Psycho-Babble Medication Thread 901116

Shown: posts 1 to 5 of 5. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

Low avalibility of good meds?

Posted by Alexanderfromdenmark on June 15, 2009, at 12:10:44

Why is it so friggin' difficult to get your hands on meds that acutally work? Here I'm thinking about Parnate, Nardil, Emsam, Tianeptine, amineptine, serzone etc.

I'm talking about the all the drugs that actually work and have a low incidence of crappy side effects. They pulled serzone of the market in the US because 1 in 250.000 got a bad liver. They are reluctant to prescribe MAOI's because you gotta keep a restricted diet(Buhu), they pulled amineptine entirely of the market because a few people developed an addiction to it. That's simply just evidence that it makes you FEEL GOOD, something that we depressives actually need.

 

Re: Low avalibility of good meds? » Alexanderfromdenmark

Posted by Phillipa on June 15, 2009, at 12:30:23

In reply to Low avalibility of good meds?, posted by Alexanderfromdenmark on June 15, 2009, at 12:10:44

Serzone in the US is available generic nefedazone. As I have a bottle of it. But chicken me got scared off with the liver horror stories. Love Phillipa

 

Re: Low avalibility of good meds?

Posted by Alexanderfromdenmark on June 15, 2009, at 12:39:29

In reply to Re: Low avalibility of good meds? » Alexanderfromdenmark, posted by Phillipa on June 15, 2009, at 12:30:23

> Serzone in the US is available generic nefedazone. As I have a bottle of it. But chicken me got scared off with the liver horror stories. Love Phillipa

Oh don't. Why don't you just try it and ask your doctor or Pdoc to test your liver enzymes every 3 months? The chances 1 in a 250.000 people are smaller than dying in a nuclear explosion or a plane crash.

 

Re: Low avalibility of good meds?

Posted by bleauberry on June 15, 2009, at 17:36:42

In reply to Low avalibility of good meds?, posted by Alexanderfromdenmark on June 15, 2009, at 12:10:44

There are plenty of good drugs. I suspect many of them are not even in the psychiatric handbook.

What is missing is not good drugs, but a good diagnosis. From where is the depression coming from? It's kind of hard to guess at it being serotonin, dopamine, glutamate, or whatever. It might not be any of those and that's why we don't respond to those kinds of meds. It might something as basic and unseen as biotoxins poisoning the brain (Lyme, Candida, others). It might be a lack of bloodflow to the brain. It might be inflammation of the brain. It might be a genetic defect converting tryptophan to serotonin. It might be a pituitary dysfunction which basically orchestrates all the hormones which in turn orchestrate the neurotransmitters.

For a doctor to tell a patient he/she has depression is about as useless as a plumber telling me my washing machine has broke. We need to know WHY so we can fix it. Psychiatry is kind of like duct tape, elmer's glue, epoxy, tin foil on the fuse, and such, not actually fixing the darn thing.

We got good drugs. We just don't know how to figure out which ones to use for what, because we don't know what the what is.

 

Re: Low avalibility of good meds?

Posted by Alexanderfromdenmark on June 15, 2009, at 17:50:59

In reply to Re: Low avalibility of good meds?, posted by bleauberry on June 15, 2009, at 17:36:42

> There are plenty of good drugs. I suspect many of them are not even in the psychiatric handbook.
>
> What is missing is not good drugs, but a good diagnosis. From where is the depression coming from? It's kind of hard to guess at it being serotonin, dopamine, glutamate, or whatever. It might not be any of those and that's why we don't respond to those kinds of meds. It might something as basic and unseen as biotoxins poisoning the brain (Lyme, Candida, others). It might be a lack of bloodflow to the brain. It might be inflammation of the brain. It might be a genetic defect converting tryptophan to serotonin. It might be a pituitary dysfunction which basically orchestrates all the hormones which in turn orchestrate the neurotransmitters.
>
> For a doctor to tell a patient he/she has depression is about as useless as a plumber telling me my washing machine has broke. We need to know WHY so we can fix it. Psychiatry is kind of like duct tape, elmer's glue, epoxy, tin foil on the fuse, and such, not actually fixing the darn thing.
>
> We got good drugs. We just don't know how to figure out which ones to use for what, because we don't know what the what is.


I agree, but I think often it is not just one thing. It a combination of several factors. Rarely can anyone say, your depression is 100% caused by neurotransmitter deficiency, hormones, pathogens, thougt patterns and behaviour, nutrition and etc.

Psychiatric diagnosis is flawed, I agree, but as it stands now. Lyme is difficult to diagnose, candida is difficult to diagnose, to view blood flow to the brain they would have send us through SPECT scanners which is very expensive.

It would be great if we all got royal treatment, but most often that is not the case. And I think a lot of psychiatrists are not all that good. Like any doctor, you need a good one.


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.