|
badchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7373688 - 09/06/07 07:34 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Most medical professionals would support helping those with psychological disorders, rather than telling them to "suck it up" and denying their existence.
All forms of science are dynamic. They adapt and evolve according to the information presented. Psychology is no exception. As our knowledge of psychological disorders increases, so will our ability to diagnose and treat them. Until then, you can find comfort in the idea that our emotions and feelings are produced by magic.
The lack of objective measures doesn't make a condition non-existent. As I stated before, Parkinson's is the perfect example.
-------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: badchad]
#7373701 - 09/06/07 07:46 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
i think you need to check your facts. The biophysiological causes of Parkinson's disease are known. Meaning that we know exactly where the malfunction is occuring, we just dont know what is causing the malfunction I think where you got confused was that it is difficult to diagnose, because there are no blood tests ot fluid analysis that can be considered a diagnostic criteria.
so, parkinsons is not like some other mental disorder, it is an observable central nervous system disorder, that has real physical and rather proprietary symptoms.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: badchad]
#7373705 - 09/06/07 07:49 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Most medical professionals would support helping those with psychological disorders, rather than telling them to "suck it up" and denying their existence.
Not true. Most medical professionals would prescribe drugs. And for the record, I think you make a confusion between psychology and psychiatry.
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
badchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7373826 - 09/06/07 09:00 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
YawningAnus said: I think where you got confused was that it is difficult to diagnose, because there are no blood tests ot fluid analysis that can be considered a diagnostic criteria.
This is what I meant. Behavioral symptoms are the only criteria for a clinical diagnosis. Loss of dopaminergic neurons in specific areas of the brain is correlated with these behavioral symptoms.
Along these same lines, objective techniques are being developed which may correlated with the behavioral symptoms of other psychological disorders.
-------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7374549 - 09/06/07 01:47 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
YawningAnus said: Im willing to bet that you are waiting to ask your pharmacology teacher some of the finer points to your side of this discussion.
This should be interesting.... some may think that I like to zing my (obvious) crackpot conspiracies around these forums without ever having heard, read or discussed with the alternate viewpoints, but many of my friends are mere months away from having that prestigious MD in front of their name, and I have had these and many more discussion with them through their various phases of scientific infallibility.... and the pharmacology phase was my favorite.
I have a favor to ask of you. SHow your Pharmacology professors this thread.... maybe you have to do a little editing on minor references to this website.... God knows we dont want the pharmacology professors thinking ill of you for participating in a forum dedicated to growing naturally occuring drugs. I would love to hear what they have to say about my observation of the science behind psychopharmaceuticals.... I would love to take a dose of their Rebuttal (pronounced: Reh-Byoot-Tahl).
If i show my pharm professors this thread, they'll just laugh their heads off at people who formulate opinions on the topic with such a small amount of basis of knowledge of basic human chemical physiology.
There's so many ignorant assumptions made in your initial post, maybe you should consider actually studying some of these subjects instead of formulating opinions based on research papers you search for on google.
-------------------- "Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: LiquidSmoke]
#7374629 - 09/06/07 02:09 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
are you going to take a stab at refuting some of my wild and outrageous claims, or are you going to sit their and regale us with tales of vague reasons why I am such a moron?
I think that it is you who has brought threats of a knife to a gun fight. So far your posts consist of future promises that indicate that you are some expert on this subject, while I am holding on to my tinfoil hat as I fervently type out these malicious lies.
Am I lying about the cause of all those mental disorders I listed being unknown?
Quote:
they'll just laugh their heads off at people who formulate opinions on the topic with such a small amount of basis of knowledge of basic human chemical physiology
from what I can tell, this is the basis that psychiatry and psychopharmaceuticals have been working on. There arent really any solid facts, and their diagnostic criteria is basically their opinion based on a small amount of human chemical physiology.
|
badchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7374683 - 09/06/07 02:28 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
YawningAnus said:
Am I lying about the cause of all those mental disorders I listed being unknown?
You aren't.
However, the hypotheses regarding mental illness are well supported and based upn thousands of in vitro and in vivo studies.
-------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
Edited by badchad (09/06/07 02:49 PM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: badchad]
#7374719 - 09/06/07 02:38 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
What if those chemical unbalances are created by thoughts themselves, by one's psyche? In that case, the unbalance would be a part of the effect, and not the cause. Shouldn't the psyche be observed and treated instead?
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
badchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: MushroomTrip]
#7374789 - 09/06/07 02:54 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said: What if those chemical unbalances are created by thoughts themselves, by one's psyche? In that case, the unbalance would be a part of the effect, and not the cause. Shouldn't the psyche be observed and treated instead?
Of course. It is well known that stimuli (being frightened, a check for a million dollars, etc.) can lead to a change in neurotransmitter release. This is why you can (for example) snort a line of coke and feel like you won a million dollars, which occurs in the absence of any stimuli whatsoever.
You have also touched on the demonstrated success of psychotherapy.
None of this supports the idea that "neurotransmitters are NOT involved in our feeling, thoughts and emotions, they just occur magically".
-------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: badchad]
#7374830 - 09/06/07 03:04 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
None of this supports the idea that "neurotransmitters are NOT involved in our feeling, thoughts and emotions, they just occur magically".
Indeed. BUT, you can't sustain that they are primarily determinative for creating a psychological disorder, since you agreed with me that it's one's psyche which does that. So how can "treating" the chemical unbalance can help one get pass one's psychological issues? All that prescription drugs do is create an apparent state of peace, which ceases exactly the moment they are stopped being taken.
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: MushroomTrip]
#7375029 - 09/06/07 04:01 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Treating emotional problems with drugs seems just like treating weight problems with drugs.
Instead of examining the actual cause of the imbalance (irrational thoughts, poor health, terrible eating habits), and focusing on altering that cause, psychiatrists diagnose a chemical deficit/surplus, and attempt to adjust it with medications (many of which have NASTY side-effects, by the way).
This is just like "diet" doctors prescribing stimulants to force their patients to lose weight, rather than counseling them about what is creating their weight problem in the first place.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: Veritas]
#7375063 - 09/06/07 04:11 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Yes and what's even more alarming is that more and more people start to prefer this kind of "treatment" because it's fast and because it implies avoiding their real problems that otherwise they would have to face and fight with.
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: MushroomTrip]
#7375096 - 09/06/07 04:20 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
It seems to me that many people feel incompetent to manage their own minds and bodies, so they choose to defer to the "experts."
I can understand this POV, as I feel this way about the plumbing & electrical systems in my house (;)), but if the plumber told me that the only way to fix the dripping faucet was to add thickeners to my household water supply, I think that I would get a second opinion.
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7376524 - 09/06/07 09:52 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
like i said, lemme take my exam, and i'll get back to you.
and again, there's still alot of points in your initial post which do demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic human physiology.
And it's not simply about expecting a rebuttal.
More like, educational offerings.
Trust me, there's alot of things i agree with, but there's also alot of issues and challenges faced by the diagnostic and treatment approaches of psychiatrists which may help to explain the methods of their madness.
With that being said, i'm not planning on becoming one of those doc's who just perscribes drugs, which is pretty fucking true about most internists.
I came to med school to become a surgeon. Because that is the most definitive way of treating patients, based on what you can see, what you can fix, and what are the results.
-------------------- "Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: LiquidSmoke]
#7376669 - 09/06/07 10:31 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I dont claim to have an expertise in human physiology, nor am I an expert on psychopharmaceuticals.... but what I am good at is expressing in words, a more rational and logical way of looking at the facts and explanations given to us, as well as having a slight grasp of the scientific method.
All I have done is pointed out the incongruency between what psychiatry claims to know, and how it acts upon what it knows (or doesn't). Im sure that any pharmacology professor could run circles around me when it comes to debating neurophysiology, but I am not debating the science behind neurophysiology, but rather plainly stating that "here is what they know" and "here is how they are acting upon it".
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7383161 - 09/08/07 10:26 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I've heard the complaint of pharmaceuticals said many times.
People saying things like how many drugs designed and developed are simply put out as a way to keep people "hooked" to various prescriptions as a means to creating excessive income.
For example, as someone said earlier
"They only develop drugs which you have to stay on in order to continue feeling the benefits".
But in many instances, this is currently the only most effective way of treating certain illnesses. Many neuromuscular disorders arise from a deficit in cholinergic activity. In this case, when you're prescribed something like an Ach inhibitor, your body is bound to adjust and desensitize itself FROM that drug via negative feedback stimulation, or the chemical desensitization of medicinally targetted muscarinic receptors.
This leads to use of other drugs, and a continued or even increased dosage of the initial prescription. This can be interpreted two ways.
Some people will look at this, and claim that the drugs are just designed to make you spend more money and there is an unwillingness by pharmaceutical companies to just permanately "fix the problem".
Others, who actually understand the mechanisms and risks behind finding benefiting medications for these types of problems, realize that certain chemical deficits in the body, just can never be restored manually, which is why a continued or even increased dosage of prescriptions are necessary.
"How come they can't just CURE it?"
This is the type of arguement that stems from sheer frustration. A realization that the abilities and solutions provided by medicine is not nearly as ideal as someone initially expected. People have to realize, that all the easier-to-treat disorders, have become obsolete a long time ago due to the advent of more primitive medical solutions, like vaccines and various advances in microbiotics and disinfectants.
What you're left with, is the FAR more difficult diseases, things like invasive cancers, autoimmunities, and all kinds of nasty forms of neurodegenerative disorders.
And the sad thing is, once people do find cures for those types of ailments, pathological Darwinism tells us we'll probably stumble upon even MORE complicated, more challenging, and alot worse diseases. Underlying oppurtunistic pathogens whose manifestations only come about with the eradication of easier-to-treat diseases.
Of course this is not to say, there ARE many pharmaceutical developers aiming on creating drugs for things which are excessive or somewhat unnecessary for the treatment of certain diseases. Many times drug companies will just take a generic drug, add a functional group, and promote the drug simply based on the small adjusted benefits that it might offer.
There's a big grey area with this issue, because some dug adjustments are truely benefical in their activity, while others are simply unnecessary, excessive, and expensive.
I'll give you an example.
The development of Galantine as an alternative to Donepezil as a supplement for Alzheimer's patients. Donepezil is the most widely used drug currently FOR alzheimers, but as a simple AcHE inhibitor, its benefits and risks are pretty drawn out, including the risk of cholinergic toxicity.
What Galantine offers, is not only a less toxic form of an AchE inhibition, but it also functions as an allosteric desensitizor OF the functional cholinergic receptors.
Compare this to the developement of Ambenonium for the treatment of Myasthenia Gravis. Currently Piridostigmine is used. All Ambenonium does, despite costing 5 times as much, is increase the activity identical to the previously developed drug by 5-10 minutes. That's all it does.
Whenever people complain that all a physician does is things that you could eventually learn to do yourself, it's another unrealistic expectation of idealism in the medical field. Doctors are just humans like anybody else. The knowledge they learn can be learned by anybody with a brain. We don't have any sort of "magical powers" that take your disease away, but we choose to keep to ourselves because we want to make more money with our evil income-draining schemes.
All we do, is take the time to attain that knowledge. But a good physician,someone who truely cares about the benefit and wellbeing of their patients, is someone who keeps educational tools as a top priority for people to understand what's exactly ailing them. A good physician spreads their knowledge around and does everything to teach their patients and address any concern or curiosity that one might have.
having said all this, i'll address the issues of psychiatric diagnosis in a little bit.
-------------------- "Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7383202 - 09/08/07 10:36 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
YawningAnus said:
nothing is being cured. Nor is there any research going into curing these disorders, and from what I can tell, there isnt even any research going on to find the cause of these disorders.... by ignoring a search for the cause, and as long as the consumer cattle dont demand real scientific rigor, it becomes an impetus to create more drugs to treat the symptoms.
See, it's remarks like these which really make the movement against pharmaceuticals lose credibility. Tell me and be honest, do you even have any subscriptions to any medical journals? JAMA for instance. Do you even keep up with all the different progresses in research of chemotherapy? Medicinal stem cell pluripotency? Oncological surgery advances? Anything?
Or do you just enjoy making sweaping remarks about a field that you clearly lack any essential foundation of knowledge for?
-------------------- "Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: LiquidSmoke]
#7383227 - 09/08/07 10:42 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
What does cancer research have to do with the use of drugs to treat emotional disorders?
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: Veritas]
#7383331 - 09/08/07 11:07 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Absolutely nothing.
But that's what happens when you take things out of context.
-------------------- "Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: LiquidSmoke]
#7383371 - 09/08/07 11:21 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think that it is you who have taken things out of context. You respond to YA's quote as though he is discussing general medical research, when, in its' original context, it is quite clear that he is discussing psychopharmaceutical research.
Your response to his out-of-context quote is therefor a non sequitur.
|
|