I don't take health advice from celebrities. They can say whatever they want without any evidence to back it up. Granted science evidence may at times be tainted, but at least it is evidence one can argue over. But some knee-jerk response from a celebrity is just that: a knee-jerk response. That is a problem in America: people take celebrities far to seriously.

This looks interesting Phil..
:)

Supplements have their place. He means l-tyrosine, an amino acid, l-trytophan, also an amino acid. Better yet is high-dose fish oil, and St John's wort in moderate doses.

"I do agree with Carrey's central thesis that anti-depressants cover up who you are and what you have to do to address depression in the long-term."

They've given me enough of a break from the symptoms of manic depression so I've been able to concentrate on fixing some of the crap I wasn't able to while being hit with the random stupidity that is bipolar.

I've found supplements including fish oil and magnesium to be very helpful. Just because he is a celebrity doesn't mean Carrey is wrong.

There's kind of a logical fallacy here.

If we agree with Carrey on the first part, that we deal with our demons when we get desperate enough ... and as such are against [long term] Prozac, how are amino acids fundamentally different in that equation? The issue - per Carrey - isn't who's making money on what ... or what’s natural or artificial. If he’s against Prozac because it makes people feel better and thus less likely to work towards resolution, how can he logically be pro enzymes which make people feel better … ?

Doesn't it bother anyone that Jim Carrey doesn't even know what he's talking about? Serotonin inhibitors that don't allow serotonin to reach the receptor? He doesn't even understand how SSRI's work and we're supposed to take his opinions on these matters seriously?

His scientific illiteracy is further demonstrated by his anti-vaccine crusade with Jenny McCarthy, which has already resulted in an increase in the incidence of measles in the UK.

I have no problem with well-informed celebrities using their public platforms to educate the population, but for God's sake, at least be well informed.

granted, Carey's talent is acting, not scientific reasoning... his arguments are kind of spacy. But one thing I bet he's describing from direct experience, and that is medication "poop-out", where you have to take more and more to get less and less of an effect. We don't know of course whether these changes are temporary or permanent, and whether our brains are becoming desensitized only to the pills, or to our own serotonin as well. The latter is a grim prospect, but one that's been proposed by serious scientists: years of antidepressant use may be creating (or at least exacerbating) chronic depression.

I'm with Tony. This is the guy who made Me Myself & Irene which showed psych meds as aphrodisiacs. He's disqualified.

Remember what Mick Jagger said to Johnny Carson when asked about what HE thought of the Vietman War, "How the hell should I know? I'm a rock and roll star!"

DGuller,

Psychiatrists falsely attribute depression as a chemical imbalance.

They also falsely attribute withdrawal symptoms as a return of the illness.

They also are very uninformed about med side effects. I am not just talking about suicidal ideation.

Many psychiatrists, including you, didn't realize that meds could be tapered at a 10% or lower rate to reduce the intensity of withdrawal symptoms.

Hmm, and you're calling out Jim Carey for his scientific illiteracy? Something is wrong with this picture.

He's better informed than Tom Cruise though.

"I have no problem with well-informed celebrities using their public platforms to educate the population, but for God's sake, at least be well informed" - dguller

Guller..

Surely this is an ironic statement considering the fact that your key opinion leaders in psychiatry who promote these medications are akin to "celebrities"in their field?.. (Keller, Biederman and Goodwin spring to mind) .

It is key opinion leader psychiatrists who have the most dangerous of platforms of which to spew pharmaceutical propaganda and mental illness "scare mongering" ..

It wasn't long ago that your profession (psychiatry), your colleagues (psychiatrists) and your organization (APA) were promoting the "chemical imbalance theory", a theory that we all know now was based on dubious science at best and was completely fraudulent at worst..
Psychiatrists base their dangerous and deadly decisions based on guess work..
At least Jim Carrey isn't claiming to hold the monopoly on the mind....

Your thoughts Dr Guller? ..

Hooray for Jim Carey. Though not completely clear on how it works, after years of doctors making up fake ways that antidepressants work, staying silent on the suicides and other negative end results, he seized a public forum to say "Hey folks, there are alternatives to this other poison."

Let us not forget Jim Carrey is a HUMAN BEING who has suffered from a mental illness for a long time. He has every right for his voice to be heard as much as we do. Yes, sure, because he's a celebrity, he's on Larry King Live and we're blogging/writing on the internet, but that's the kind of world we live in. I think it was the heart of his message that we should remember and/or consider---these drugs usually only work short-term. And he decided to choose another path. Good for him. Again, he is no different than anyone else who has a mental illness-he just happens to make a lot of money in Hollyweird but that shouldn't discount his feelings and thoughts. Just my two stupid cents.

Serotonin Enhancing Psychotropic Pharmaceuticals

In the 1930s, physicians approached the mental illness of depression a bit differently that we do today. While acknowledging a cause of depression is often due to some great misfortune, they seemed to focus on what is called a complex. A complex is disturbances of ideas and impulses that are the cause of consistent habitual patterns of thought, feelings, and behavior. An example of this state of mind of one who is depressed is one who experiences an exaggerated or obsessive concern or fear. And the etiology for this mental disorder was often undefined. In the 1930s, psychotherapy such as cognitive therapy was recommended for treating the depressed patient, and not pharmacological therapy. Also considered for the depressed patient was positive lifestyle changes that would lessen the pain that the depression was causing them.
Times have changed since then.
Presently, for the treatment of depression and other what some claim are other types of mental disorders that are may or may not exist, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the drugs of choice by most prescribers today for a variety of mood disorders, including and primarily for the treatment of depressive disorders. The most severe of the depressive disorders is when one has a major depressive disorder, also called clinical depression or major depression. Symptoms of this type of depression, which is the most concerning due to its severity, include decreased or flat affect, decreased interest in activities once enjoyable, worthiness, guilt, regret, helplessness, and hopeless, to name a few of the diagnostic features that may be present with one who has such a major depressive disorder.
These SSRIs are known by some as third generation anti-depressants. Such drugs, drugs that affect the mind, are called psychotropic medications. SSRIs also include a few drugs in this class that include the addition of a norepinephrine uptake inhibitor added to the SSRI, and these drugs are referred to as SNRI medications, which combined with SSRIs, are the number 1 top therapeutic class of prescriptions presently, it has been reported. While there are several available SSRIs presently, it is believed that only two SNRIs are available, which are Cymbalta and Effexor. Some consider these classes of meds the next generation mood enhancers- after the benzodiazepine hype decades ago. Furthermore, regarding SNRIs, adding the additional agent of norepinepherine is presumed to increase the effectiveness of SSRIs by some.
Some Definitions:
Serotonin is a neurotransmitter thought to be associated with mood. The hypothesis was first suggested in the mid 1960s that this neurotransmitter may play a role in moods and emotions in humans. Yet to this day, the serotonin correlation with such behavioral and mental conditions is only theoretical. In fact, the psychiatrist’s bible, which is known as the DSM, states that the definite etiology of depression remains a mystery and remains unknown with complete certainty. So a chemical imbalance in the brain is not proven to be the cause of mood disorders, it is only suspected as a result of limited scientific evidence. In fact, diagnosing mental diseases such as depression is based on subjective assessment only, as interpreted by the prescriber, so one could question the accuracy of such diagnoses.
Norepinepherine is a stress hormone, which many believe help those who have such mood disorders as depression. Basically, with the theory that by adding this hormone, the SSRI will be more efficacious for a patient prescribed such a med, as suggested earlier.
And depression may be combined with related mood disorders that may exist with certain patients. Anxiety usually exists with one who has a major depressive disorder. A objective diagnosis of these mental conditions lack complete accuracy, as they can only be defined conceptually, so the diagnosis or impression concluded by the patient’s doctor is dependent on subjective criteria, such as questionnaires and patient observation by the health care provider. Such questions come from what is known as a DSM book created by psychiatrists. Screening programs that have been used for identifying depressed patients have proven to be largely ineffective. A social patient history is uncertain and tricky as well, some have said. There is no objective diagnostic testing for depression to validate as to whether or not the disease is present. A health care provider has to assess as to whether certain diagnostic features are present to offer the diagnosis of major depression. This is further complicated by the fact that the exact cause of major depression is unknown.
Yet the diagnosis of depression in patients has increased quite a bit over the past few decades. Some have asked themselves and others- actually how many people are really and actually depressed? What is believed is that if one is determined to be cognitively impaired from a mental paradigm, then it may be major depression. If this is determined by a health care provider, than pharmacological therapy is considered reasonable and necessary, as well as psychotherapy either used with or in place of medicinal therapy.
It has been reported that around 10 percent of the U.S. population will at some point be affected by a major depressive disorder. Due to such factors as the likeliness of others being depressed often being discussed recently in the media and medical literature, that may not be completely accurate or thorough, depression and the treatment and diagnosis of this disorder has increased remarkably in a short period of time in the United States. This depression issue is further encouraged by those pharmaceutical companies that market medications for major depressive disorders. So more people seek treatment now for what they believe is a major depressive disorder they are experiencing, when in fact it may be intense sadness, perhaps, due to a loss of some sort in their lives. There is a difference, and health care providers should have the appropriate tools and knowledge to discriminate between the two states of mental conditions. Sadness is not a medical problem. Symptoms associated with an unfavorable mental state need to be excessive and chronic to be considered to have in fact the medical problem of a major depressive disorder, as stated by others.
In Time magazine’s June 16th 2008 cover story, it was reported that the military personnel in the Iraq war are pounding down SSRIs often. Every time there is a new war, there is a new drug, it seems. Yet the story may illustrate the frequent usage of these types of medications in a variety of different areas for different reasons. Some reasons may be valid and appropriate, yet others perhaps may not be reasonable for such medicinal therapy.
In regards to those pharmaceutical companies who make and market such psychotropic drugs in the manner that they do that largely is unknown to others, what is known is that the psychiatry specialty is the one specialty most paid to by certain pharmaceutical companies for ultimately and eventual support of their psychotropic meds that they currently promote to these doctors, as this aspect of the pharmaceutical industry clearly desires market growth of these psychoactive medications. Front groups to expand the market for these types of drugs have been known to occur as well, which have on occasion been developed if not supported by such companies.
Regardless, SSRIs and SRNIs are the preferred treatment methods if depression or other mood disorders that may be suspected by a health care provider- regardless of their specialty. Yet these drugs discussed clearly are not the only treatments, medicinally or otherwise, for depression and other related and suspected mental disease states or disorders. Patients should be aware of this fact as well as caregivers.
Over 30 million scripts of these types of meds that enhance serotonin saturation in the brain are written annually, and the franchise is around 20 billion dollars a year now, along with some of the meds costing over 3 dollars per tablet, it has been reported. There are about ten different SSRI/SRNI meds available, many of which are now generic, yet essentially, they appear to be similar in regards to their efficacy and adverse events. The newest one, a SNRI called Pristiq, was approved in 2008, and is believed to be launched as a treatment for menopause. The first one of these SSRI meds was Prozac, which was available in 1988, and the drug was greatly praised for its ability to transform the lives of those who consumed this medication in the years that followed. Some termed Prozac, ‘the happy pill’. In addition, as the years went by and more drugs in this class became available, Prozac was the one of preference for many doctors for children. A favorable book was published specifically regarding this medication soon after it became so popular with others.
Furthermore, these meds have received upon request of their makers to the FDA additional indications besides depression for some really questionable conditions, such as social phobia and premenstrual syndrome. Also included with indications that now exist with these types of medications include both generalized and social anxiety disorders, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Panic Disorder, Agoraphobia, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Bulimia, and stress disorders in general. I understand they are seeking indications for pain management as well with these SSRI or SRNI pharmaceuticals. This may need further review before the use of these drugs are expanded into other conditions that have not been considered or thoroughly studied in the past, I believe.
With some of these indications for these classes of drugs, I question as to whether or not they are actual and treatable disease states or non-medical problems. Yet with additional indications for particular drugs in these classes o medications, one can be assured that the market for these drugs will continue to grow, as more are prescribed these particular classes of drugs, even though some have suggested that these types of drugs are effective in only about half who take them. And some of the indications granted to drugs in these classes of medications may be considered disease mongering to grow the market share for particular drugs of this type. This is combined with drug companies who make these types of meds either forming or creating front groups in order to have more diagnosed with various medical problems that may not exist so their medication can be utilized to a greater extent through such methods as screening others, or exaggerating the prevalence of a particular medical condition that their medication may be indicated for and authorized by the FDA. Needless to say, such activities by pharmaceutical companies are deceptive, inappropriate, unreasonable, unnecessary, and clearly dangerous to others.
Perhaps of greater concern and danger with these particular psychotropics primarily involves the adverse effects associated with these types of drugs, which include suicidal thoughts and actions, violence, including acts of homicide, and aggression, to name a few, yet devastating, events that have occurred while one is taking a SSRI or SRNI. It has been reported that the makers of such drugs are suspected to have known about these toxic and dangerous effects of their drugs and did not share them with the public in a timely and critical manner. While most SSRIs and SNRIs are approved for use in adults only, prescribing these meds to children and adolescents has drawn the most attention and debate with others for understandable reasons, which have included those in the medical profession as well as citizen watchdog groups. The reasons for this attention are due to the potential off-label use of these meds in this population of children, yet what may be most shocking is the fact that some of the makers of these meds did not release clinical study information about the risks of suicide as well as the other adverse events related to such populations, combined with the true decreased efficacy of SSRIs in general, which is believed to be only less than 10 percent more effective than a placebo. Paxil caught the attention of the government regarding this issue of data suppression some time ago, this hiding of such important information- Elliot Spitzer specifically was the catalyst for this awareness, as I recall. Furthermore, that drug is in the spotlight once again years later. Some believe the drug maker knew about possible risk to the youth as early as 1991. Yet did not disclose such danger associated with their drug to the public or the FDA, and this was done with intent.
And there are very serious questions about the use of SSRIs in children and adolescents regarding the possible damaging effects of these meds on them. For example, do the SSRIs correct or create brain states considered not within normal limits, which in effect would possibly cause harm rather than benefit a patient on such a drug? Are adolescents really depressed, or just experiencing what was once considered normal teenage angst? Do SSRIs have an effect on the brain development and their self identity of such young people? Do adolescents in particular become dangerous or bizarre due to SSRIs interfering with the myelination occurring within their still developing brains? No one seems to know the correct answer to such questions, yet the danger associated with the use of SSRIs does in fact exist. It is observed in some who take such drugs, but not all who take these drugs. Yet health care providers possibly should be much more aware of these possibilities, possibly, along with the black box warning now on SSRI prescribing information for the youth that has existed since 1994.
Finally, if SSRIs or SNRIs are discontinued by a patient rapidly and without medical supervision, withdrawals are believed to be quite brutal that follow soon after the drug is not taken anymore by a former patient of these types of drugs, and may be a catalyst for suicide in itself, as not only are these drugs habit forming, but discontinuing these meds abruptly, I understand, leaves the brain in a state of neurochemical instability, as the neurons need to recalibrate after existing in a brain over-saturated with serotonin. This occurs to some degree with any psychotropic medication, yet the withdrawals can reach a state of danger for the victim in some classes of meds such as SSRIs and SNRIs, it is believed. And this seems to concern many.
SSRIs and SRNIs have been claimed by doctors and patients to be extremely beneficial for the patient’s well -being regarding the patient’s mental issues where these types of meds are used, yet the risk factors associated with this class of medications may outweigh any perceived benefit for the patient taking such a drug. Before these medications mentioned were developed, doctors praised trycyclics, another class of anti-depressants, in a similar manner some time ago. Considering the lack of efficacy that has been demonstrated objectively with these newer psychotropics, along with the deadly adverse events with these SSRI and SSNI meds only recently brought to the attention of others, other pharmacological and non- pharmalogical treatment options should probably be considered, but that is up to the discretion of the prescriber. And the perception of the benefits derived by these types of drugs may be flawed, as there has been no decrease in incidences of suicide or remission of depression since these drugs have been available, many have concluded. Furthermore, recent studies have suggested that the supplement, St. John’s Wart, has shown to be as effective as medicine for major depression.
It is my hope that such a prescriber rules out possible other etiologies for their patients’ mental conditions before they conclude that such a patient is suffering from true mental illness requiring the medications mentioned earlier, such as asking their patients about life stressors and other medications these patients have taken or are presently taking. Because at times, a doctor can in fact do harm without intent.
“I use to care, but now I take a pill for that.” --- Author unknown
Dan Abshear
Author’s note:
Addendum to this article based on the following link:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/132005.php

There are greater than 60 symptoms associated with one who is or may be depressed, and there are different degrees of depression. The number of symptoms expressed by one who suffers from depression determines the severity of their depression.

The characteristics associated with depression are affective, cognitive, and somatic.

For example, affective symptoms are the core symptoms of a depressed mood, and the term that one has a flat affect is an indication that one may be suffering from depression. These symptoms may include sadness, dissatisfaction, crying episodes, irritability, as well as social withdrawal. It should be noted that many events could cause the expression of such symptoms besides depression in itself.

Cognitive symptoms associated with depression may include pessimism, a sense of failure as well as guilt, suicidal ideation, and dislike of self.

Somatic symptoms may include insomnia, fatigue, weight change, and loss of interests, such as sex or other activities engaged in historically with a depressed patient. It should be noted that stress can cause such symptoms as well, in my opinion,

Dan Abshear

I agree with Philip's reasoning about what Carrey said -- prozac, not good lon-term. Hey, thats helpful advice, and he is scientifically illiterate, but take what you can get.

Supplements on the other hand, especially in the realm of psychitry is utter nonsense. Orthomolecular psychiatry is such a sham-crock-of-shit in terms of science it isn't even funny. An dthe idea of finding fault in peoples body is just as dangerous as regular psychiatry's habit of doing the same.

Because of it's "treaments", it's probably slightly safer, but we don't know the long term effects of doping up kids on isolated naturally occuring molecules in mega doses, and no kid deserves that foisted on him or her, just like no kids deserves risperdal, lithium or any other irrational treatment foisted on him or her.

Both "pscyhiatries" suffer from the same irrational conceptual foundations built on air, and both are dangerous, and both trun our faces away from the real causes of the majority of what gets called mental illness -- inadequate and dangerous communities, inadequate and dangerous families, bad policies on every level, cultural toe fungus that lingers and allows all of the aforementioned.

Celebrities are jackasses. Peopel who are extrordinarily wealthy often find value, safety and confort in things, alot of physicians and professionals should be included too. Vitamins, pills -- it doesn't seem to matter as long as the re is a lot of money, power, fame, authority or glitz associated with the production and propagtion of those things.

Hey if someone wants to take a few vitamin supplements and there workign to find out why they're depresssed in the first place -- then 10 times out of 10 they're better off then the person on prozac.

But I'm just mystified by some people critical of the current psychiatry, who think for whatever set of reasons, none of them scientific, that continuing the traditon of finding fault in the individual is a better solution.

Interesting parallel -- since the human genome has been mapped we're quickly finding out that a lot of conditions we hoped would have significant genetic underpinnings don't -- cancer primarily, and anything else you can shake a gene linkage analysis at -- well, since these condtions don't have significant genetic underpinnings, taht means in one way or another they're environmental (especially cancer). So it would be up to the community to not, let's say, dump your car batteries in the lake, because pregnant Jane Smith down the street swims in the lake. You get my point.

But since psychiatry is insulated from a lot of mainstream basic science research, and has many ideological "achilles heels" to maintain, it has to churn out crap research and training that makes it acceptable to tell someone who has every reason in the world to be depressed that having faith in this pill or that is a sane option for a few years. It isn't.

I think the larger issue is the widespread use of SSRI's among the general population. By general population I am referring to people who do not really meet the critera for being clinically depressed but who happen to be feeling "down" for periods of time, and their doctors (not psychiatrists, but rather family practice physicians or gynechologists, or whatever) just hand them a script and don't monitor them. And rather than getting to the real issue which could likely be resolved in talk therapy combined with short term anti-depressant use, they end up on these things for YEARS. That, to me, is a very, very dangerous and disconcerting state of affairs.

truthman30:

You are right that psychiatry's conception of depression as monoamine depletion was incorrect. The science has moved on to other ground, but sadly, many clinicians and drug company PR departments have not.

Christine:

I totally agree. I would only include a large portion of psychiatrists into the category of clinicians who fail to take a proper history, and rush to prescribe medications to people who probably don't need them, and who probably need the psychotherapy or supportive interventions that you mentioned instead.

Take care.

oh for god sakes people...nutrients and amino acids work and they are not neurotoxic like Prozac...it's not the same thing to take them instead of a neurotoxin

I'm sick of all you people who don't take peoples experience seriously..

science does not have all the answers and sometimes anecdotes are valid...

I've been in alternative to meds email groups for 3 years now...I've collected enough anecdotes to KNOW that many NATURAL substances with virtually no side effect profiles can help people...they are not the full and complete answer, people need to take care of the psyches and spirits too.

frankly I don't give a shit if he's a celebrity or if he knows a damn thing about science...he knows how his body/mind and spirit feel with the help of amino acids...

JC,
Our society is insane, but we as individuals do need to take responsibility for ourselves... I don't find that offensive...I find it liberating...

it's not a matter of fault...it's a matter of personal journey and the life we were dished out at birth...and dealing with that reality

we can blame everyone around us or we can do something to help ourselves...no fault involved...

but yeah, I'm looking inside myself for the answers...and that does not involve blaming myself---it does mean I take responsibility for my actions and wellbeing.

I just had a conversation with a friend who said she recently saw an interview on TV with Jim Carrey in which he said, in all seriousness, that Santa Clause was a very scary concept to him as a child, because his drunken parents used to threaten him that Santa would cut him if he misbehaved. She said he was addressing his trauma issues. I guess I'm mainly interested because he's cute and funny, though. And famous. Did I mention cute?

Gianna said

"frankly I don't give a shit if he's a celebrity or if he knows a damn thing about science...he knows how his body/mind and spirit feel with the help of amino acids..."

That's the best point. The man is a human being who happens to be on the news (so I have I! whoopee)saying what works for him and if anyone falls victim to someone else's treatment ideas because he is a celebrity, well then I say that person should think twice about how they take care of their bodies, and think for themselves.

Gianna is correct, in my opinion, that taking an alternative route, is better than neuroleptics or other chemicals, --hell why not go alternative if that works?

kudos for Carrey for speaking out at all!

Patient anecdotal stories are the only survival tool out there for help with psych med withdrawals, take a look at how many people are suffering coming off of Lamictal in Furious Seasons ongoing comment section thread. That thread was started by a patient, who suffered Lamictal withdrawals.

This site's author!!

Gianna:

Anecdotes are great.

If I am in pain, I take X, and the pain goes away, then I will naturally conclude that X caused the pain to go away. However, the pain could have gone away due to any number of things other than X: the natural course of the illness, spontaneous recovery, regression to the mean, the Hawthorne effect, and the placebo effect.

Just because a large number of people improve after taking X is interesting in the sense that a hypothesis can be formulated, which can be further tested in a controlled trial. That's the whole point of having a control group, because if there is a difference between a group taking X versus a group taking placebo, then it must be due to X and not the factors I listed above. Then we can conclude that X was the causal agent for the change.

Regarding the wealth of case reports that you've collected on the alternative medicine e-mail groups that show that people do well on natural cures without side effects. All the problems that people here identify with drug trials apply here. How many people have stopped posting, because their conditions worsened while taking their treatment? How many people stopped posting, because the remedies killed them? How many people know what side effects to look for and thus report them? Many may be having side effects, but not know that they are due to their treatment, thinking they have the flu or something. What if the people who improved with vitamin supplements, for example, and who post their stories are those who actually have vitamin deficiencies of various kinds and naturally are improved with taking vitamins? Could you generalize to the entire population, including those whose vitamin intake is fine?

Perhaps if you have uncovered any controlled studies, then you could post the citations and we could look at them. Otherwise, I'll take the wealth of anecdotal information with caution due to the variety of confounding factors.

psychiatry and anti-depresants play an important role in life,for those of you who don't'believe' in psyciatry' or 'anti-depressants' you're ignorant! it's great that most of the society doesn't feel the way you do and that they understand the importance of these two immensley important attributes to society

"Truthman30:

You are right that psychiatry's conception of depression as monoamine depletion was incorrect. The science has moved on to other ground, but sadly, many clinicians and drug company PR departments have not.

Posted by dguller at December 17, 2008 07:56 PM"

OK Guller..

Now here is where the problem lies, as a psychiatrist you have just admitted that the "chemical imbalance theory" was incorrect so why is psychiatry not making the public aware of this? ,,

Yes, this theory is still being heavily promoted and drugs are still sold to unsuspecting patients on the back of this defunct theory, so surely since it is your profession that first propagated this theory then it is your responsibility to admit it was wrong and make people aware of this?

And on a second point, how in gods name did psychiatry think that depression was caused by chemical changes in the brain?
Most depressive episodes are a reaction to life traumas to begin with, when they become chronic they are in essence a habitual coping mechanism...

Your psychiatric profession has done more damage to those suffering from depression than "depression" has itself ..
Your profession is more of a danger to those suffering from mental illness than mental illness will ever be...

It is an absolute disgrace what you get away with..
The entire history of psychiatry is soaked in blood and unnecessary suffering...It is complete exploitation of the human condition ...

Name me one long term psychiatric patient who has good things to say about psychiatry...

Because I can name you millions who have had nothing but bad experience and pain because of the psychiatric system..

Your profession is hideous and what you do to the most vulnerable people in society are akin to human rights abuses..

I would highly recommend to anyone interested in the uses and abuses of SSRI's, as well as a very good explanation (for the non-scientists among us, myself included) of what serotonin and SSRI's are and how they actually work in your brain. I think the average person would be surprised to find that it doesn't work exactly the way "conventional wisdom" would expect. And, as well, the book clearly outlines the very flimsy nature of government approvals for these drugs, tained clinical trials, and the like that have been driven by the drug companies and aided and abetted by an understaffed and often ineffectual FDA.

The book is called "Prozac Backlash -- Overcoming the Dangers of Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and Other Antidepressants with Safe, Effective Alternatives" and it was written by Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., of Harvard.

This book has been out since 2000, I believe, and it was recently recommended to me by my current therapist (a psychoanalyst/psychologist). I had been on one SSRI or another since 1982 and, really, nothing changed much in terms of my mood over the years.

What I have discovered, in reading this book, is that I am suffering one of the more serious side effects of long-term use of SSRI's: parkinsonism. Not Parkinson's disease, but rather some of the neurological and motor-related symptoms of Parkinson's.

Anyway, I've pretty much weaned myself off of anti-depressants and am taking it one day at a time. I'm trying to deal with what are probably the core issues behind my depression, while at the same time acknowledging there there very well may be a biochemical basis for it, but I just want to see what it's like to come out from behind the anti-depressant veil and deal with life head-on.

Truthman30:

You are correct that probably most forms of depression are secondary to psychosocial factors -- such as maladaptive coping style, trauma and abuse, interpersonal conflicts, role transitions, and so on -- but all these environmental causes result in changes in the human brain that lead to depression.

Now, it was oversimplistic to claim that those changes were solely depleted neurotransmitters, but the science now states that it is more a matter of how those neurotransmitters interact with various neurocircuits -- e.g. PFC, limbic system -- that causes depression. There is also a focus on intracellular changes involving various growth factors that affect the development of neurons in key areas of the brain in some forms of depression, such as the hippocampus.

So, there is certainly a brain component to major depression, just as there is a brain component to pain, even though the pain can be caused by an external agent. I believe that most forms of depression can likely be managed by altering the brain via psychosocial interventions, such as psychotherapy. I also believe that sometimes in severe cases where such engagement is not possible that one must alter the brain state directly with medications.

From what I am aware of, every piece of scientific literature over the past 15-20 years has explicitly stated that the monoamine theory of depression is invalid. Perhaps you are right that members of my field should do more to educate the public about the new theory of depression that utilizes the latest evidence.

Take care.

D Guller...

Either you are deliberately avoiding the issues I raise or you are an idiot...

It is the external factors such as socio-economic, trauma, poor coping skills etc which lead to depression...(it is not chemical changes)

The chemical changes are induced to compound the feeling..
Such as when we feel the joy induced by a happy moment, our bodies and brain act accordingly in order to compound the feeling, such as with joy- an increase in heart rate and pleasure chemicals, dopamine etc..
As is with all human emotions, such as with anger, it is induced by an external factor or an internal thought..
The "chemical changes" you are talking about are induced as a response from the physical body to compound the feeling that the individual instigates themselves ..
Depression is mostly a form of grief and melancholic sadness, it is a completely normal human emotion which has a completely justified purpose..

Either you are deliberately avoiding the issues I raise or you are an idiot...

Truthman30,
They always avoid the issues we raise. It's useless to discuss with them.
They are not idiots. No, no, no...
They are simply very unite and twist all our words by using theories that looks like the human brain is completely understood:

"Now, it was oversimplistic to claim that those changes were solely depleted neurotransmitters, but the science now states that it is more a matter of how those neurotransmitters interact with various neurocircuits -- e.g. PFC, limbic system -- that causes depression. There is also a focus on intracellular changes involving various growth factors that affect the development of neurons in key areas of the brain in some forms of depression, such as the hippocampus."

This is laughable!
It makes no sense. But for those who haven't a clue about what is really going on it sounds quite scientific and true.
This is sad.
I think that it's a waste of time discussing with with people who are aggressive and use scientific jargon to impress and make believe that the brain is fully understood.
This is unethical to say the least.
Since last month Furious Seasons commenters have been exposed to all kinds of data that looks quite scientific but are mere speculations. Even the already contestable DSM is being used to support hypothesis that means nothing, explains nothing and only put in disbelief

The real biological scientific community should be ashamed to let such people do these kind of statements.
These people are making a mockery of real science.
If I was a scientist I would be deeply concerned seeing my field being this way.
This is shameful.

truthman30:

All mental states are generated by the activation of neural circuits in the brain, which be triggered by internal or external factors, as you said. You can alter mental states by changing the psychosocial triggers, or by affecting them directly with medications that engage with the neurocircuits and neurotransmitters themselves.

Naturally, if the psychosocial factors remain in place, then the neurocircuits will continue to be activated, and depression will persist. For most people, a psychosocial intervention would be sufficient to alleviate the depression, but for a minority with severe depression, they likely require an antidepressant, because they are simply unable to engage properly to generate the needed psychosocial changes. However, once they improve, then they must address the triggering factors, or else they remain at risk for relapse.

As I said, pain works the same way. It is caused by an external factor, which results in the activation the neural pathways that generate the subjective experience of pain. You can alleviate the pain by directly affecting the neural circuits using a painkiller or eliminate the external factor. Pain is, "completely normal" and "has a completely justified purpose", as well. Therefore, your argument that any human feeling that is normal and has a recognized purpose cannot be mediated by underlying brain states is false.

So, can be agree that there is neurobiological component to sadness and depression? And if there was no biological component to sadness, then how do you explain the induction of depression by certain medications, such as corticosteroids or interferon? Just wondering.

Take care.

Ana:

What is laughable and nonsensical in the paragraph that I wrote above? I hope that you have more than just contempt and insults to justify your comments.

Take care.

D GULLER....

I will ask you one question?...

Do you believe that emotions are normal?...

dguller,
Do you really want me to tell what you're doing here?
Me? lol
Keep writing, please, dguller, keep writing.
The issue here is that more you write the more the scientific community is put in danger. Just take a good look at what you're saying in this comment:
Posted by dguller at December 19, 2008 03:47 AM
I believe that you are the one who should take care.
Take good care because there are scientists around and I assure you that they are appalled.
Don't tell me that this is a display of contempt or that I'm insulting you.
I'm really concerned as well as some scientists.

Take care.

Errata: "If I was a scientist I would be deeply concerned seeing my field being treated this way."

Take care dguller.

I would take good care if I was in your shoes.

You'll not be listening from me.

Take care.

Once again:
I'm nos insulting you.

truthman30:

As I wrote in my comment above, I do believe that emotions are normal neurobiological reponses to internal and external biopsychosocial triggers. To go further, I believe that emotions are our guides about whether or not we are living according to our deepest needs and values. When we are living such lives, we feel happy, vital and energized; and when we are not, then we feel depressed, anxious, irritable, angry and ashamed.

As one of my psychiatry supervisors always says, "emotions speak personal truth". I help my patients listen deeply to what their feelings are trying to tell them, and to be mindful and accepting of them in a compassionate way. Sometimes they need medications in order to be able to bear their powerful emotions, but the goal is never to eliminate them. Rather, the goal is to hold them gently as useful tools that can be used to build a life of meaning and purpose.

I hope this helps clarify things.

Is all the hostility towards dguller warranted? He's sharing his opinion in a calm, respectful and scientifically literate way, there's no need for these insults. Now I remember why I often avoid reading comments on this blog.

D Guller..

I will tell you my experience of psychiatry shall I?...

(i'll try and be brief here)

When I was younger I was diagnosed with depression by a psychiatrist..
My father had left my mother and two younger brothers up shits creak , without a home and with no money, he went off with another woman and is a chronic alcoholic..
I grew up in a very unstable environment ..
So I got depressed ..
But instead of receiving compassion and talk-therapy for my life trauma and difficulties , the psychiatrist told me I had a "chemical imbalance" and the reason I was depressed was because of this..
She then prescribed Paxil (seroxat) to treat it..
She completely dismissed and discounted the environmental factors which lead to my depressive episode.
I was on Paxil for 4 years without any counselling and I was never monitored , there was no call back to the psych and my GP would leave out 3 months prescriptions..
I suffered unimaginable horror on Paxil and in withdrawal from it..
Until you have experienced SSRI induced insanity you will never understand..
I doubt very much that you can empathize with people suffering from depression or anxiety because all you seem to have learned it psychiatric textbook bullshit...
Bullshit which brands people with stigmatization and whores their lives and souls to a life time of pharmaceutical drug consumption..
This is the standard of care of your profession ..
A "profession" which masquerades itself as offering hope to people with depression, when really all it does is squeeze the very life out of them... Your profession has the highest of audacity and harms people every day...
The depths and pain which I have gone through you will never understand because as a psychiatrist your ideology does not allow it..
You see people from a cold and clinical perspective , I pity you psychiatrists ..
It must be very difficult to accept that the ideology you have studied and been indoctrinated into is despised by most of the people it is supposed to help...
It must also be very uncomfortable when you realize that the junk science and godfathers of your organization have sold your profession and ethics to an industry which values greed and profits before human life..

The truth is often the bitterest of pills to swallow ...

"scientifically literate "

He talks absolute junk science garbage..

truthman30:

I am very sorry for all that you have gone through. I make no excuses on behalf of my profession when it lets down its patients, and you certainly were let down.

I was wondering if you could comment on my previous comment. You asked me if I thought that emotions were normal, and I answered your question. I'd appreciate your feedback on what I said.

Thanks.

Regardless of whether or not he has his scientific facts straight it's good to see a high profile person like Carrey talking about alternatives rather than pimping the latest pharmaceutical. Good or bad, when stars talk people listen.

I've been on the Truehope program for bipolar 1 for about a year now and all I can say is that it works better than anything else I've tried over the last 13 years. Hopefully these types of approaches will get more press.

I'm also glad to see Larry King giving him a chance to talk about it like he did with Margot Kidder back in 2005:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/21/lkl.01.html

Hi Truthman, you said,


"I suffered unimaginable horror on Paxil and in withdrawal from it..
Until you have experienced SSRI induced insanity you will never understand..
I doubt very much that you can empathize with people suffering from depression or anxiety because all you seem to have learned it psychiatric textbook bullshit...
Bullshit which brands people with stigmatization and whores their lives and souls to a life time of pharmaceutical drug consumption..
This is the standard of care of your profession ..
A "profession" which masquerades itself as offering hope to people with depression, when really all it does is squeeze the very life out of them... Your profession has the highest of audacity and harms people every day."

Thank you so much for saying this. I am crying as I write this post.

In spite of carefully tapering, I have been hit with horrific rebound insomnia that may force me back on meds. The previous one have sucked the very life out of me and left gifts like a hearing loss and a worsening of my LD symptoms. In this economy, I can't take a leave of absence at I am working temp. I have to sleep so I can earn a living and do a good enough job to not lose the assignment.

God damm these drugs for holding me hostage and leaving me with the frying pan or fire type of choices. Every non med option I have tried has failed.

Anyway, the only way things will change is if people like DGuller experience something similar to what we went through. Of course, that has about as much chance of happening as George W becoming a Democrat.

So DGuller, people like Truthman, me, and other on this board are the long term studies from these drugs. But no one is collecting the data and no one gives a damm in your profession. You just put your blinders on and believe these meds are wonderful.

I am sorry for your suffering Truthman. Damm, no counseling for trauma. I am dumbfounded.

AA wrote:

"people like Truthman, me, and other on this board are the long term studies from these drugs. But no one is collecting the data."

Yes, we are the long term studies. My daughter is an example of a decade long study for pediatric bipolar gone bad, medication adverse affects and damage...BUT:

pharmaceutical companies, and prominent hospitals without a doubt read this blog, and are reading what we say, because they read mine daily. Some days my stats are loaded with every major hospital the KOL's are at, as well as ALL of the psych drug companies. We are statistics and that is all. Products of a marketing industry.

Truthman:
Here's a question:
If you are stating that only "external factors" contribute to emotional wellbeing and depression, do you believe mental illness exists at all?
Are you refuting the existence of schizophrenia? Just curious.

And for me personally, at the age of 11, I wrote a letter to a Christian children's magazine advice column asking if it was a sin to want to kill myself. The magazine contacted my parents, who were not abusive, were married Christian middle-class....regular great blah blah you get the picture....parents. Unfortunately, I did not find a medication that worked until 5 years ago. I will turn 27 soon.
So I can tell you with great assurance, that on my medications I am finally reacting as "normal" people do--which I never did. I never meant it when I laughed. I was chronically suicidal. Always. From the time I can recall. I also didn't cry or have concern for the normal things that people do, I had to be more selfish because every day was horrible.

Let me add one more thing: Mental illness runs in my family. It is biological. I have four living relatives with bipolar and one with schizophrenia, those are just the immediate family. Denying mental illness, by jim carrey or you, is an absolute disservice and disgrace.

sarah:

Thank you for sharing your story. I hope you continue to find a path of happiness in your life.

Sarah...

I don't have time to discuss this now..
One thing I will say though is..
If you are so easily coerced into a belief system like christianity then it wouldn't surprise me if you got sucked into the psychiatric belief system..

I didn't deny that mental illness exists either..
Read what I said carefully before you jump to ridiculous assumptions..
Happy christmas...

Read what I said first.
I received the magazine when I was young. I'm not a Christian. I'm an atheist. My post had nothing to do with religion. My post had to do with mental illness and asked a question of you.

Ok Sarah..

First of all, define what you mean by "mental illness"? ..

do you mean an illness of the mind?..
an illness of the brain?
or an illness in your psyche?

Truthman30:

One more thing. You wrote:

“when we feel the joy induced by a happy moment, our bodies and brain act accordingly in order to compound the feeling, such as with joy- an increase in heart rate and pleasure chemicals, dopamine etc..
As is with all human emotions, such as with anger, it is induced by an external factor or an internal thought..
The "chemical changes" you are talking about are induced as a response from the physical body to compound the feeling that the individual instigates themselves”.

This implies that we first have a feeling, and then afterwards physical changes in the brain and body occur. I believe that this has it exactly backwards. What explains the initial feeling? Where did it come from? Does it exist independent of any brain state? If so, then you appear to endorse some form of Cartesian dualism. If you do, then I would appreciate your answer to how something completely independent of a physical system can affect it in any way. Where is the connection and how does it work? If you can solve that problem, then you will have achieved a solution to an apparently insoluble problem.

The truth is that our subjective experience is directly caused by neurobiological changes in brain circuitry. That is why when different areas of the brain are damaged, there is an immediate change in our subjective experience. Look up the case of Phineas Gage who had his frontal lobe injured in a work accident, and was transformed into an impulsive and irritable man, completely different from who he was prior to the accident. If his feelings existed independently of his brain, then how did they change so dramatically when his brain was altered. You can look at people with brain tumours, strokes, and other lesions to see further evidence that the brain mediates our mental states.

Take care.

I don't think you understand what I am saying D Guller..
I will continue this later..
Sometimes it may seem easy to blind side someone with pseudo-medical jargon , and yes it looks impressive..
But it's still just waffle ..

Catch ya later.

Wow.

A whole lot of people making judgments about Jim here. How would anyone know what he does and does not know?

ALso:

"The truth is that our subjective experience is directly caused by neurobiological changes in brain circuitry. That is why when different areas of the brain are damaged, there is an immediate change in our subjective experience. Look up the case of Phineas Gage who had his frontal lobe injured in a work accident, and was transformed into an impulsive and irritable man, completely different from who he was prior to the accident. If his feelings existed independently of his brain, then how did they change so dramatically when his brain was altered. You can look at people with brain tumours, strokes, and other lesions to see further evidence that the brain mediates our mental states."

Look up Neuroplasticity and you can see that the brain can be rewired even with damage such as you described. I think people also tend to forget about the energy that powers the brain and everything else (sometimes pointed to as the soul). There is so much we do NOT know, that it is funny how rigid our egos are. Despite all the research, jargon and data they still have no real idea what causes certain mental conditions or why certain drugs work.

They sure do know how to make money though.

Oh, and by the way D Guller, my room mate is a scientist doing a Phd in micro biology, and I lived with another Phd student in the past who was studying the genetics of schizophrenia, we have had many discussions about psychiatry...
Bpth of them admit that the science behind psychiatric diagnoses is extremely dubious...

truthman30:

That's great that you are surrounded by students of science with strong opinions about psychiatry. Dr. Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize in chemistry, but later held strong opinions about the all-powerful curative properties of vitamin C. Despite his stature in the scientific community, his views were utterly wrong. That is why it is considered a fallacy to rely upon someone's authority independent of the reasoning and evidence behind it.

Perhaps if you could post your friends' arguments and evidence for the dubious nature of psychiatric diagnoses, then that would move the discussion forward? Thus far, you have failed to do either and have merely asserted your position with increasing gravitas and authority, which does not justify your position at all.

You have asked several questions of me, which I have answered, but you have neither responded to my answers nor to my question. I have asked you if you believe that mental states exist independently of brain circuits, and you have been silent. I would appreciate an answer on this point, because it is a very important one.

Take care.

Andrew:

You are absolutely right that neuroplasticity allows the brain to rewire itself in response to the right type of stimuli even in the face of brain damage. That is one of the most remarkable discoveries of the last 20 years, because it was always thought that our neurocircuits were hardwired after late childhood and adolescence, if not earlier, but how we know that the brain is flexible until the moment we die. Two great books on this subject, if anyone is interested are: “The Brain That Changes Itself” (2007) by Norman Doidge and “Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain” (2007) by Sharon Begly. Really cool stuff. :)

Take care.

Andrew:

Oh yeah, and regarding Jim Carrey's ignorance of how antidepressants work, just read his explanation of their mechanism of action. He just doesn't know what he's talking about in this particular matter.

Take care.

"There is so much we do NOT know, that it is funny how rigid our egos are. Despite all the research, jargon and data they still have no real idea what causes certain mental conditions or why certain drugs work.

They sure do know how to make money though."

I Couldn't agree more... :)

You know, I like Jim Carrey as an actor/comedian, and I've known about his depression and quasi-Scientologist reaction to it for awhile. (Several Hollywood tabloids have said he and/or Jenny McCarthy are Scientologists, which is hardly irrelevant to this discussion.)

When I re-read what he actually said, though, I got less angry. He so clearly didn't know what he was talking about with the mechanism of serotonin that it became easier to laugh it off as typical Hollywood psychobabble and not as a Tom Cruise-like condemnation of Brooke Shields. And for the serious part of his discussion ... well, no responsible psychiatrist (and there are A LOT of irresponsible psychiatrists out there, conceded) would have a patient take meds without talk therapy of some sort.

Where I got angrier, when I read this, was in our blogmeister's reaction to the whole thing. If psych meds "cover up who you are," then that's way WORSE than the verbal beatdown Cruise put on Shields. It's saying anyone who takes meds is inauthentic, in some ways even frauds to themselves and to the world. That's a helluva comment, Philip.

I endorse the right of anyone non-violent to others (including Ray Sandford, for example, for whom I lobbied to MindFreedom in a letter -- somewhat of the equivalent for me, as someone noted, of holding a rally to endorse George W. Bush if he had somehow stumbled into doing something right and important) to choose his or her own care. I have come to understand, from the commenters here on FS and from some of their individual blogs, why their terrible experiences lead them to choose a different path than I do.

I certainly don't feel a similar understanding and tolerance coming the other way, though. And I'll be damned if I let anyone, including Philip, say I am a fraud or inauthentic for making my own choice.

Isn't that the very definition of human authenticity?

You have asked several questions of me, which I have answered, but you have neither responded to my answers nor to my question. I have asked you if you believe that mental states exist independently of brain circuits, and you have been silent. I would appreciate an answer on this point, because it is a very important one.

Personally, I believe that people are a complex combination of physical, spiritual, mental and emotional (some would even add an etheric dimension also to that complexity)

The questions you asked I did not address directly because you did not ask them directly, you mashed them amongst psycho-babble , so it was difficult to see what it was you were asking me to respond to..

So, you ask, "do mental states exist independently of brain circuits" ?

My answer is , it is entirely possible that they do not, and it is also possible that they do in some instances..

My point being..

What happens in the mind, is inexplicably linked with what happens in the body and the brain, but both are also influenced by complex factors such as an individuals perception of their environment, their reaction to this perception and their actual experience of it..

So therefore, what I am trying to say is, there is so much that we do not know about the mind, the brain, the psyche and (dare I say it...) the soul

People are more than just flesh and blood , neurons and synapses...

We are not machines...

Unfortunately your profession views humanity as if we were all merely faulty robots falling off an assembly line...

There is no "holistic" psychiatry...
That is the problem..

Truthman30:

First, I am glad that we agree that the mind is dependent upon the brain, which depends upon a variety of factors. However, we disagree on the point of whether there is a non-physical component, i.e. soul, spirit. I don’t think we’ll ever settle that disagreement though, and so we’ll just have to agree to disagree. :)

Second, I really enjoy your generalizations about “all psychiatrists” who believe this, or think that, or do this, etc. I doubt that you have met all psychiatrists, and I doubt even more if you can find me a single peer-reviewed article in the last 20 years that describes patients with mental illness as “defective” or “flawed” as human beings. Once again, asserting something to be true does not make it so.

I know that you have had a terrible experience with psychiatry, and I do apologize for the suffering that you endured, but it is irrational to over-generalize to an entire profession on the basis of your experience. And if you reply that there are many people online on this blog and others who have had negative experiences, then we can conclude that MANY psychiatrists have likely let their patients down, but we still cannot conclude that ALL or even MOST psychiatrists behave in the way that you say.

Take care.

I must Say D Guller..

You put up a good defense ...
However, I think you are still missing the point..
You talk about me "generalizing" about psychiatry...
This is ironic, because if anyone is guilty of "generalization" it is you profession of psychiatry..
Does your whole profession not base it's "diagnoses" on the DSM?
Is the DSM not your psychiatric bible?
The DSM is a catalogue of "generalizations" and "assumptions" about the human condition and experience...
It is essentially a bastardization of humanity..
The "chemcial imbalance theory" is itself the very epitome of "generalization" (amongst other questionable things) ..

It is much more correct to generalize about a profession which adheres to a rigid and quasi-fascist perspective (psychiatric ideology) than it is to present an audacious text on the complex varieties of human existence and call it a "science" (the DSM) ..

To put it simply..

Are all nazi's Jew Haters? is similar to saying...

Are all Psychiatrists exploiters of the human condition? ..

The generalization is applicable because of the nature of the ideologies and practices which both adhere to and promote..

You say "Once again, asserting something to be true does not make it so" ..

Well, I could apply that to every diagnoses , belief and practice of psychiatry could i not? ..

You also say "I doubt even more if you can find me a single peer-reviewed article in the last 20 years that describes patients with mental illness as “defective” or “flawed” as human beings" ..

Well Guller , we all know that while psychiatry does not outwardly admit it, the practice of the profession itself de-humanizes people , it brands them with stigma and it sells them as life time consumers of the pharmaceutical industry...

I have experienced the soul destroying grip of your ideology first hand, I have watched too many people being sucked into the psychiatric system, I have seen friends being misdiagnosed, drugged and destroyed by the psychiatric system, I have visited friends in psychiatric hospitals, I have met many people over the years who have been negatively affected by your insidious system of psychiatry..

I don't need anymore proof to come to my conclusions about what you people do..I have lived it, I have seen it, I have researched it and I know it..

We also don't need "peer reviewed" articles to know the truth..
And anyhow, if something is "peer reviewed" by those with the same intent and ideology that doesn't automatically make it genuine and for the greater good... (psychiatric drugs and conflicts of interest being cases in point- study 329/Paxil etc) ..

And don't even get me started on ECT...

Truthman30:

First, you are correct that the DSM-IV has a series of underlying assumptions behind it. It is a phenomenological approach to mental illness that seeks to find symptoms that have been shown through statistical analysis to cluster together in a way that cannot be explained through chance alone. That is the “Statistical” in the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual”.

However, there are arbitrary elements in terms of how illnesses are divided and categorized, in addition to the statistical component, which are certainly problematic. It also fails to address etiology or biopsychosocial factors involved in mental illness, and thus misses a key dynamic element in psychiatric problems.

So, you are right that it is problematic, but the DSM-IV itself does not claim to be conclusive or definitive, and it certainly does not deem itself as a catalogue of the sum total of human experience. I’m afraid that the bogeyman that you have set up in the form of DSM does not exist. It is simply an attempt at creating a language that researchers and clinicians can agree upon, until further revision.

Second, could you describe the fascist ideology that lies at the heart of psychiatry? Fascism is technically the fusion of government and industry into a partnership to control society and manipulate its people to serve their need for power and profit. Perhaps you are correct that there is an unholy alliance between corporations and government, which meet the criteria for fascism. However, it is very widespread, and would have to exist beyond the reach of psychiatry alone. It would have to encompass all of medicine, all of finance, all of industry, and essentially all forms of corporate activity in North America, and beyond.

Third, your points are certainly valid that the peer review process has failed in the past. However, its purpose is not to evaluate the content of a study, but rather its methodology, statistics and results as being of sufficient quality to be able to answer an important clinical question. Even so, much bunk gets published, but you have to be able to sift the wheat from the chaff yourself through critical appraisal skills. If you reject all peer-reviewed journals as corrupt, then you are left with very little empirical evidence to base any conclusions upon. Are you rejecting all peer-reviewed journals in such a way?

Take care.

Guller..

I will continue this debate after christmas , its christmas eve and I want to spend some time with family and friends ..
Happy Christmas
:)

truthman30:

Happy holidays. :)

Truthman:

Serious question:

What makes psychiatrists any different than other doctors? Wouldn't that make them all "exploiters of the human condition" -- pediatricians and OB/GYNs included?

"The human condition" is to get sick. Unless you believe in faith healing, Scientology or "The Secret," I'm glad to have such "exploiters," speaking for myself.

Larry

If you think that psychiatrists are "doctors" then you would really want to go out and to some research, because you have been mightily fooled if that is your honest belief.
The difference between psychiatrists and REAL physicians and scientists is that psychiatrists base their decisions on a questionable doctrine of guess work and pseudo - jargon.

The "human condition" is not to get sick.
You obviously do not know what the "human condition" is , maybe you should do some research on that too...
Oh and I don't believe in faith healing, scientology or "the secret"..
I believe in individual empowerment, something which psychiatrists aim to disable...
If you are happy to have a corrupt and nasty organization speak for you then good luck ... keep taking your meds, keep lining their pockets and enjoy being a human lab rat , because at the end of the day, that's all you are to them..

Truthman:

I didn't know that psychiatrists don't go to medical school. Thanks for the insight.

Also thanks for the insight that the human body has perfect healing powers and never gets ill in any way. Please share your "secret" (for that is what it is, if you believe "individual empowerment" cures disease, depressive and non-depressive alike) with me so I can banish the bipolar disorder from my body, mind and brain with a single potion.

Look, I don't give a rat's @$$ about the drug companies. But even if that's all I am to them, if their medicine keeps me well, it doesn't really matter, now, does it?

Wow that is quit the conversation you guys have going on. If you seek insight dguller I would like to direct to:

paxilprogress.org
This is a support and information site for users of antidepressants.

The following link will take you to just one of the many information sites on what antidepressants are actually doing to the human mind and body. This is not what the drug companies are telling us. Not to be missed.

http://web.archive.org/web/200201150...inealstory.htm

I urge anyone taking or considering taking any antidepressants to check these links first it could save you a world of hurt and maybe your life or the life of a loved one.

Larry..

I didn't ever say that "empowerment" alone can banish bi-polar or any other mental illness , but certainly empowerment is the first step on the road to recovery...

truthman30:

You certainly wouldn't say that empowerment alone could heal mental illness, because you disbelieve in mental illness to begin with, and so your comment is somewhat disingenuous. Also, you never said that "empowerment is the first step on the road to recovery". You ONLY mentioned empowerment as a means of healing. Perhaps if you had been a bit more careful about what you write, then you would not have been so misunderstood? Also, what exactly do you mean by "individual empowerment"?

Take care.

Oh D Guller..

I should have known that you and your crafty psychiatrist ways would surface eventually...

Being a psychiatrist, of course you would be well aware and the power of words and definitions..

And of course, also being a psychiatrist , you would be aware of how easily those words and definitions can be played with..

My comments are never disingenuous, by calling them "disingenuous" , you imply that somehow I have a motive or an agenda, that my beliefs and my experiences are untruthful and dishonest...

I never said I didn't believe in "mental illness" , Stop twisting my words, find where it is In this thread that I said that!

I mentioned empowerment in the context of giving people validation and acknowledgment and if possible the tools to help themselves...

"individual empowerment" then comes from within..

truthman30:

First, you are correct that you did not state that you disbelieved in mental illness. I was incorrect, and I apologize.

Second, I agree with you about the importance of empathic validation of someone's suffering, and with helping them acquire the skills necessary to live meaningful lives in harmony with their emotions.

I suspect we agree about far more than we disagree about. :)

Take care.

truthman30:

Oh, and one more thing. Can you please let me know what "the tools to help themselves" are?

Thanks, and take care.

Hi Guller..

The "tools" I was talking about include psycho-therapy, nutritional advice, exercise etc ...

When an individual feels he is taking responsibility of and working on his or her well being and health the that gives empowerment...

I realize this was posted in December so I'm not sure anyone is reading this. I guess it really doesn't matter. I'll post anyway.

Take it from someone who knows Major Depressive Disorder first-hand: It IS a mental illness. My father committed suicide when I was seven. My mother died of breast cancer when I was thirteen. Many horrible things happened after that, but I persevered. In fact, I not only persevered, I overcame for many, many years.

Two years ago, I fell victim (and I use the word "victim" because that's what I was at the time) to this debilitating disease. I won't go into the episode that triggered MDD, but I do know that if I could beat it, I would. Anti-depressants do not work for me, but there are many people for whom they do. I just ordered some Protazin online, the formula containing the amino acids Jim Carrey mentioned. If this formula doesn't work, I will have to try something else.

Working out doesn't do it for me, and I've been working out most of my life. Nutrition hasn' helped. Counseling did nothing.

Did I deal with my childhood traumas? Probably not. But I have certainly tried. Sometimes wounds are so deep, there is no healing. However, I will say this: I am a very strong person. I have overcome many, many things in my life. But the fact that mental illness runs in my family is the reason I am in this state - not because I didn't train my brain. I've been training it all my life.

I can no longer watch movies, play the piano, read or enjoy things I used to. I have so many symptoms, I can't begin to list the all. I'm trying very, very hard. I run a business which is quite stressful, and as a result, I've had numerous relapses. However, I do force myself to go into the office and I do my job to the best of my ability. Life should not simply be endured; it should be enjoyed.

My opinion is this: Until you've been to HELL, you honestly don't know what you're talking about.
I used to agree with some of you. I used to believe that we all "make our own beds." Now I realize that there are people who are powerless over their mental well-being, no matter how hard they try to overcome. Yes, we should all train our brains and change our minds. But when putting a coffee cup into the dishwasher seems like an impossible task, that's a little hard to do.

Anyway, I just wanted to add my two cents. I'm sure it's worth every penny.

Carol,
There's a listing of the most recent comments on the home page of FS so yes, people will see your posting. I'm sorry to hear you're going through all this.

I would like to say that many of us here have, indeed, been where you're at right now. Some of us feel a lot better so don't give up the ship.

I have my good days and bad. A lot of my MDD was actually the result of hypothyroidism which docs failed to recognize or treat in their zeal to label and drug me. So I'm not a fan of docs or meds at this point.

I still have PTSD, however, from severe and sadistic childhood abuse. I've worked through some of it, but not much really because I remember very little of it. My perpetrator boasted of her exploits on her deathbed and other relatives have confirmed all this so that's how I know what happened to me. Well, that and the fact I have all these symptoms like footprints in my daily life.

What I'm trying to say here is two things:
1) life is long so you may find yourself slowly recovering over time more than you may believe possible today
2) life is shorter than some of us need to heal our childhood wounds so yes, you are correct, some things do not get healed. So far there's no way to know which ones these may be for each of us little human snowflakes.

Mostly I just wanted you to know you've been heard. None of this is your fault, some of it will improve, maybe some won't. But that won't be for lack of trying on your part.

Best wishes,
Sherry

I think we all need to find out what works best for ourselves in dealing with our career and family with this condition. Happiness is finding the appropriate medication- psychiatric, alternative, or combination thereof. Good dependable friends,family, and God in our lives are important for our mental well being. Our souls cannot be healed with medications alone. Unfortunately, my family and I have seen the suffering first hand. I have suffered with this disease. My beloved brother had died of this disease. Psychiatric medicine seems to be a field of medicine with a lot of new research medications. How are animals going to tell us what they thinking and dreaming?
Michele H. Greer, DVM