a
> Canadian doctor (find him on Wikipedia) with a focus in
> orthomolecular psychiatry, specifically focusing on
> Niacine/Niacinimide/B3, and while it's not a total fix
> like Hoffer seems to think it might be, in conjunction
> with a low dose of antipsych it's working very well.

That's odd. Hoffer never suggested that vitamins were
a "total fix". He seldom prescribed them without drugs
as well. This is very clear from his articles.

> Cure? I don't know. Manage: definately.

Thank you.

> Dr. Hoffer...spent a lot of time researching
> electroshock and niacin on schizophrenics and claimed
> results that could not be duplicated.

Too bad they never tried! I mean, they never actually
duplicated his protocols; hence their trials mean
little.

> I have an issue with the whole idea that any mental
> illness is about chemical deficiencies/abnormalities,
> whether we're talking about neurotransmitters or vitamins.
> These theories are simply not supported by the research so
> let's move on, please.

They are supported by overwhelming research. Which is not
for a moment to say that that research, and those
"chemical deficiencies/abnormalities", are themselves the
whole story. They are only one angle on things -- a good
and useful one, but not the only one. I agree that things
like "supportive environments" are extremely important.

Posted by: alan at October 18, 2007 06:02 PM

Alan, I just wanted to comment on your comments (new comments are preceded by **):

Francesca: Dr. Hoffer...spent a lot of time researching electroshock and niacin on schizophrenics and claimed results that could not be duplicated.

Alan: Too bad they never tried! I mean, they never actually duplicated his protocols; hence their trials mean little.

** No, you misunderstood what I wrote. Hoffer's research was duplicated and the results were dismal. Hence, Hoffer's trials mean nothing.

Francesca: I have an issue with the whole idea that any mental illness is about chemical deficiencies/abnormalities, whether we're talking about neurotransmitters or vitamins. These theories are simply not supported by the research so let's move on, please.

Alan: They are supported by overwhelming research. Which is not for a moment to say that that research, and those "chemical deficiencies/abnormalities", are themselves the
whole story. They are only one angle on things -- a good and useful one, but not the only one. I agree that things like "supportive environments" are extremely important.

** No, the research is not "overwhelming." There's a remarkable lack of evidence for the biochemical theory of mental illness. There is no biochemical correlate for mood disorders or schizophrenia or any other mental state.

** Despite superficially compelling brain scans (which are actually computer-generated averages, rather than a scan of any individual crazy brain) displayed on CNN earlier this year, the truth is that there is no way to measure neurotransmitters or neuroactivity in a living person. The scans merely measure blood flow and blood flow may or may not be correlated with neural activity. One could just as easily hypothesize that blood flow is increased to the area where neurons *aren’t* firing properly.

** Serotonin (alleged to be correlated with mood disorders) cannot be measured in a living brain. Serotonin’s metabolites, however, can be drawn via spinal tap and much research has gone into trying to link mental disorders with abnormal levels of serotonin metabolites. This is potentially fascinating; however, serotonin is a multi-tasker and not just a neurotransmitter. Over 90% of the body’s serotonin is found in the gut (it is crucial to muscle contraction) so, when we draw the metabolites, we don’t even know what we’re measuring.

** Indeed, there is no objective test for any mental illness so there is no way to prove or disprove an alleged psychiatric disorder. A psychiatric diagnosis is a clinical impression morphed into a moral verdict. It is not a medical judgment. The words
“mental,” “psychiatric,” “behavioural” are loosy-goosy terms that reflect a loosy-goosy pseudo-science. To paraphrase Thomas Szasz, if there ever were an objective test for any mental illness, then the disorder would cease to be mental. Depression really would be “a chemical imbalance, just like diabetes!” And monkeys really would fly out of my ass.

** Thank you for agreeing that "supportive environments" are important, though. Support has proven to be critical in my own recovery and that of every ex-mental patient I have ever met.

Posted by: Francesca Allan at October 19, 2007 07:46 AM

I take strong exception to Francesca Allen's notion that Dr. Hoffer's work is "unproven." I personally believe that his research into abnormal pyroles in some mental illnesses is much, much stronger, than the research used to sell drugs such as zyprexa, prozac, and the like.

It's quite simple; he had sick people pee into a bottle, and put the urine a chromatograph.

Posted by: Jaime at October 19, 2007 08:00 AM

I believe you've just damned Dr. Hoffer with very faint praise, if you're suggesting that his research is more respectable than Big Pharma's. Who's isn't?

If Hoffer's got the answer to schizophrenia, why doesn't the mainstream get on board? Peeing into a bottle is simple enough ... but then what happened?

Posted by: Francesca Allan at October 19, 2007 09:06 PM

Ms. Allan,

I choose to research thoroughly research controversial subjects before I post about it on the internet. May I suggest you do the same?

Hoffer, MD, PhD, that he is, took schizophrenics' and bipolars' urine, and looked for differences. He found that there was an unknown substance (mauve factor) in their urine. He, and his co-workers eventually identified it ( a deformed pyrole they named kryptopyrole), and realized that it leaches Zinc and B6 out of the body.

As I understand it, zinc and B6 have many uses, but with pathologically low zinc levels, you become paranoid and perhaps aggressive, B6 is indispensable for the adequate production of neurotransmitters; with pathologically low levels of neurotransmitters, you hallucinate. Hoffer et al found that if they got B6 and Zn levels back to normal the "schizophrenics" with this anomaly in their urine no longer were "schizoprenic." You have people with kryptopyrole counts of 2,500 who were hopelessly delusional for months; within days of getting zinc and B6 levels right, they were healthy.

The paradox of being a doctor is that the worst thing that can befall a doctor is to not have any patients; the establishment, which represented America's psychiatrists, America's for-profit psychiatric hospitals, and America's for-profit drug companies cannot have been too pleased. They slapped a panel together that reported that Hoffer's therapy didn't work, which is amazing as I know people and doctors who swear they have seen it work. Hoffer wrote a rebuttal that was more than 100 pages long going all the reasons why their "findings" *cannot* have been serious; they were never answered. In fact, one of the 5 members of the panel later admitted that the report had been dishonest, and never got a grant again.

As a rule I try to shy away from conspiracy theories; generally human stupidity, ignorance, and sloth suffice to explain why stupid things happen, but this is one case where I am in no doubt whatsoever that there was a conspiracy to advance the interests of the medical establishment over those of the patients. But you are correct; this anomaly is strongly exacerbated by stress. In other words, if you have it, you will need much more help to deal with stressful situations. But if you don't have it, you can tolerate a lot more stress.

I think that how Lilly marketed zyprexa and prozac was extremely sleazy, but nothing even remotely like what Hoffer, and his co-workers such as Pfeiffer had to deal with. Look into Eva Edelman's book before you form any opinions.

Posted by: Jaime at October 20, 2007 09:41 AM


A reply to Francesca, "email style" (chevrons):

> Alan, I just wanted to comment on your comments (new
> comments are preceded by **):
>
> Francesca: Dr. Hoffer...spent a lot of time researching
> electroshock and niacin on schizophrenics and claimed
> results that could not be duplicated.
>
> Alan: Too bad they never tried! I mean, they never
> actually duplicated his protocols; hence their trials mean
> little.
>
> ** No, you misunderstood what I wrote. Hoffer's research
> was duplicated and the results were dismal. Hence,
> Hoffer's trials mean nothing.

I don't think I misunderstood. Hoffer's research (and the
research of other orthomolecular psychiatrists) was not
duplicated, and was the subject of an organized smear
campaign that was shameful.

vis:

: http://www.doctoryourself.com/hoffer_paradigm.html ---
: Megavitamin therapy was ignored by medicine at large and
: was vilified by psychiatry. Only after Dr. Pauling entered
: the fray did the major profession take notice, and then it
: too became very hostile and critical especially after Dr.
: Pauling's first book on the common cold appeared. The
: National Institute of Mental Health funded a study in New
: Jersey under the direction of Dr. Wittenborn, a research
: psychologist. They had first approached a psychiatrist in
: St. Louis, who agreed to do the study if I would be a
: consultant. So the NIMH turned to New Jersey. The
: Wittenborn study was double blind and was an attempt to
: repeat our original double blind controlled studies
: started a decade before. Dr. Wittenborn in his first
: report found that there was no difference between the
: placebo and the treated group. We had claimed that it
: worked best for early or acute patients and did not by
: itself help the very chronic ones. The Wittenborn[23]
: study was primarily on these chronic cases. Later Dr.
: Wittenborn re-analyzed his results by pulling out the
: early cases as we had done, and in his second report he
: showed that he got the same results that we had. His first
: report was greeted with shouts of enthusiasm from NIMH and
: later by the American Psychiatric Association when they
: did their task force report on Megavitamins and
: Orthomolecular Psychiatry. His second report was greeted
: by a cold silence and may have cost him any further
: support. His second paper was never referred to by the
: critics of megavitamin therapy.

That's a small snippet. You should read the whole article.

See also:

: http://www.orthomolecular.org/library/articles/orthotheory.shtml
: On the Orthomolecular Environment of the Mind:
: Orthomolecular Theory by Linus Pauling, Ph.D. Journal Of
: Orthomolecular Medicine Vol. 7, No. 1, 1995

> Francesca: I have an issue with the whole idea that any
> mental illness is about chemical
> deficiencies/abnormalities, whether we're talking about
> neurotransmitters or vitamins. These theories are simply
> not supported by the research so let's move on, please.
>
> Alan: They are supported by overwhelming research. Which
> is not for a moment to say that that research, and those
> "chemical deficiencies/abnormalities", are themselves the
> whole story. They are only one angle on things -- a good
> and useful one, but not the only one. I agree that things
> like "supportive environments" are extremely important.
>
> ** No, the research is not "overwhelming." There's a
> remarkable lack of evidence for the biochemical theory of
> mental illness. There is no biochemical correlate for mood
> disorders or schizophrenia or any other mental state.

I am familiar with this critique. It has some (modest)
merit. The problem with it is that it asks (it seems) for
an unrealistic standard of proof, at least with respect to
mood disorders. (Schizophrenia is a different matter.)

There is clear evidence linking biochemical and
neurophysiologic factors with depression -- not least the
evidence for efficacy of agents that alter relevant
biochemical systems. Here's a review for you:

: J Clin Psychiatry. 2000;61 Suppl 6:12-7
: Evidence for a biochemical lesion in depression. Leonard BE.
: Department of Pharmacology, National University of Ireland, Galway.
: The monoamine hypothesis of depression predicts an
: impairment in central monoaminergic function. The lesion
: may comprise deficiencies in the absolute concentrations
: of norepinephrine and/or serotonin (5-HT). Depletion
: studies have shown a correlation between such deficiencies
: and depressive symptoms. Measurement of the concentrations
: of the neurotransmitters and their metabolites in
: cerebrospinal fluid, urine, and plasma of patients with
: depression has yielded equivocal results regarding the
: possibility of altered metabolism of these
: neurotransmitters. Other studies have investigated the
: possibility of altered numbers and/or affinities of the
: serotonin and norepinephrine receptors and uptake sites.
: For example, there is evidence for a reduction in the
: activity of the serotonin reuptake transporter in patients
: with depression and an increase in the density of 5-HT2
: receptors in the brains of suicide victims. Similarly, in
: the noradrenergic system, up-regulation of
: beta-adrenoceptors is consistently observed. Most
: recently, attention has focused on the possibility that a
: lesion may occur in the postreceptor, subcellular
: components of the monoamine systems, such as the second
: messenger processes. Also, experimental evidence has shown
: "cross-talk" between the noradrenergic and serotonergic
: systems. There is therefore substantial clinical and
: experimental evidence that lesions in the serotonergic and
: noradrenergic systems are responsible for depression and
: that antidepressant treatment can reverse these
: alterations. PMID: 10775019

Of course, there is much more.

It is clear that the monoamine thesis is incomplete. Not
wrong, just insuffient to explain everything, on its own.
(Duhhh.) That's a no-brainer, if you'll pardon the
expression. But it is also clear that the thesis is
extremely useful. There are a plethora of agents that
favorably impact monoamine systems that are useful in the
treatment of depression. Whatever else we know or do not
know, THIS we know with certainty, and it is highly
significant in human terms.

There is also the important new neurotrophin thesis,
involving BDNF and hippocampal size and function, and the
now known phenomenon of virtually every antidepressant
drug and nutrient having a favorable impact on BDNF and
the hippocampus.

None of these things can ever be proven to be THE cause of
depression, in the simple way that staph can be proven to
be the cause of staph infections. The systems we are
dealing with are too complex for that. Moving from the
body to the brain/mind is a movement to a higher holon of
much greater complexity and more numerous, subtle and
unquantifiable stuff. Therefore strict scientific "proof"
of "the cause" of mental disorders will never happen, and
CAN never happen. But that doesn't mean that biochemical
factors and neurophysiological factors don't matter. They
are part of the picture -- links in complex causal chains.
And they happen to be links in causal chains that are
unusually amenable to intervention; i.e. we can DO
something about them. I could say with fair confidence
that living in a greed- and "progress"-obsessed
capitalistic world that is rapidly spinning out of control
is a major cause of mood disorders. I really believe that
to be true. And yet, neither I nor you can DO anything
(major) about that in a reasonable time, or in our
lifetimes. Meanwhile, we suffer, and if we're smart we'll
look for things that we CAN do something about, like
altering our brain chemistry and physiology on an
individual basis. Further, such efforts very often WORK.
That does not mean that they represent treatment of "THE
cause" of mental disorder -- whatever that means. It does
mean that we've hit upon effective interventions for at
least some sufferers.

> ** Despite superficially compelling brain scans (which are
> actually computer-generated averages, rather than a scan
> of any individual crazy brain) displayed on CNN earlier
> this year, the truth is that there is no way to measure
> neurotransmitters or neuroactivity in a living person. The
> scans merely measure blood flow and blood flow may or may
> not be correlated with neural activity. One could just as
> easily hypothesize that blood flow is increased to the
> area where neurons *aren't* firing properly.
>
> ** Serotonin (alleged to be correlated with mood
> disorders) cannot be measured in a living brain.
> Serotonin's metabolites, however, can be drawn via spinal
> tap and much research has gone into trying to link mental
> disorders with abnormal levels of serotonin metabolites.
> This is potentially fascinating; however, serotonin is a
> multi-tasker and not just a neurotransmitter. Over 90% of
> the body's serotonin is found in the gut (it is crucial to
> muscle contraction) so, when we draw the metabolites, we
> don't even know what we're measuring.

We do when we draw and analyze CSF.

There's overwhelming evidence that the serotonin system is
involved in mood disorders. Again, it is not that
serotonergic deficit is "THE cause" of all depressions. It
is that the serotonin system is doubtlessly causally
involved in many depressions. (Again understanding that
"cause" refers to only a single link in causal chains that
are complex and unlikely ever to be fathomed with perfect
resolution.) This cannot be argued, I don't think.

> ** Indeed, there is no objective test for any mental
> illness so there is no way to prove or disprove an alleged
> psychiatric disorder. A psychiatric diagnosis is a
> clinical impression morphed into a moral verdict. It is
> not a medical judgment. The words "mental,"
> "psychiatric," "behavioural" are loosy-goosy terms that
> reflect a loosy-goosy pseudo-science. To paraphrase Thomas
> Szasz, if there ever were an objective test for any mental
> illness, then the disorder would cease to be mental.
> Depression really would be "a chemical imbalance, just
> like diabetes!" And monkeys really would fly out of my
> ass.

I am familiar with Szasz, Breggin, and that whole crowd --
the anti-psychiatrists. I know their arguments. They make
some great points. I admire Szasz tremendously. In fact,
his book "Ceremonial Chemistry" is one of my all-time
favorites, one of the most important books ever written in
the drug/addiction field.

The anti-psychiatry critique is good as far as it goes.
Yes, psychiatry has terrible skeletons in its closet, and
yes, psychiatry has attempted (inappropriately) to
medicalize things that ought not be medicalized, and yes,
there is no proof of the existence of mental "diseases"
**of the same sort** as there is proof of physical
diseases, and yes, there has been much inappropriate
drugging, and yes... yada yada yada, all the way down the
line. Their critique is really good, and EVERYONE SHOULD
READ IT, CAREFULLY.

But there is something missing in their analysis: namely,
what is to be DONE by or for people who have very real,
very distressing and sometimes incapacitating problems. If
we do not want to call these problems "mental diseases",
then fine. That's probably a good idea. But still, the
phenomena are real. SOMETHING is terribly wrong, and many
people suffer with it -- whatever "it" is. Szasz and
Breggin (et al) offer little or nothing in response. What
do they suggest that we DO? On this point they have little
to say.

I have before me a copy of Breggin's "The Anti-Depressant
Fact Book". It is a detailed diatribe against
antidepressant drugs. It covers every possible objection,
and does so pretty well. (Imbalanced, but mostly good
information as far as it goes.) But he has virtually
nothing to offer as an alternative! Even his advice about
coming off the drugs is lukewarm pabalum.

This is the problem with the anti-psychiatry crowd -- and
I emphasize again that I agree with about 90% of what they
say.

> ** Thank you for agreeing that "supportive environments"
> are important, though. Support has proven to be critical
> in my own recovery and that of every ex-mental patient I
> have ever met.

Great. Keep up the work. And consider biochemical factors
as well. :-)

> Posted by: Francesca Allan at October 19, 2007 07:46 AM

Posted by: Alan at October 21, 2007 09:31 AM

Sure, Jaime, you can suggest anything that you want. Thanks for your "advice" but I have lots of research material (including being a patient of Hoffer's years ago and talking to Hoffer's current patients) to guide me in forming my opinion: Hoffer is a quack.

If indeed he can "cure" a subgroup of schizophrenics, then I guess he should hoof it on down to the Nobel Office to pick up his prize.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: Francesca Allan at October 21, 2007 09:46 AM

Jaime, I just realized that you addressed me as "Ms. Allan" and then referred to "Hoffer, MD, PhD." Very clever. I don't go by "Ms." Do you have any idea what my academic credentials are?

Having letters after one's name is no guarantee of intelligence and deferring to someone on that basis is naive. Results are what we are after, remember? You're reminding me of what I loathe about the Ivory Tower.

Posted by: Francesca Allan at October 21, 2007 10:02 AM


Regarding the APA Task Force report:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomolecular_psychiatry

Rebuttals
Proponents consider the 1973 APA task force report error laden with sweeping, scientifically unfounded conclusions,[7] highly politicized, and that its studies failed to use similar methods, materials and subjects as the original work.[9] The APA report's criticism alleges inadequate controlled trials because Hoffer quit running additional blinded tests that he had come to view as unethical for his patients, especially since the results of his previous double blinded tests went unheeded.[10] The APA's assertion is made despite Hoffer's claim to have run the first double blind controlled test in psychiatry, on megavitamin therapies, with a total four double blinded tests, up to 19 years before the APA task force report, as well as being supported by two independent double blinded tests [11] and an extensive biochemical research program.[12] One of the APA report's six authors, psychologist JR Wittenborn, reacting to Hoffer's specific criticisms, later re-analyzed his original double blind study[11] favorably with respect to orthomolecular psychiatry, obtaining the same result as Hoffer,[13] and never received NIMH or APA support again.[14] Wittenborn's latter report also goes unquoted by critics. Another of the APA report's authors, then NIMH member Loren Mosher, later resigned from the American Psychiatric Association in total disgust,[15] which he also called a "drug company patsy." [16]

........ unfortunately the link to Hoffer's
(lengthy) response to the APA report is dead.
I'm looking for an alternative link. No luck
as yet.

Posted by: Alan at October 21, 2007 10:12 AM


Ah ha! Found it.

The reply to the APA Task Force Report:

http://www.iahf.com/orthomolecular/reply_to_apa_t
fr_7.pdf

Posted by: Alan at October 21, 2007 10:44 AM

PS:

snippet:

http://www.iahf.com/world/981011a.html

When Pauling got behind Hoffer and Osmond, the drug cartel went gonzo and
sought his scalp. He went from being the most in demand medical school
commencement speaker to a complete pariah, but this later changed as these
ideas were more accepted towards the end of his life and the med schools
started inviting him back once again. In 1972, the American Psychiatric
Assn. published a once and for all "hatchet job" against the work of Hoffer
and Osmond seeking to discredit orthomolecular medicine. Hoffer and Osmond
published a scholarly reply to this mine of misinformation a few years later.

The APA Task Force Report titled "Magavitamins and Orthomolecular Therapy
in Psychiatry" was so incredibly biased that it couldn't even SEEM to be
objective. They examined only negative studies, never positive ones, and
didn't include anyone with any experience with orthomolecular medicine on
their panel for the sake of debate within committee. They didn't properly
seek to try to duplicate Hoffer and Osmond's research, since their goal
from the start was to discredit. They included on their committee a social
milieu theorist, that is a person who has bought into a school of thought
which rejects ALL biochemical approaches to treatment. Obviously they
included this individual because NO amount of evidence could possibly
convince him that orthomolecular medicine worked! The chair of the
committee was hand picked by the APA due to his outspoken bias against
orthomolecular medicine and he hand picked the rest of the committee.

Posted by: Alan at October 21, 2007 10:53 AM

Ms. Allan,

If you disclose and document all the abbreviations that follow your name, I'll be happy to reference them when addressing you.

Dr. Hoffer's work and therapies have impressed enough people to fill an entire ballroom when they celebrated his 90th birthday. Could it be that your patient sample is not representative?

Posted by: jaime at October 21, 2007 01:52 PM

Alan, try this:

http://www.iahf.com/orthomolecular/reply_to_apa_tfr_7.pdf

Posted by: jaime at October 21, 2007 02:04 PM

Alan, I appreciate your efforts here and I believe you are sincere so I will continue this dialogue.

As I was saying, prior to my being sidetracked by Jaime, my issue with Hoffer was his electroshock/niacin treatment regimen for schizophrenics. Further brain damage is about the worst possible thing you could do to a hurting brain and I think electroshock docs are beyond irresponsible.

If and when anyone finds a biochemical correlate for mental illness, fine, but it would only be a correlate! Anyway, at present, the American Psychiatric Association states that there is no such identifiable lesion, biochemical level, etc. that correlates to mental illness so the point is moot for now (and, I believe, forever).

Serotonin theories about mood disorders are a bust, just as dopamine theories about schizophrenia are a bust. Serotonin levels are all over the map. Some suicides have turned out to have excessive serotonin levels while perfectly normal people have had remarkably low levels of serotonin metabolites -- thus we know absolutely nothing about the relationship between serotonin and mood.

I believe you misunderstand the term "anti-psychiatry." Szasz loathes that term and certainly doesn't consider himself to be one. "Anti-psychiatry" is not about exposing abuses with the mental health system. It's a philosophical position.

Lastly, Szasz and Breggin are not member of the "same crowd." Their positions are very different.

Posted by: Francesca Allan at October 21, 2007 02:05 PM

Sorry, I must have missed this the first time around:

***

Francesca: No, the research is not
"overwhelming." There's a remarkable lack of evidence for the biochemical theory of mental illness. There is no biochemical correlate for mood disorders or schizophrenia or any other mental state.

Alan: I am familiar with this critique. It has some (modest) merit. The problem with it is that it asks (it seems) for an unrealistic standard of proof, at least with respect to mood disorders. (Schizophrenia is a different matter.)

***

Alan, to critique the biochemical theory of mental illness on the basis that there is no biochemical correlate whatsoever strikes to the very heart of biomedical psychiatry. It does not merely have “some (modest) merit”; it devastates the whole pseudo-science.

Since psychiatrists claim with a straight face that mental illness is merely wonky brain chemicals, it is hardly demonstrating an “unrealistic standard of proof” to ask:

Okay, which chemicals are involved?

What levels of various neurotransmitters does a normal brain have?

What's outside the normal range for serotonin, dopamine, etc.?

By what mechanism do people spontaneously fix their brain chemicals?

How could psychological counselling repair abnormal serotonin levels?

Etc., etc., etc.

Hey, if people feel better on Drug X or Y, go for it. But let's not pretend that Prozac is some kind of nutritional supplement for those lacking serotonin. Because, at this moment, I'm drinking a Chinchilla (Cinzano, cinnamon, lime, hot water) and I feel great but it's doubtful my improved mood is due to my drink addressing my "alcohol imbalance."

Posted by: Francesca Allan at October 21, 2007 02:21 PM

Francesca,

Would you have a source for your assertion that Hoffer combined electroshock and niacin? In the orthomolecular literature I read, I never read about this, but rather read that ECT is to be avoided if at all possible. I would agree with you that to use ECT today is far beyond the pale.

I think, however, that doctors who used it back in the 50s or 60s, when patients had far fewer alternatives, should be judged by the standards of their day and not ours.

Posted by: jaime at October 22, 2007 03:58 AM

Francesca, I am one of the tortured few who was born with a "tequila deficiency" in my brain. It's a poignant disease, making me feel things more than other people, in a way just think of me as "extra-human," if something bad happens to me, it hurts me more than if the same thing happens to those who don't suffer from my tragic aliment. And yet there is a cure - two margaritas taken slowly on a Friday night at least twice a month preferably with my "tequila deficiency support group." Have you considered the fact that you may have been misdiagnosed as "alcohol deficient" when really you have a more specific malady, "tequila deficiency." Tragically this has been known to occur.

Next time try a Margarita with friends as just turning up a bottle of cuervo in a darkened room by yourself has been shown to have a high rate of side effects, among them frightening your pets. (Note the author of this post received funding from Sauza.)

Posted by: Sally at October 22, 2007 06:37 AM


Alan 'n Francesca, Round Three... [dinnnnggg]

> Alan, I appreciate your efforts here and I believe you are
> sincere so I will continue this dialogue.
>
> As I was saying, prior to my being sidetracked by Jaime,
> my issue with Hoffer was his electroshock/niacin treatment
> regimen for schizophrenics. Further brain damage is about
> the worst possible thing you could do to a hurting brain
> and I think electroshock docs are beyond irresponsible.

ECT as a therapy for schizophrenia goes well back to the
1950s, as do the first-generation neuroleptics. I don't
blame Hoffer for using those things at the time, when they
were the best that psychiatry had to offer. I would not
even (necessarily) blame him for using them now -- in
conjunction of course with proper nutritional therapy,
social support, etc. Some people do benefit from ECT. As
you know, it is making a comeback. I am probably as deeply
suspicious of ECT as you are, and it should without doubt
be a last resort, but results are results. For some (few)
people it might be the best option (of bad options).

> If and when anyone finds a biochemical correlate for
> mental illness, fine, but it would only be a correlate!
> Anyway, at present, the American Psychiatric Association
> states that there is no such identifiable lesion,
> biochemical level, etc. that correlates to mental illness
> so the point is moot for now (and, I believe, forever).

See my original post, above. There will never be, and can
never be, absolute irrefutable scientific proof of a
SINGLE causal element -- an "on/off" switch -- in ALL
cases of any (so-called) mental disease. But so what? Such
proof is not necessary. It might be nice, but it is not
necessary.

> Serotonin theories about mood disorders are a bust, just

No, they aren't. In practice, they've been pretty
successful. Not dramatically successful, not the answer
to all mood disorders, but pretty good, and clearly
worthwhile.

> as dopamine theories about schizophrenia are a bust.

They're a bust in the capacity of sole, explain-
everything, single-point-of-failure models. But then, that
is an impossible standard, so who cares? It is obvious
that they don't explain everything; but then it is also
obvious that they have some utility.

They're a semi-bust in terms of what has actually been
done about them. The conventional antipsychotic drugs are
are like pharmacologic sledgehammers. They are very crude
anti-dopaminergics, with side effects so severe that they
are almost worse than what they are intended to treat.
(Though they are probably better than nothing for acute
crises, and positive symptoms.) The dopamine system is
clearly disordered in schizophrenia. The question is: what
to do about it?

Ascorbic acid, to give one example of an alternative,
offers a much more sophisticated approach to managing the
dopamine system in schizophrenia. It is mildly and
reversibly anti-dopaminergic, with also bilateral
modulating properties, not to mention general protective
properties and even cognition-enhancing properties. It is
a sort of mild general brain tonic. Regarding
anti-dopaminergy and bilateral phenomena, see:

: PMID: 7816935
: Prog Neurobiol 1994 Aug;43(6):537-65
: A vitamin as neuromodulator: ascorbate release into the
: extracellular fluid of the brain regulates dopaminergic and
: glutamatergic transmission.
: Rebec GV, Pierce RC

I hope no one interprets the foregoing as a suggestion
that ascorbic acid is a "cure" for schizophrenia. It
isn't. It is one important element in an orthomolecular
management and brain-health program. That's all. And that
should be enough.

> Serotonin levels are all over the map. Some suicides have
> turned out to have excessive serotonin levels while
> perfectly normal people have had remarkably low levels of
> serotonin metabolites -- thus we know absolutely nothing
> about the relationship between serotonin and mood.

Non sequiter. Please read the literature.

> I believe you misunderstand the term "anti-psychiatry."
> Szasz loathes that term and certainly doesn't consider
> himself to be one. "Anti-psychiatry" is not about exposing
> abuses with the mental health system. It's a philosophical
> position.

I am speaking in "shorthand". It is a rough category, useful
as rough categories go. Szasz is clearly an anti-psych type,
whether or not he agrees.

> Lastly, Szasz and Breggin are not member of the "same
> crowd." Their positions are very different.

Roughly speaking, they are in the same crowd. Yes, of
course their positions are sometimes different. But it can
be useful, and valid, to group them, along with Whitaker,
Breeding, Moncrieff, and others.

> Posted by: Francesca Allan at October 21, 2007 02:05 PM
>
> ----------------------
>
> Sorry, I must have missed this the first time around:
>
> Francesca: No, the research is not "overwhelming." There's
> a remarkable lack of evidence for the biochemical theory
> of mental illness. There is no biochemical correlate for
> mood disorders or schizophrenia or any other mental state.
>
> Alan: I am familiar with this critique. It has some
> (modest) merit. The problem with it is that it asks (it
> seems) for an unrealistic standard of proof, at least with
> respect to mood disorders. (Schizophrenia is a different
> matter.)
>
> ***
>
> Alan, to critique the biochemical theory of mental illness
> on the basis that there is no biochemical correlate
> whatsoever strikes to the very heart of biomedical
> psychiatry. It does not merely have "some (modest) merit";
> it devastates the whole pseudo-science.

That would be true, except for the falsity of the premise:
that there are "no biochemical correlates whatsoever".

> Since psychiatrists claim with a straight face that mental
> illness is merely wonky brain chemicals, it is hardly
> demonstrating an "unrealistic standard of proof" to ask:

You start off with a straw man. "MERELY" wonky brain
chemicals? Anyone who believes that is an idiot. But to
continue, anyway...

> Okay, which chemicals are involved?

The usual suspects, principally serotonin, but also
dopamine and norepinephrine. Also BDNF. Also acetylcholine
and glutamate. Possibly others. And of course the relevant
receptors. And of course the whole panoply of
neuronutrients.

> What levels of various neurotransmitters does a normal
> brain have?

How could we possibly know? How would we define "normal"?

What if "normal" levels were determined, and it was found
that people with mood disorders had "normal" levels, and
it was also found that those mood-disordered people got
relief from agents that increase levels above "normal"?
What would that mean?

> What's outside the normal range for serotonin, dopamine,
> etc.?

Ditto, above.

> By what mechanism do people spontaneously fix their brain
> chemicals?

That's a great question. I don't know the answer, but I
would love to see some research on it. I would like to see
research on neurotransmitter, receptor and
BDNF/hippocampal changes resulting from a wide variety of
influences -- beyond just drugs and nutrients. I would be
willing to bet more than I can afford to lose that long
walks in the woods and mountains would boost BDNF levels
and, over time, lead to hippocampal regeneration -- and of
course relief from depression. Gardening might work the
same way. I have a strong suspicion that falling in love
would work that way.

Too bad Big Pharma (and it's shills) largely dictates the
research agenda. Long walks in the woods, or home
gardening, or falling in love, obviously cannot be
commoditized and sold for a profit.

> How could psychological counselling repair abnormal
> serotonin levels?

What is so hard to imagine about that? Psychological
counselling probably does have favorable effects on the
serotonin system, and other brain systems, in at least
some subjects, maybe even most. Same with CBT.

If by "how" you are asking about the precise molecular
mechanisms underlying the serotonin system changes --
well, that is something that might take decades of fine
research to work out.

You will note in the above that "deficiencies" of
psychological counseling, or CBT, or long walks in the
woods, are not being touted as "the cause" of mood
disorders. What they are is potential links in complex
causal chains -- chains that as I said before will never
be elucidated in complete fullness. We don't know all the
specifics, we will never know all the specifics, and that
is OK.

The scientific method is an epistemology that is very
useful for some things -- mainly simpler things. Matters
of the brain/mind, and "mental diseases", push it well
beyond its limits, however. Same with the social sciences,
which like to think of themselves as scientific, and ARE
to some extent scientific, but scientific method will
never be adequate. The area of study is too complex for
absolute scientific certainty, and for simplistic
single-cause/single-effect relations.

> Etc., etc., etc.
>
> Hey, if people feel better on Drug X or Y, go for it. But
> let's not pretend that Prozac is some kind of nutritional
> supplement for those lacking serotonin.

Certainly not! SSRIs should be used -- if they are used at
all -- only as a complement to proper nutritional (and
other) therapy. Start with tryptophan or 5-HTP with
cofactors, for a month or so, and then add graded doses of
SSRIs, as needed, and IF needed. And don't forget CBT and
other modalities. And don't forget the fish oils. And
don't forget those long walks in the woods! :-)

One of the most interesting and under-appreciated
findings of the tryptophan-depletion studies was that the
people on SSRIs got worse (experienced greater
depressogenic effects) than people not on SSRIs. There is
also animal study evidence consistent with this, showing
that SSRI treatment can actually depress serotonin levels
in animals on low-tryptophan diets.

The SSRIs are apparently placing an extra demand on
tryptophan supply; you might say they are causing a
low-grade "deficiency" or insufficiency of tryptophan, at
least in the brain. The implication is obvious: always
supply tryptophan along with SSRIs. (And equally obvious:
don't do it stupidly. Start low; go slow. Always.)

I sometimes wonder if the SSRI/suicide problem is a
tryptophan supply problem.

> Because, at this
> moment, I'm drinking a Chinchilla (Cinzano, cinnamon,
> lime, hot water) and I feel great but it's doubtful my
> improved mood is due to my drink addressing my "alcohol
> imbalance."

I suddenly see what the problem might be, here. You don't
like the way psych meds have been **described** to the lay
public -- speaking of "chemical imbalances" and such. But
then, when you think about how, in practice, such complex
technical matters can be explained to Joe and Jane
Average, it is not hard to see that simplistic (and not
entirely technically correct) explanations like that could
be useful, even essential. I have done the same kind of
thing myself, when trying to describe complex matters to
people with no background in this area. You HAVE to do it,
to some extent. Now, granted, it was overdone, and it was
used cynically to boost prescription drug sales and
profits, blah blah blah blah. I know all that. But I also
know that people need to have things explained in a way
that does not require heavy background in neurochemistry.

In other words: Be reasonable. Don't be pedantic.

As for your improved mood: as you know, it need not be due
to the addressing of an "alcohol imbalance" in order for
it to be real.

Words/concepts like "balance", "normal" and "deficiency"
are problematic. They can be useful, provided their
limitations are always kept in mind. For example, we can
derive some useful information about what might benefit
the brain (and in turn, "mental diseases" to the extent
that they have causal components residing in the physical
brain) by analyzing brain tissue -- i.e. determining the
"normal" (or at least average) contents of the brain,
which can reasonably be assumed are essential for stable,
symptom-free function. We find things like lots of omega-3
fatty acids, arachidonic acid, cholesterol, iron, zinc,
taurine, ascorbic acid, and other stuff, and this gives us
clues. Sometimes the clues will bear fruit in clinical
practice, and sometimes they won't. But in any case that
is where our investigations should start. That would be an
example of a useful application of the concept of "normal"
(or average) -- as a source of CLUES, not final answers.
And furthermore, as a source of clues in a mystery that
can never be resolved in perfect detail and with perfect
resolution.

But to ask "what is the normal level of serotonin in the
living human brain, and does it or does it not determine
mood" is another matter, vastly more difficult. It is
clear that serotonin precursors, cofactors and
serotonergic drugs are helpful in many, if not most,
depressions. Impossible-to-answer questions about "normal
serotonin levels" are beside the point.

Posted by: Alan at October 22, 2007 08:15 AM

Alan, you obviously know a lot about neurochemistry and I thank you for sharing it here. As you know, the brain is a mysterious and complicated organ. The chances of targeting one particular type of neural reaction with one particular drug are vanishingly small, yet shrinks have told me that Seroquel is an antipsychotic and a mood stabilizer and a sedative. That’s one all-round awesome drug, eh? No side effects, either!

I'm cool with this kind of research but I have grave reservations about what psych patients are taught (their brains are defective, their disease is lifelong, drugs are the only solution). Naturally, I'm biased towards what I found out about my own mental disorder and that of people I know. In my experience, mental illness does not appear to originate in neurochemistry or, if it does, it can be repaired without resorting to altering neurochemistry.

Since serotonin itself is not measurable in a living brain and since metabolites are all over the map, I believe it is a valid criticism to dispute the mantra that low serotonin equals depression. SSRIs are not more effective than the old tricyclics and neither subgroup of drugs are more effective than placebo. Biomedical psychiatry has failed to show any correlation with mental illness and neurochemistry. Remember, there is no laboratory test, none, to prove or disprove a psychiatric diagnosis. This is all speculation. Reacting well to Ritalin is now one way to diagnose ADHD.

Interesting discussion, thanks.

Jaime, I don’t recall when it was that Hoffer promoted electroshock. I believe it was during his work in Saskatchewan. And I won’t let him off the hook because “everyone else was doing it.” The damaging effects of electroshock were well-known.

Sally, I think you’re on to something. Tequila slushies are a winter treat around here. Obviously, my tequila balance gets out of whack when it snows. I used to call it seasonal affective disorder. Thanks for setting me straight. :)

Posted by: Francesca Allan at October 23, 2007 08:54 AM

Francesca, Here at Sauza Labs, we've discovered that all mental illness is really Tequilla Spectrum Disorder;). We are currently seeking volunteers for a research study involving the efficacy of frozen v. on the rocks Margaritas and cultural variation among patients who ingest slushies. There is one rather serious incident that did occur in Canada where a TSD sufferer placed a hockey mask on his face and begin singing karoke with pathological confidence, and yet this isolated incident is not cause to forgo our testing in children later this year.

Posted by: Sally at October 23, 2007 10:42 AM

You know Sally, you've opened up Pandora's Box re: blended vs. rocks: brain freeze.
I can't drink blended, have to do on the rocks per the severe brain headache that travels straight down my spine in unbearable pain. I wonder what the scientists call that.
:)

Posted by: Stephany at October 23, 2007 06:42 PM

Stephany, If you're ever in Atlanta, we'll have to go out and do some clinical research.

Posted by: Sally at October 24, 2007 05:24 AM


to Francesca, again:

> I'm cool with this kind of research but I have grave reservations about
> what psych patients are taught (their brains are defective, their disease
> is lifelong, drugs are the only solution).

I agree unreservedly with the last -- that drugs are NOT the only solution.
The other two, luke-warm. Their "disease" (if we want to call it that)
probably is lifelong. Their brains may not be "defective", but they are
shall we say *different* -- and different in ways that may not make for
a pleasing life experience. (How's that? :-) )

> In my experience, mental illness does not appear to originate in
> neurochemistry or, if it does, it can be repaired without resorting
> to altering neurochemistry.

Everything you do, including moving your eyeballs across
the screen in front of you, is altering neurochemistry. I think what
you mean is that repair is possible without drugs and supplements,
and of course you are right.

> Since serotonin itself is not measurable in a living brain and since
> metabolites are all over the map, I believe it is a valid criticism
> to dispute the mantra that low serotonin equals depression.

It should not be repeated as a mantra, quite, but there is (I insist)
overwhelming evidence that the serotonin system is in need of support
in most depressions. No, low serotonin does not "equal" depression.
But support of the serotonergic system, by whatever means, remains
quite effective (not miraculously effective, but fairly good).

> SSRIs are not more effective than the old tricyclics and neither
> subgroup of drugs are more effective than placebo.

I agree that SSRIs are not generally more effective than tricyclics,
and that the tricyclics have been unduly neglected. However, the
SSRIs have a different and for most people lots better side effect
profile.

As to whether these drugs are more effective than placebo, there
is lots of evidence for that. I suggest spending some time
at the cochrane.org site for systematic reviews; see url below.
The drugs are not dramatically more effective than placebo,
generally, but they are somewhat more effective than placebo.

Of course, almost all these studies are on drugs as monotherapy.
The proper approach entails broad-spectrum nutritional support,
including folic acid, pyridoxine, zinc, chromium, etc., along
with the relevant amino acids, and fatty acids. The drugs should
be merely an add-on, if need be. If the drugs were always used
in a proper nutritional context, then the results (treatment
versus placebo) would be much better.

http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/topics/57_reviews.html

e.g.:

Active placebos versus antidepressants for depression
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003012.html

Antidepressants versus placebo for the depressed elderly
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000561.html

Antidepressants for generalized anxiety disorder
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003592.html

Drugs versus placebo for dysthymia
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001130.html

Tryptophan and 5-Hydroxytryptophan for depression
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003198.html

St John's Wort for depression
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000448.html

Posted by: Alan at October 24, 2007 07:50 AM

I’ve read the back and forth of this dialog with much interest and sadly to chuckle to myself. I come to this topic from a different perspective that of a very, very long time support person and care giver.

Although I am only a lay-person I do read the various published research studies relating to issues of MDD and then subsequent studies differing from the initial studies and then I come to forums such as the Last Psychiatrist and the writings of CL PSYCH amongst others and this forum I consistently come away with the conclusion how does a support person and care giver truly make an informed and un-coerced medical decision when it comes to mood disorders. Obviously it is not easy as I well know.

Of the dialog back and forth there is a statement I would like to quote which from my perspective and realties encompasses what it is all about:


“But there is something missing in their analysis: namely, what is to be DONE by or for people who have very real, very distressing and sometimes incapacitating problems. If we do not want to call these problems "mental diseases", then fine. That's probably a good idea. But still, the phenomena are real. SOMETHING is terribly wrong, and many
people suffer with it -- whatever "it" is. Szasz and
Breggin (et al) offer little or nothing in response. What do they suggest that we DO? On this point they have little to say.” --- Posted by: Alan at October 21, 2007 09:31 AM


As the support person to my spouse “But still, the phenomena are real. SOMETHING is terribly wrong, and many people suffer with it -- whatever "it" is” and the responsibility to maintain my spouse’s wellness and to keep her alive rests upon my shoulders while the theories and debates continue.

Alan, as you said, “whatever “it” is,” it has been real for my wife and me for over 4 decades although the past 8 years have seen a “pretty remarkable” improvement in her almost continuous depression free state through the use of VNS Therapy.

In the more than 4 decades that we’ve battled her illness we’ve utilized the so-called non-invasive therapies such as dietary modifications, vitamins, minerals and supplements as well as other holistic approaches including acupuncture and various disciplines of talk therapy along with psychotropic medications, ECT etc without any sustained long-term remission until VNS and not to mention the cadre of attending health care practitioners.

Hereto the debate continues as to the safety and efficacy of the VNS Therapy and accusations of “placebo effect.” Well, I happen to also believe in placebo effect along with my advocacy for all relatively safe treatment options to assist the patient to obtain some relief. In the case of VNS I chuckle about several doctors claiming placebo effect and when I’ve questioned them to find in the medical literature any reference to “multi-year continuous placebo effect” my questions have gone unanswered. As the author of “Out of the Black Hole,” Charles Donovan, mentioned to me and I’ll paraphrase, “I’ve been having one-year placebo effects continuously for the past 6 years.”

From my perspective, the debates are healthy, but when one’s charge is experiencing unrelenting suicidal ideations and conventional treatment options are ineffective or cannot sustain any positive responses and the patient is otherwise of sound medical health; something has to be attempted.

I too am of the opinion based upon my research, readings and collaborations that the theory of a genetic predisposition to a bio-neurochemical malfunctioning within the brain is a valid theory. Whether the mood disorder is triggered by abuse or dysfunctional parenting during child rearing or situational and/or environmental stresses or shock the pain and suffering is real for the patient as well as their loved ones. As a lay-depression expert to my spouse I can cite in her medical history no such stresses or shock or child rearing issues but a familial and paternal history of mood disorders also being exhibited by her siblings.

In conclusion, I would just like to once again cite the words of Alan”

SOMETHING is terribly wrong, and many people suffer with it -- whatever "it" is.

Warmly,
Herb
VNSdepression.com


.

Posted by: Herb at October 24, 2007 10:13 AM

I didn't mean to give the impression that mental suffering doesn't exist. My own periods of depression have been the most agonizing experiences I can imagine. But a need to "do something" often leads to increased hardship and disability.

Here's a hypothetical depressed person: she's working in an office job that she loathes, with a long commute in a car that she can't afford, to get back and forth from a house that she can't afford. She's sinking deeper and deeper into credit card debt to cover her basic living expenses. At the end of a long day, she's too exhausted to do anything, so she eats crappy food in front of the television. There is nothing of meaning in her life -- it's all earn, earn, earn, spend, spend, spend.

Does this woman have a serotonin deficiency? Probably. Is the answer Prozac? Doubtful.

Posted by: Francesca Allan at October 24, 2007 04:52 PM

Hi, Herb. Thanks for your comments.

Congratulations on having found something that
works for your wife. Depression is a terrible...
er... condition (I didn't say "disease" :-) ).

Could you say a few words about VNS versus
ECT versus TNS? Do you consider them to be
working in somehow parallel ways? They
all involve electrical current, but I don't
know anything more than that. I know that
ECT is quite violent and radical, relative
to VNS (right?). Why do you have such
extensive coverage of ECT on your site?
Do you think ECT is good or should be used
more often? The possibility of permanent
amnesia is the thing that always scared me
about it. I don't know how often that happens,
but even if it is one in a thousand, that is
still a pretty big risk (for such a terrible
"side effect").

Is VNS appropriate or bipolars? (Your wife
is/was unipolar, right?)

Is VNS known and used widely enough now so that
one could ask one's doc for it and get it
without too much problem?

Questions questions.

Posted by: Alan at October 24, 2007 05:44 PM


PS: Herb:

Was your wife ever evaluated for hypothyroidism?
It is a very prevalent condition and can be
the "missing link" in a lot of depressions.
Check out the last post here (not the best
intro to the subject, but at least sometthing):
http://www.furiousseasons.com/archives/2007/09/more_evidence_that_antidepressants_are_bad_for_bipolar_disorder_1.html

I cringe a little when I ask whether or not
she was "evaluated" for hypothyroidism, since
professional (conventional medical)
thyroid/metabolic diagnosis is woefully
inadequate. Blood tests, on which docs depend,
are insufficient. What is needed is a basal
temperature test (google for); this gives the
real "thyroid bottom-line" -- whether or not
the hormone is actually reaching and influencing
peripheral tissues. Blood tests only tell you
what is in the blood -- sometimes useful, but
limited.

Just a thought.

Posted by: Alan at October 24, 2007 05:51 PM

A few more words about "the cause" and such:
http://www.furiousseasons.com/archives/2007/10/the_troubled_culture_of_depression_treatment.html

Posted by: Alan at October 25, 2007 06:05 AM

Francesca:
"Does this woman have a serotonin deficiency?
Probably. Is the answer Prozac? Doubtful."

I AGREE.

This woman has a lot of problems on multiple
levels. They should all be addressed. But it
might not be possible to address them all
effectively, or even at all. Every real-world
situation has limitations. We don't live in
a utopia where each and every one of our
needs can be carefully, sensitively addressed
in completeness. Everything we do is half-
assed, and that's not going to change anytime
soon.

Giving Prozac (naked) is obviously not going
to solve all her problems. On the other hand,
it might be better than nothing. MIGHT. It
depends. Is she willing to take a look at
her whole life and make some changes? CAN
she make some changes? It is a difficult
situation. Just like life. Ha.

The Prozac might (MIGHT) give her just the
"oomph" that she needs to start picking
herself up and revamping her life so that
it is more sane and satisfying. Too bad
the Prozac is usually prescribed in a
careless fashion, without context, like
brain-candy.

What would you suggest to her, Francesca?

Posted by: Alan at October 25, 2007 06:21 AM

Alan, not to butt in, but I would suggest to Francesca's hypothetical woman that she become involved in some sort of social action to improve her life and the lives of other similarly situated people whether a labor union, a political party (free), or some such, try excercise, getting a pet (a cheap one like cat or a couple of hamsters), joining a support group, posting a free blog on the internet;), joining a church or meditation group or park beautification group, volunteering, etc. I would not suggest drug addiction whether crack, vodka, or prozac. Drug addiction to make poverty bearable always causes more problems that it cures, and prozac costs more than paying membership dues at a gym every month. Given the choice between prozac and the gym, she should join the gym if she has the money to pay for either.

Sure a drink every now and then won't hurt her, but prozac which takes a week or two to have any effect would not help, and in fact might make her develop a sense of false optimism and quit her job prematurely or become violent and "go postal" at the office or become homeless and commit suicide. Plus having a psych diagnosis/conviction and prescription on your health insurance record makes it impossible to ever get health insurance again and if employers do a through background check difficult to get another job.

Posted by: Sally at October 25, 2007 10:43 AM

Francesca,

Having 4 decades of challenges in trying to control, stabilize and obtain long-term remission for my spouse’s mood disorder I prefer to deal with realities and not the hypothetical and I use most often the use the first person singular as opposed to they, we, you etc as I often read on forums of this nature for which I wish to compliment you.

My spouse almost always enjoyed her job and looked forward to her time in the office and the camaraderie. The commute to work was comfortable for her as I drove and she could nap and do whatever. In her case it was save, save, save, save so as execute her genetic inheritance and predisposition to shop until she dropped.

Actually my wife became known as the “shopping bag lady” as every evening when she came to my office she had a bag from Macy’s or Bloomies or Lord & Taylor or one of the department stores fulfilling her needs for that evening.

Did my wife have some situational or environmental event to point some kind of finger at? Actually, from a financial standpoint money was not and is not an issue nor is family relationships etc. Personally, I don’t believe nor do her doctors of any outside influences and my reasons and research therefore lead me to believe some kind of malfunctioning within her brain.

In my spouse’s case history an my empirical observations and recording of data I have shown instances of her morning awakening feeling well, sitting down for breakfast to read the newspaper and simply stating to me, “it is happening again” and lapse into a depressive state. No situational or environmental event to cause the occurrence and similar instances in reverse. So while I avoid speaking about anyone else I try to share and stick with our own personal experiences although amongst the many hats I’ve worn through the years I was formerly a trained support group facilitator for a local chapter of DBSA as well as a Board Member and President and there are many narratives shared with me about other individuals not attributing one’s mood disorders either to situational or environment events or stressors either.


Alan, along with my proactive mental health advocacy and activism I also advocate for all treatment options potentially offering a favorable response in relatively safety which includes the use of ECT. The reason for also containing coverage on my website is the fact I am in opposition to a number of individuals and organizations that call for the banning of the treatment. I am opposed to anyone seeking to ban a treatment that I know has been beneficial to others thereby abrogating the rights of the patient to make an informed and un-coerced medical decision in collaboration with one’s attending physician in order to achieve wellness.

If all the individuals who I read on various forums had their way there would be no treatments not only for mood disorders but for other illnesses and diseases as well.

I am an advocate for education and I encourage hope and persistence.

VNS, rTMS, MST, DBS, FEAST, MRI etc are newer treatments options being researched with the exception of VNS which is FDA approved but difficult to obtain. I selected to concentrate some 9 years ago my efforts to share information relating to VNS Therapy for MDD simply because my spouse was one of the earliest research study subject for that therapy and there was little to no information available.

The website I offer as I stated previously is a repository of information I’ve garnered relating to the VNS Therapy. There were also some 17,000 prescriptions written for the therapy but unfortunately in my opinion CMS created a two-tier health system for the have and have not and many who chose the therapy will be unable to obtain their choice of treatment through lack of funds. Many of these issues are elaborated upon in our website.

“Do you think ECT is good or should be used more often?” --- Alan

Knowing that which I do today I would opt first for the least invasive therapies first then advancing toward medications and further proceeding toward the nueromodulation modalities such as VNS as adjunctive and/or alternative treatment regimens if necessary. As a support person and care giver I would consider and/or opt for ECT only when the suicidal ideations become unmanageable or a failed suicide attempt has occurred. Then again, there are also a number of options to be considered when utilizing. I am not a complacent support person for my spouse or anyone that has asked my assistance. I am her advocate and have always tried to be reasonably educated and do the best I can within my abilities while considering all treatment choices.

VNS has been used for those patients assigned the diagnosis of Bipolar. Personally, I’ve come to learn from spouse’s own history that Bipolar Disorder or Unipolar Depression is symptomology that could easily be one event apart. My spouse suffered what was diagnosed as life long MDD. When her prosthesis (VNS Therapy) was activated for the first time in our marriage I saw her mood state escalate from depression to depression free to elevated mood state, to mania to paranoia to paranoid delusions. What we learned was the therapy was certainly doing something. The next project was to control the therapy in order to establish a depression free state of wellness which we have basically accomplished.

My point is simply taken that the human body as well as the brain is dynamic in nature and while you are concerned about potential memory loss from ECT the fact remains and I well aware in my spouse and others that depression left untreated also have a major diminution upon memory as well as cognition. As a care giver my concern has always been to maintain control and stability with the hope of achieving long-term remission.

Lastly, my spouse has been subjected to numerous thyroid tests of various kinds as well as various blood workups, scans, neuropsychological evaluations etc, etc, etc over these more than 4 decades. “Nada” is the result in terms of finding something we can put our fingers upon to say maybe this is the cause of her MDD. If it were only that simple in her case which it is not?

Warmly,
Herb
VNSdepression.com

Posted by: Herb at October 25, 2007 12:05 PM

The "hypothetical" woman described above was me and the answer was to ditch the consumerist, soul-destroying lifestyle. Had I been Prozacked into submission, I could easily have kept it going another couple of decades. I'm glad I didn't and so are my husband and family. My "noncompliance" and "belligerent attitude" and “lack of insight” saw me through. In the vast majority of cases, mental illness is not a chronic condition. I've been "bipolar" and "schizophrenic" and had "personality disorder," among other psych labels. People should be taught that their crisis is a reversible breakdown and a great opportunity to improve their approach to life.

Posted by: Francesca Allan at October 25, 2007 04:06 PM

Herb: thanks for the details.

I appreciate (very much) the point about
long-term untreated depression causing
memory loss and other cognitive problems.
Long-term depression is looking like a
chronic degenerative disease, with brain
shrinkage occuring over time which may be
difficult to reverse. So I appreciate the
point. Still, the risk of sudden complete
memory loss is, you must admit, terrifying.

Regarding this:
"My spouse suffered what was diagnosed as life
long MDD. When her prosthesis (VNS Therapy) was
activated for the first time in our marriage I
saw her mood state escalate from depression to
depression free to elevated mood state, to mania
to paranoia to paranoid delusions. What we
learned was the therapy was certainly doing
something."

Yes, certainly! Paranoid delusions! I get the
picture. The question then is: has VNS been
used in bipolar ENOUGH to get a feel for how
to use it without precipitating manic breakthru?
It sounds from your description like it might
be tricky -- like using antidepressants in
bipolar (high risk of manic breakthru).

Alan

Posted by: Alan at October 25, 2007 07:12 PM


Sally:

> Alan, not to butt in, but I would suggest to Francesca's
> hypothetical woman that she become involved in some sort
> of social action to improve her life and the lives of
> other similarly situated people whether a labor union, a
> political party (free), or some such, try excercise,
> getting a pet (a cheap one like cat or a couple of
> hamsters), joining a support group, posting a free blog on
> the internet;), joining a church or meditation group or
> park beautification group, volunteering, etc.

I agree. However, what is this woman REALISTICALLY capable
of, given the info that we have (working full-time, long
commute, exhausted, unhealthy)? Most of the things you
mention take a good deal of energy and time. Granted, once
you get some momentum going, those things can also GIVE
BACK energy. I know that. The question is: what is most
appropriate for this person right now, where she lives?

> I would not
> suggest drug addiction whether crack, vodka, or prozac.

Is ANY drug use "drug addiction"?

I don't buy this. In my view all substances are on a
continuum, not neatly classifiable. All "drugs" are foods,
and all foods are drugs. And "addiction" has the same
(shaky) status as "mental disease". It doesn't actually
exist, quite. There are people who have problems with
substances, to be sure, but the concept has serious
weaknesses, same as the "mental disease" model.

I am appending below a few snippets from a great article
that I just ran into covering this food/drug issue.

> Drug addiction to make poverty bearable always causes more
> problems that it cures, and prozac costs more than paying
> membership dues at a gym every month.

The gym is great, if you've got the energy and time for
it. Sounds like that hypothetical woman did not. At least
not YET. I suggested that "Prozac might (MIGHT) give her
the 'oomph'" necessary to get her life turned around and
moving in another direction -- things like going to the
gym, doing volunteer work, etc. I stand by that. It might.
If I were her doc or counselor, I would have a hard time
recommending dramatic lifestyle changes right away for
her. In her case it sounds like there is a high risk of
failure, and of giving up and not even doing the little
bit that she IS capable of doing (like taking a few pills
each day).

> Given the choice
> between prozac and the gym, she should join the gym if she
> has the money to pay for either.

Unused gym memberships benefit no one. And there are a LOT
of them. (That's one of the ways gyms make their money.)

Here's the snippets:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/directory/reinarman/policing_pleasure.pdf

GASTRONOMICA - SUMMER 2007

Policing Pleasure: Food, Drugs, and the Politics of
Ingestion | craig reinarman

[...snip...]

"During much of the European Middle Ages and into early
modernity, a porridge made mostly of beer was a breakfast
staple. Prior to the potato, 'beer was second only to
bread as the main source of nourishment for most central
and north Europeans.' In the seventeenth century, the
English 'consumed about three liters of beer per person
daily, children included.'17 In wine cultures such as
France and Italy, wine is still today mainly understood as
food.18 Medicines were not considered separate from food,
either. Food historian Massimo Montanari observes that
cooking with fire 'surely was, from its very beginning,
intended to make food more hygienic, as well as more
flavorful. Thus we can say with some certainty that
dietetics was born with cooking.' This relationship
evolved over time into 'a science of dietetics within the
theory and practice of medicine.' Herbs, wild roots, nuts,
and medicinal plants were all in one unified category
called food."

[...snip...]

"[T]he idea that alcohol and other drugs were not properly
part of the unified category of food is a relatively
recent invention. On the surface, such a separation seems
sensible enough, but it is worth recognizing that a good
deal more than the march of science brought it into being.
The separation is in many respects political in origin and
has had serious political consequences. In war, enemies
are made into the 'other,' reduced to a type, and
demonized, which helps justify attacking them.25 Once a
substance or type of ingestion was cut out of the category
of food, it became easier to 'other' its ingestors and
punish them. This definitional 'othering' was a
precondition for all subsequent drug wars."

[...snip...]

"[T]he line between ingesting a substance because it
tastes good and ingesting a substance because it feels
good is less bright than we in the English-speaking world
sometimes imagine. Once it has satisfied hunger and
provided essential nourishment, food shares with drugs the
aim of producing sybaritic delight."

[...snip...]

"The difference between the 'highs' one gets from a great
meal and from alcohol and other drugs may be less a
difference of kind than a difference of degree, as recent
neuroscience research suggests. Neuroscientists have used
magnetic resonance imaging (mri) to show how the brain's
so-called pleasure center reacts to psychoactive
substances.30 These experiments have not yet located the
Holy Grail of the drug field, a basic biological substrate
for addiction, but they have yielded an embarrassment of
other riches. It turns out that similar changes in brain
activity are sparked not only by drugs -- stimulants and
depressants, licit and illicit -- but also by
adrenaline-inducing and other pleasurable activities
involving no drugs at all. The latter include a wide range
of things from gambling to maternal support to the sight
of beautiful faces.31 The trend across these studies is
toward what neuroscientists call the 'common pathway'
hypothesis,32 essentially the idea that behaviors that
give pleasure stimulate dopamine neurons in the brain and,
therefore, tend to be repeated -- whether the behavior is
ingesting a psychoactive substance, attending the
symphony, or eating a scrumptious meal with friends."

[...snip...]

"In The Doors of Perception, Aldous Huxley wrote: 'Most
men and women lead lives at the worst so painful, at the
best so monotonous, poor and limited that the urge to
escape, the longing to transcend themselves if only for a
few moments, is and always has been one of the principal
appetites of the soul.'26.... The claim that people use
drugs to escape the pains of impoverishment seems sensible
until one realizes that the claimant is a member of a
prominent upper-class British family who is writing about
his own extensive experience with hallucinogens. The
history of drug use clearly indicates that the better-off
have always sought transcendent states every bit as much
as the downtrodden, although their greater resources
usually allow them more easily to camouflage the
consequences. Yet Huxley was right to recognize the
antiquity and ubiquity of ingesting substances to alter
consciousness, and his notion that the human soul has an
'appetite' for this may not be merely metaphorical. Both
food and drugs provide pleasure, after all, and pleasure
is something for which humans have an appetite."

[...snip...]

"Will...surveillance be extended beyond drugs to diet? For
the moment, that seems unlikely. But if food sins continue
to creep in the direction of drug sins, the same
rationales and technologies could come into use. Food and
drugs are both articles of pleasure, in the consumption of
which some people overindulge occasionally while a smaller
fraction do so more frequently. A still smaller number
develop a truly unhealthy relationship with their
substance of choice. With the proliferation of consumables
defined as dangerous, testing blood for, say,
high-cholesterol foods is no longer unimaginable."

Posted by: Alan at October 25, 2007 07:31 PM

> The "hypothetical" woman described above was me and the
> answer was to ditch the consumerist, soul-destroying
> lifestyle.

Wonderful! Fantastic! Let's celebrate! I'll bring a big
bowl of rum punch, and some weed.

> Had I been Prozacked into submission, I could
> easily have kept it going another couple of decades.

"Prozacked into submission" makes it sound like the pdoc
is bludgeoning you. Of course it should not be that way.
YOU are the doc and the "doc" is merely your assistant.

What I'm saying is: let's keep Prozac itself separate from
the (bad) context in which it is usually used. I know that
that is not entirely possible, but mostly it is.

> I'm glad I didn't and so are my husband and family. My
> "noncompliance" and "belligerent attitude" and "lack of
> insight" saw me through.

"Francesca, we're all very concerned about your
non-cooperation and belligerance. For your own good --
STRICTLY for your own good -- we've elected for a brief
psychiatric incarceration. Nurse Ratched will see you
now."

:-D

> In the vast majority of cases,
> mental illness is not a chronic condition.

??!!

On what do you base this?

My impression is the opposite. Serious mental problems (or
whatever we want to call them) are usually lifelong, and
some of them are literally degenerative, as I mentioned to
Herb (brain shrinkage in depression, schizoprenia).

> I've been "bipolar" and "schizophrenic" and had
> "personality disorder," among other psych labels. People
> should be taught that their crisis is a reversible
> breakdown and a great opportunity to improve their
> approach to life.

For some people with sufficient resources, both internal
and external, it may be.

In THIS message (above) we learned that the hypothetical
woman (you) had a husband and family. That, right there,
changes the picture. Presumably the husband also has a job
(i.e. there is financial stability); presumably the
relationship with the hubby is good or at least not bad
(very important interpersonal support); presumably the
family/children are a source of joy as well as a source of
inner drive in the interest of being a responsible parent
and provider; presumably also the husband/family situation
involves a stable residence; etcetera. That's all BIG
stuff, if true. And that is part of what I mean by
"sufficient resources". NOT EVERYONE HAS THEM. But for
those who do -- like you, apparently -- then a dramatic
break with the past and a rapid creation of a new and
different life may be a real possibility. If so, then yes,
it should be encouraged. But if not, then you've got to be
realistic.

When you first described the hypothetical woman, it
conjured for me a single woman, without family, perhaps
with few or no friends, perhaps with no sex or romantic
prospects, living alone and lonely, and perhaps with no
realistic possibility of changing jobs or careers because
of financial stress/limitations. As such, there is not
much profit in giving her a long list of tools with which
she might build an entirely different kind of life -- like
gym memberships, yoga classes, volunteer work, and a
hundred other things like that. Those things are all
great, IF you can do them. Our hypothetical woman might be
able to do some (few) of them... if she can get some
momentum, some "oomph", some positive energy. Prozac is
one possibility for that initial "oomph", requiring about
1/100th as much time, energy and discipline as the other
stuff on the long list.

I was not recommending Prozac so much as I was
recommending that the individual's total life situation be
taken into account -- an holistic approach, you might say.
And indeed this is supposed to be what psychiatry does.
Recall the DSM's Axis IV: Psychosocial and Environmental
Factors, including "(1) problems with primary support
group (divorce); (2) problems with social environment
(death of a friend); (3) educational problems; (4) housing
problems; (5) economic problems; (6) occupational
difficulties; (7) legal difficulties; and (8)
transportation difficulties." Also Axis V: Global
Assessment of Functioning, "the clinician's best guess of
the client's overall level of functioning. For example you
would not expect a depressed severely retarded client to
keep an elaborate journal of his feelings." Nor would you
expect a severely depressed, elderly and weak client to
become an athlete, and enjoy the many benefits (including
psychological benefits) of that lifestyle.

Taking all these things into account, what should the
"patient" be expected to do, and encouraged to do? They
should be encouraged to do what they CAN do. And that
might be quite limited. Or not. It depends.

I said above that "everything we do is half-assed".
Everything. There is always -- floating around out there
-- a better way, and it is good to seek a better way. But
reality and practicality, based on an understanding of our
situational limits, dictates that we do what we CAN do
right here, right now, whether or not it is "better" or
"the best", and then build from there. Do not allow the
perfect to be the enemy of the good.

And regarding the "Axes": the DSM section on the Axes
(Axis I, II, III, etc.) is illuminating, and has broad
similarity to an outline of proper holistic health care.
(Though they missed a whole axis -- nutrition and diet! That should
be Axis VI.) That's what psychiatry was supposed to be,
though obviously not what it is, and the situation will
only grow worse. Which is why we all have to become our
own holistic docs. They're not going to do it for us --
and I am slowly coming to the conclusion that that,
ultimately, is good. Better to do it for ourselves than to
be disabled by "professionals".

Even better than the DSM axes (though covering
different territory) is the Icarus Project's
outline of "radical mental health":

http://theicarusproject.net/alternative-treatments/herbal-convergence-reportback

What is radical mental health?

--- Respects where the person is at.
--- Local, small-scale, anarchistic (mutual aid, autonomy...)
--- Anti-authoritarian
--- Holistic: not looking only at the mind.
--- Societal: not looking only at individual. Society makes
people crazy.
--- Anti-oppression. Being oppressed makes people crazy.
--- Less invasive. Ex: Chamomile, not valium. Plants over
psych drugs
--- The basics: Food, sleep & rest, exercise, supplements,
supports

Here here!

See, generally:

The Icarus Project: Navigating the Space Between
Brilliance and Madness: http://theicarusproject.net

blog: http://theicarusproject.net/blog/icarus-project

Posted by: Alan at October 25, 2007 10:00 PM

Alan, I like the radical mental health idea and will check out the link you provided. In spite of all of my theory, I have a dear friend and neighbor who hasn't worked in almost a year and sits alone all day and night what keeps her "sane" is gardening and we're in a drought...everyone else in the hood and my friends outside of the neighborhood tell me to get as far away from her as I can but I can't walk away and finding counseling alternatives and even meds if she wants them ain't easy. I didn't realize how much there's not in community mental health. Ironically, if she lived the neighboring county, there would be free care, but not mine, not so far.

I think the problem with prozac (which I'm using generically to mean antidepressants) is this: for lots of people it doesn't give that omph that you are talking about to get them off the couch and into the gym - research has proven not only is it not very effective for most people who take it but when it is effective it's only for a short while and then lots of folks spend the rest of their lives trying to get the initial ssri buzz back. And of course a placebo has been proven to be equally effective. I know the first time I took an ssri I was unhappy in an emotionally abusive relationship while being tortured by my emotionally abusive parents who were much nicer to me than their parents were to them - anyway, I had issues, as we all do, among them unintentionally recreating the same emotional dynamics in each relationship I entered that I had with my family of orgin - and then I took an ssri and felt better immediately. I got the drug because I read about it and wanted to try it. I was able to end the relationship (which I hadn't been able to do previously because I was terrified of being alone) and send out resumes and get a job using my advanced degree - the thing is this all happened in the first few days I started taking the drug which means it was all placebo effect. Day one I had a healthy courageous conversation with the future ex-boyfriend. Pharmacists, psychiatrist, etc., explained this had to be placebo as the drug doesn't work immediately. I had read so much about taking ssri's that finally getting an rx for one gave me so much hope I really did get better.

To me this means the placebo effect is not something to be devalued but to be examined. Why is it that in almost every study of everything from cancer cures to anti psychotics to antibiotics the placebo is at the very least "almost as effective" as the "real drug." If we could look at what this says about the regenerative properties of the human mind, body, and spirit, we'd be on to something.

As for most mental illness being chronic, that's only in the western world and probably because of the fact that we treat the symptoms (emotional distress) and not the disease (the environment that is causing the distress) as well as reverse placebo effect, i.e. if a doctor tells you you'll never get well, you'll never get well.

Posted by: Sally at October 26, 2007 06:48 AM

Alan, you are making outrageous and absurd assumptions about my situation, as summed up by your equating ditching consumerism with taking up "rum punch and weed." I'm really not interested in continuing a discussion where you invent situations (employed husband, joyful kids) that don't exist. The short answer is that I did it myself, with very little support from the people around me. Mental illness is supposed to be chronic yet people recover from their breakdowns all the time. Nobody benefits from the chronic model except for Big Pharma.

Posted by: Francesca Allan at October 26, 2007 08:43 AM

NOTE: this message is NOT for Francesca. It is for other
readers who might be interested.

.....................

Sally: "I think the problem with prozac (which I'm using
generically to mean antidepressants) is this: for lots of
people it doesn't give that omph that you are talking about to
get them off the couch and into the gym - research has proven
not only is it not very effective for most people who take it
but when it is effective it's only for a short while and then
lots of folks spend the rest of their lives trying to get the
initial ssri buzz back. And of course a placebo has been
proven to be equally effective."

Placebo has not been proven to be equally effective, in most
situations. See the URLs I posted (systematic reviews) from
cochrane.org.

I mostly agree with everything else you are saying. Sometimes
they don't work. I know that. But sometimes they do --
sometimes dramatically so. I've witnessed this myself too many
times for there to be any doubt.

There are two things missing: 1) nutrition therapy as
complement to drug therapy (or, more properly, drug therapy as
complement to nutrition therapy), as I've written about
already (see above and elsewhere), and 2) FOLLOWUP, which
means NOT viewing whatever "oomph" effect that the drug has as
"problem solved". No. Problem(s) NOT solved. The drug is just
a pump-primer. For some few people the drug might be needed
over the long term, or even forever. But most people can and
should find a way to do it without the pharmacologic support,
or with only occasional pharmacologic support. Nutrition is
one very important thing; there are other important things.

The problem is that everyone -- patients and docs alike -- are
looking for "magic bullets", quick and easy answers to (often)
complex, subtle life problems. Rarely, they find them. Rarely,
"Prozac" (or some other single pill, or whatever) works a
miracle, just like a magic bullet, and the person is cured --
or appears to be cured, and for all practical intents and
purposes IS cured. But that is unusual. Much more often, as
you say, the drug works (kinda sorta), and then then stops
working, and "folks spend the rest of their lives trying to
get the initial SSRI buzz back." Common story. The reasons for
it, in my view, are as I just said above: nutrition, and
followup. The drug is just a START. That's all. Sometimes a
very good start. Sometimes the only start that is possible, in
practice.

(And by the way, sometimes the effort to "get the initial SSRI
buzz back" works, when they change to another drug. That, too,
is a common story.)

I'm not a fan of Prozac and other drugs. But I do see their
advantages, which can be great. They are immensely PRACTICAL,
and applicable in a lot of cases where little else is a
practical possibility. Surely it is better to get to the "root
causes", totally revamp a person's life toward sanity and
health, address the core existential issues that are suspected to
cause the misery, correct the financial and psychosocial issues that are
so distressing, etc., etc., etc. I am a believer in holistic
psychiatry, as I thought I made clear (see posts above or
elsewhere re DSM, "Axes", etc.) But sometimes the best
IMMEDIATE, STARTING option for an individual is very simple
and very very practical -- like one little Prozac pill.
Sometimes that IS the best, most truly holistic
approach -- for a given person in a given
(difficult) situation, at least for starters.

At this point I am just repeating myself, so I will stop
there. I've made myself as clear as I can in other posts.

Sally: "the placebo effect is not something to be devalued but
to be examined... If we could look at what this says about the
regenerative properties of the human mind, body, and spirit,
we'd be on to something."

ABSO-FREAKING-LUTELY.

Posted by: Alan at October 27, 2007 10:05 AM

NOTE: this message is NOT for Francesca. It is
for other readers who might be interested.

................

from the furiousseasons "about" page:

"there isn't much of a free market of ideas in the mental health world--it's pretty much the mental health establishment versus the anti-psychiatry movement"

So it is. But that "free market" and in-between
space is what we've been exploring, right
here on this thread, is it not? Phillip: I'm
curious: are you reading this?

Posted by: Alan at October 28, 2007 06:08 AM

Jaime: Ms. Allan, If you disclose and document all the abbreviations that follow your name, I'll be happy to reference them when addressing you.

* How about calling me Francesca and I'll call you Jaime?

Jaime: Dr. Hoffer's work and therapies have impressed enough people to fill an entire ballroom when they celebrated his 90th birthday.

* I'm sure. I'm sure Fuller Torrey gets a great turnout too. Hell, I'd have shown up for Hoffer's b-day celebration if there was free grub and booze.

Jaime: Could it be that your patient sample is not representative?

* Of course. It's very possible. I'm only talking about a handful of people, at most. However, within that handful, are some horror stories. For example, on the basis of one visit (for which I had been informed that I was actually going for NUTRITIONAL counselling), the esteemed Dr. Hoffer came up with "anxiety bordering on schizophrenia." That's not even a fucking diagnosis but it still bit me in the ass a few years later.

Posted by: Francesca Allan at October 28, 2007 05:22 PM

NUTRITION AND THE MIND by GEORGE WATSON Ph.D

His work is summerized by Dr. Schenker at NUTRI-SPEC.NET


Has to do with how mitochonmdria makes energy. Called glucogenic/ketogenic (also fast oxidizer/ slow oxidizer)

Of course ya'll are aware that Eli Lilly and their cohorts would be agasnt using nutrients (vitamins/amino acids / minerals) in leau of Rx.

Feel free to call if interested

704 434 9130

Posted by: Dr. Ezra at October 31, 2007 04:51 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






pic1.jpg