Shown: posts 1 to 17 of 17. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by pandey_m@hotmail.com on December 30, 2000, at 18:52:53
> Robert Hsuing wrote on Jan. 13, 1999:
>
> Some doctors are probably afraid of how their patients would react if they even brought up "electrocution". And some doctors probably have outdated ideas about ECT themselves. :-(
>
> http://161.58.153.232/babble/19990601/msgs/2366.html
>
>
> A contributor to the psychcobabble site wrote on Dec. 13, 2000:
>
> > PEOPLE! We need to get our friends and family OFF these garbage drugs that are being pushed on to us all by society!!!
>
> > They are addictive doctors who thrive on us all thinking we are screwed up and we arent. They get massive kickbacks from pushing those drugs on you and they make fortunes in office visits.
>
> And on Dec. 14, 2000, Robert Hsuing replied:
>
> Gross oversimplifications are neither supportive nor educational. Please cease and desist.
>
> http://161.58.153.232/babble/20001130/msgs/50546.html
>
> AND…
>
> In a recent Discovery Channel program, editors included the comments of a well-dressed college professor who categorized the controversial subject matter presented in the program as “garbage.” To Discovery Channel editors, the professor’s comment was neither too general, not too uncivil to be included in a program edited for family viewing.Discovery Channel and such are heavily funded by big business to present "nature" and ("other") "human-interest" issues in such a way as to divert from the public mind the fact that transnational capital is screwing up the ecosystem (Here I use the term to *include* human civil society structures.) They produce *controversial* programs and include *controversial* statements for the sake of a no-holds-barred image; and for Orwellian language-control purposes - redefining *controversy* so that the important controversies get driven out of public discourse. You can get the info from
e.g. Monthly Review; or if you distrust information (I am not concerned with views here, but facts) from even independent marxist sources like MR; (then) ask Noam Chomsky!Psychobabble, on the other hand, is in a different paradigm - it belongs to the original internet culture (before "dotcom" largely turned it into a shopping arcade). So at psychobabble (like at gnu/free software foundation etc.) you will get moderation decisions which one may disagree with, subjectivity (in the present case, of Dr Hsuing) being unavoidable - but I think there is something ludicrous about supporting the disagreement with a parallel from a TV channel with a huge worldwide viewership like Discovery Channel (the operative word is TV).
Dr Bob may well object to *this* posting as flame-ish. That doesn't affect my argument.
Posted by name on December 30, 2000, at 23:24:54
In reply to Re: Inconsistencies, posted by pandey_m@hotmail.com on December 30, 2000, at 18:52:53
It is unlikely that Discover is much more or less involved in transnational capitalist culture than is the pharmaceutical culture promoted by this web site. It also unlikely that the producer/editor who included the "garbage" quote, which was in the particular Discover program cited here as a random example, was thinking much about creating a no-holds-barred image. It is more likely the quote was edited into the program because the source said it in an interview and it accurately represented the source's point of view, and both the term and the type of generalization are a regular part of civil speech.
Sometimes we all tend to attribute motives to others that serve more to reinforce our own opinions than they serve to accurately represent the motive of others. There is not enough information in the third-hand reference here to a single word in another media outlet to provide a sound basis for an accurate characterisation of the Discover editor's motive. While the effect of transnational corporate funding of some media may be to divert attention from real problems, there is no clear evidence that the funding is provided with that motive. Many transnational capitalists do not recognize that there *is* a problem, so they would not likely be trying to divert attention from a problem they do not recognize. The miriad Discover sponsors more likely think they are solving a problem by using electronic media to rally support for nature and for a scientific understanding of nature.
To contrast this site with the Discover site is an odd stretch. This site seems slanted to attract support and education that favors a pharmacological approach to mental distress. The moderator is employed, for now, at a university that is heavily funded by the same kind of transnational capitalist interests as those that fund Discover and other for-profit and non-profit educational formats. Most notable of the University of Chicago's benefactors, (the university having until two weeks ago sponsored this site with server space) is the late John Rockefeller who, early in the last century, endowed a sectarian (Baptist) university with money he made by monopolizing the world petroleum market.
This site might indeed reflect a version of "the original Internet culture" but that culture is a decidedly miltaristic culture intent on perfecting a new world order. The early Internet was a product of Department of Defense efforts to create redundant command and control networks for war fighting, and to link university departments involved in high-tech defense work. The original participants in internet culture, according to American Heritage magazine's account of the military roots of the Internet, were young university research types in the post Vietnam war era who wanted to enjoy the financial fruits of defense spending on research but who did not want to bloody their hands or their reputations by designing rockets and bombs.
The promotion of pharmaceutical approaches to mental difficulty rather than promotion of dietary, personal and cultural approaches, and the arbitrary imposition of a narrowly defined and extremely subjective concept of civiltiy is indeed an extension of the original Internet culture. It is the electronic version of rubber bullets - it is yet another technology of political control.
> Discovery Channel and such are heavily funded by big business to present "nature" and ("other") "human-interest" issues in such a way as to divert from the public mind the fact that transnational capital is screwing up the ecosystem (Here I use the term to *include* human civil society structures.) They produce *controversial* programs and include *controversial* statements for the sake of a no-holds-barred image; and for Orwellian language-control purposes - redefining *controversy* so that the important controversies get driven out of public discourse. You can get the info from
> e.g. Monthly Review; or if you distrust information (I am not concerned with views here, but facts) from even independent marxist sources like MR; (then) ask Noam Chomsky!
>
> Psychobabble, on the other hand, is in a different paradigm - it belongs to the original internet culture (before "dotcom" largely turned it into a shopping arcade). So at psychobabble (like at gnu/free software foundation etc.) you will get moderation decisions which one may disagree with, subjectivity (in the present case, of Dr Hsuing) being unavoidable - but I think there is something ludicrous about supporting the disagreement with a parallel from a TV channel with a huge worldwide viewership like Discovery Channel (the operative word is TV).
>
> Dr Bob may well object to *this* posting as flame-ish. That doesn't affect my argument.
Posted by Cam W. on December 31, 2000, at 15:48:44
In reply to reply, posted by name on December 30, 2000, at 23:24:54
> The promotion of pharmaceutical approaches to mental difficulty rather than promotion of dietary, personal and cultural approaches....Could you please give examples of any of these approaches to treating mental illnesses that have worked as effectively as psychopharmaceuticals in alleviating many of the symptoms of mental disorders. Some adjuctive psychotherapies (esp. cognitive behavioral therapies and social skills training) have merit in treating mental disorders.
Perhaps there is some evidence of a low cholesterol diet being efficacious in slowing the course of Alzheimer's disease, but I see no legitimate proof of any diets (outside of a balanced diet for those with or without mental disorders) doing anything for mental disorders. There is a guy at the University of Calgary claiming that mega-vitamin therapy of bipolar disorder does work, but I'd like to see the large scale clinical trials before rendering a verdict on this. Again, megavitamin therapy should be seen as a pharmaceutical approach to the treatment of bipolar disorder, so it would not fit into your definition of diet.
As for changing society's views of mental illness. Please suggest a way of effectively doing this. The stigma of mental illness is the one major roadblock in the seeking of help for mental disorders and is a major component of relapse due to medication non-compliance. Public education programs and policies (like the one instituted in the UK) seem to have minimal effect in relation to the amount of money being spent on these types of programs.
Any validated suggestions that you may have would be greatly appreciated. It is not that we do not want to use pharmaceuticals to treat mental disorders; it is that there is no viable option. As for financial incentives; if you can come up with a way to effectively treat a serious mental condition (eg schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, Alzheimer's, etc.) without the use of drugs, you could make a fortune. Business people would lap up such a program, if one were available.
Sincerely - Cam
Posted by name on December 31, 2000, at 17:19:53
In reply to Re: reply » name, posted by Cam W. on December 31, 2000, at 15:48:44
The statement excerpted in the post does not, in its complete form available in the previous post, assert that either approach is more or less effective. The post discussed psychopharmacology as an element of transnational culture, not the relative efficacy of various approaches to mental disorders.
There are “diets … that do anything for mental disorders.” On an industrial scale, it might be difficult to construct repeatable, marketable treatment plans based on these simple observations, but since you asked, some obvious examples are available. Lethargy and dementia are both mental disorders and are also symptoms of starvation. (Just setting a baseline, here). Obviously, then, availability of food will treat mental disorders that are a direct result of starvation or hunger. To go another step in that direction, a diet of primarily sugar and starch will not provide the vitamins or proteins needed for orderly mental functions. One more step in that direction would be to ask if deficiencies of omega-3 fatty acids might contribute to some mental disorders. Perhaps science, guided by the market ecomomy that directs research, has not yet reached conclusive answers about the role of various nutrients in miriad mental disorders. Omega-3’s might not be the panacea repesented elsewhere on this board, but representation of consumer options as a panacea is routine in capitalist civilizations.
In everyday civil relationships, we routinely overrate and underrate various cultural and behavioral options, and we routinely generalize in broad strokes but that does not mean we are not “civil.” Consider the recent series of Wall Street Journal ads … the brother who reads the Journal is represented as extremely successful, and the other brother is represented as a complete failure. It seems to be a flawed theory of mind to presume that every person, upon reading the terms “support, education and civil” will instantly realize that another set of standards is in place at a particular media outlet.
> megavitamin therapy should be seen as a pharmaceutical approach to the treatment of bipolar disorder, so it would not fit into your definition of diet.
The post did not define diet, nor claim to represent a comprehensive list of available approaches to mental disorders. Yes, vitamins are in important part of regulating mental functions.
> Could you please give examples of any of these approaches to treating mental illnesses that have worked as effectively as psychopharmaceuticals in alleviating many of the symptoms of mental disorders.Wish I could help, but I checked in here looking for such examples as well. A recent Scientific American article inventoried lingering symptoms of mental disorder that result from war, so we could probably say that a culture that does not routinely engage in war could alleviate many symptoms of mental disorder, on a population basis. Efforts to resolve political and social conflicts that lead to war would be an example of a cultural approach to alleviating mental disorders. It seems apparent that, for an individual suufering stress after trauma, the promise of an end to violent conflict, and the prospect of a stable social environment might alleviate some symptoms of stress disorder, but at this juncture I cannot direct you to peer reviewed studies that confirm that apparent axiom.
It might be easier to deal with individual symptoms, rather than “many of the symptoms,” and to discuss which approaches work “as effectively” in narrowly defined situations and to attempt to define which situations are better suited to various approaches. The British Medical Journal reported on Dec. 9 that Dr. Christopher Dowrick, of the University of Liverpool successfully improved scores of patients who were first assessed with the Breck depression inventory by offering problem solving treatments in which symptoms were linked with problems and structured approaches were offered for problem solving. Dowrick said the study indicated people have genuine choices in the range of approaches to the treatment of symptoms of depression.
I should clarify that, while I might have preferences, I am not advocating nor did I advocate in the context of posts to this board a particular approach
> > The promotion of pharmaceutical approaches to mental difficulty rather than promotion of dietary, personal and cultural approaches....
>
> Could you please give examples of any of these approaches to treating mental illnesses that have worked as effectively as psychopharmaceuticals in alleviating many of the symptoms of mental disorders. Some adjuctive psychotherapies (esp. cognitive behavioral therapies and social skills training) have merit in treating mental disorders.
>
> Perhaps there is some evidence of a low cholesterol diet being efficacious in slowing the course of Alzheimer's disease, but I see no legitimate proof of any diets (outside of a balanced diet for those with or without mental disorders) doing anything for mental disorders. There is a guy at the University of Calgary claiming that mega-vitamin therapy of bipolar disorder does work, but I'd like to see the large scale clinical trials before rendering a verdict on this. Again, megavitamin therapy should be seen as a pharmaceutical approach to the treatment of bipolar disorder, so it would not fit into your definition of diet.
>
> As for changing society's views of mental illness. Please suggest a way of effectively doing this. The stigma of mental illness is the one major roadblock in the seeking of help for mental disorders and is a major component of relapse due to medication non-compliance. Public education programs and policies (like the one instituted in the UK) seem to have minimal effect in relation to the amount of money being spent on these types of programs.
>
> Any validated suggestions that you may have would be greatly appreciated. It is not that we do not want to use pharmaceuticals to treat mental disorders; it is that there is no viable option. As for financial incentives; if you can come up with a way to effectively treat a serious mental condition (eg schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, Alzheimer's, etc.) without the use of drugs, you could make a fortune. Business people would lap up such a program, if one were available.
>
> Sincerely - Cam
Posted by Cam W. on December 31, 2000, at 18:18:51
In reply to Re: reply, posted by name on December 31, 2000, at 17:19:53
Name - Thanks for the thoughtful post. I too, agree that Western society (with the rest of the world close on our tails) rely too much in the quick fix. "Take a pill instead of facing your problems." This probably comes from the cultural stresses that occured with the dawn of civilization; when people started living in close proximity and sharing resources. This propensity to find quick cures will be a habit that is hard to break.
Further to your remarks on lethargy and demetia, you could add the disease states of pellagra and syphillis; both of which were psychiatric conditions until their cause was determined. As for omega-3 fatty acids; until they can rid the oil of it's fishy odor (which exudes through the skin), it's use will be limited. Omega-3s may have some effect in the phosphoinositol pathway and thus may be able to slow it down, resulting in the alleviation of mania, via the modulation of calcium release from the endoplasmic reticulum and calcium's influx into cells.
As for "support, education and civil", just reading a few posts will show the intent of this board. If the views stated here are not one's "cup of tea" or part of one's belief system, then that person need not spend time on this site. I do not think that it is the right of anyone, but the owner of the site, to determine the content of the site. This site is not a democracy. Perhaps that should be included in the disclaimer. In it's current form, I believe that this site has helped more people than it has hurt; but that is only a personal observation.
One is allowed to speak their mind here on alternate treatments, but most of us here believe that any statements made with regard to such treatments should be verifiable in a generally accepted scientific form, the genesis of which was formulated by Francis Bacon and has been consistently approved upon (eg the randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial, not done with drug company money - to avoid the publication bias which is rampant in many of today's journals).
Sincerely - Cam
P.S. Yes, I did read definition into diet; sorry.
Posted by name on December 31, 2000, at 19:28:08
In reply to Re: reply » name, posted by Cam W. on December 31, 2000, at 18:18:51
Cam,
Fair enough. I guess I missed your parenthetical statement "(outside of a balanced diet for those with or without mental disorders)" when I started explaining that starving can make one crazy - that is pretty obvious.
Quick fixes are probably easier to design, understand and market, even though they might not always work. Making life liveable for more people, in the interests of public mental health, is probably a much more elusive policy goal and research goal than is discovering and modifying specific biochemical conditions associated with mental suffering.
Posted by judy1 on December 31, 2000, at 20:34:19
In reply to Re: reply » Cam W., posted by name on December 31, 2000, at 19:28:08
Oh, I love this thread. Dr. Loren Mosher pioneered a non-medication approach to the treatment of schizophrenia- he published a number of articles, I believe it involved assisted living. He is the shrink who wrote the infamous letter to the APA referring to them as the American Pharmaceutical Assn, and tendered his resignation. I had the privilege to speak to him when I was being treated by 6!!! different meds for bipolar and panic disorders and the side effects of those meds. He was horrified, and referred me to 2 different shrinks, both of whom were sympathetic and neither willing to help me be med free because of possible legal ramifications???? Well, touched a nerve here, so I'll close and wish everyone a Happy New Year- Judy
Posted by Cam W. on December 31, 2000, at 22:05:09
In reply to Re: reply » Cam W., posted by name on December 31, 2000, at 19:28:08
Name - Speaking of specific biochemical processes, I found an article in the July, 2000 issue of Neuropsychopharmacology on epigenetics that is fairly cool. It talks about genetic mutations that lead to seemingly normal gene (ie protein, enzyme) expression. The article is by Arturas Petronis and is entitled, "The Genes for Major Psychosis: Aberrant Sequence or Regulation?" You can find the article and either read or download it (it's a keeper) at:
http://www.elsevier.nl/gej-ng/10/33/33/36/23/show/Products/NPS/toc.htt
It is a little involved, but is well worth fumbling through, even without any experience in genetics.
Hope this helps explain some of the direction that science is taking in discovering just what psychosis is all about. This article could probably be extrapolated to other mental disorders, as well.
- Cam
Posted by pandey_m on January 7, 2001, at 14:27:08
In reply to reply, posted by name on December 30, 2000, at 23:24:54
Excuse me for harping back to Discovery v. babble etc.
1. >To contrast this site with the Discover site is an odd stretch.
Maybe, but so is to *compare* this site with the Discover program.
a:Posting in babble is almost automatic.
b:The moderator gives reasons whenever he edits something out or blocks someone. etc...
c: suppose I (or you) had wanted my (or your) prev. post to *be*, instead of a post, a telecast on the discovery channel. Don't you think it would take a little bit more doing than posting to this site did?2. > It also unlikely that the producer/editor who >included the "garbage" quote, which was in the >particular Discover program cited here as a >random example, was thinking much about creating >a no-holds-barred image.
I absolutely agree, but I fail to see the relevance. Did my post read like the left image of a John Birch Society pamphlet? Where, in my post, do I imply that individual producers / editors are part of some grand conspiracy? They could well be of the highest professional integrity. But they have to work within broad policy guidelines etc. However, in practical terms, this often translates into the fact that they are, *in the aspects relevant to this post*, victims of the process of "Manufacturing Consent".
3. Agreed, the arpanet is part of the history of the internet, but reading "the original internet" as the arpanet is comparable in simplisticity to my prev. post :-). (e.g. How about " 'the original internet' was Schottky's transistor; and everyone knows Schottky was a racist."?) Where one draws the line necessarily involves subjectivity, but IMO* (unlike, e.g. Feyerabend's "Against Method" sort of position) discussion is possible./Ob_attempt_at_provocation/ Feyerabend was the "original" postmodernist.
4. I have switched between industry and academics a dozen times, and IMO* universities are still the lesser evil.
*"If you're going to have [an opinion], why bother to be humble about it?" - Joan Baez
Posted by pandey_m on January 7, 2001, at 15:18:34
In reply to reply, posted by name on December 30, 2000, at 23:24:54
response to two important points made by "name":
>This site seems slanted to attract support and education that favors a pharmacological approach to mental distress.
Yes, and it seems slanted towards disorders that current conventional wisdom classifies as depression-related. (You don't find too many people diagnosed with process schizophrenia, posting here.) I find both these facts distressing. But how is the moderator responsible for this state of affairs?
I am an avid fan of Ronald Laing; also I hear that the present slant [in the psychiatry world, not just this site] towards the taxonomical-pharmacological approach to mental distress is being increasingly challenged from within.
Please, all, try to start non-pharmacological threads in babble! Please ask whether the pharmacological approach makes (more than palliative) sense for a person who is depressed because they are victims of economic restructuring; sorry no job, take this pill instead - if you have insurance cover or savings, that is.
I somehow don't see Dr Hsuing blocking threads like that; and *that* statement is readily Popper-falsifiable. So prove me wrong!
You forgot one more slant; this site is heavily US-centered. Go ahead, blame the moderator! (And he allows third-world trash like me [writing from south asia] purely for image reasons !?)
> The moderator is employed, for now, at a
>university that is heavily funded by the same
>kind of transnational capitalist interests as
>those that fund Discover and other for-profit
>and non-profit educational formats. Most notable
>of the University of Chicago's benefactors, (the
>university having until two weeks ago sponsored
>this site with server space) is the late John >Rockefeller who, early in the last century, >endowed a sectarian (Baptist) university with >money he made by monopolizing the world >petroleum market.True, but I repeat: universities are still the lesser evil. And this, in spite of the disappearance of automatic tenure, etc. In spite of the reality that university faculty is increasingly forced to take notice of the fact that qua employees they are, like any other worker, selling their labor power [mental] and are therefore subject to classical marxist exploitation. [Which in turn is independent of the question whether the USSR, China (PRC) etc. were ever socialist states.]
I am afraid that ten years from now, there might be nothing to choose freedom-wise between working as a University teacher and working in industry. But futurism is slippery ground ...
Posted by name on January 7, 2001, at 16:55:15
In reply to Re: reply (contd.) » name, posted by pandey_m on January 7, 2001, at 15:18:34
Posted by name on January 7, 2001, at 17:57:51
In reply to Re: reply (contd.) » name, posted by pandey_m on January 7, 2001, at 15:18:34
pandey_m, and others,
1. That post somehow appeared twice, which was unintentional, and
2. this discussion probably fits the admin board better than this one.
I don't have any reason to debate this subject for now; people have different perspectives and maybe they all need to be expressed. I don't have anything to add for now that I didn't express already, except the link in the post above, which people can read and interpret for themselves. For me, abuse seems very common. It is an inherent part of our culture and I beleive everybody does it, so please don't construe that I am painting a picture in black and white here. It just seems worth considering how *we* can be abusive.
The real reason I added *this* post was to suggest that, out of respect for the preferences of the moderator, any furthur followups go to the admin board.
Posted by pandey_m on January 7, 2001, at 18:02:56
In reply to blocking is abuse, posted by name on January 7, 2001, at 16:55:15
> http://www.home.aone.net.au/psychotherapy/what_is_abuse.htm
Point well taken.I am sorry, I had not been concentrating at the specific issue. (cyclothymia/ADD case, y'know - I was irritated by something on Discovery a few months back, I don't even remember what.. so the Discovery example started something in my head..I went off-track)
I now looked up the thread which led to this comparison.
This site is for disturbed people, so my common sense (at present) says blocking is only justified if not doing so has clear potential for causing harm to other disturbed people accessing this site...
ok there is one more reason I can think of .. if in the opinion of the doctor, blocking could help and is very unlikely to harm the person blocked. But that doesnt/shouldnt apply here, the moderator is then playing two roles at the same time - doubling as doctor - over the internet -I am too mixed up and ignorant to address this issue logically.
I suddenly see that political generalizations are too easy and glib a substitute for thinking.
Thank you. What did you do to me? Like zen.
Why didnt someone ask me before whether I had bothered to spend some time looking at what it was that was being objected to?Actually these questions did bother me sometimes, but I suppressed them because I was afraid they would trigger brooding - a real danger for me because in my teenage I had episodes of abnormal brooding continuing for weeks at a time, even if i managed to sleep i used to get up and the ruminations would continue from the point at which i had fallen asleep - so that sleep felt like a blink in consciousness - often i'd feel that i had only dozed off for a minute when actually I'd slept for 12 hrs etc.
signing off. (I am on MAOI (l-deprenyl) nowadays, so i wont ruminate)
Posted by name on January 7, 2001, at 18:26:58
In reply to Now you've got me brooding... » name, posted by pandey_m on January 7, 2001, at 18:02:56
> I am too mixed up and ignorant to address this issue logically.
Try as we might to see ourselves as logical, our minds are not primarily logical. We have a capacity to develop logic, but even our logical constructs are often, (most often, I say) constructed to serve our emotional drives. We are animals first. By representing ourselves as some god-like supercomputers we miss the real nature of who we are, and end up diminishing the value of our animal selves, and of the rest of nature. In my opinion, that is.
>
> I suddenly see that political generalizations are too easy and glib a substitute for thinking.
>
> Thank you. What did you do to me? Like zen.You did it. You took a risk and exposed your thoughts in such a way as to allow reflection. Then you let go, allowing for change.
I am keenly aware that political generalizations are often a mask for perpetuating our emotionally driven perspectives. That awareness often causes problems for me, like the kid who pointed out the nakedness of an emporer who was otherwise enjoying his subjects' admiration of his beautiful, though strictly fictional, garb. It is hard for me to explain what value I find in political activity having realized it is for the most part some weird sport. That awareness, though, is oddly empowering.
> Why didnt someone ask me before whether I had bothered to spend some time looking at what it was that was being objected to?
That seems to be the nature of on-line communication. We benifit from speedy dialogue across geographic and cultural boundaries at the expense of precision. Anyway, it's not much different from face-to-face diaolgue, in that we often take stances in conversation that are hasty or mostly hyperbole, then we adjust our stance as conversation develops.
But anyway, this is more social than administrative, so I replied here. Brood on, if thats what you feel. You're not the only one.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 8, 2001, at 1:18:50
In reply to getting along together » pandey_m, posted by name on January 7, 2001, at 17:57:51
> 2. this discussion probably fits the admin board better than this one.
It does, thanks.
Bob
Posted by stjames on January 8, 2001, at 4:05:11
In reply to blocking is abuse, posted by name on January 7, 2001, at 16:55:15
> http://www.home.aone.net.au/psychotherapy/what_is_abuse.htm
James here....I don't see this paper as having any bearing on Psycobable. It is not psychothearpy that goes on here. There is no doctor-patient relationship here.
james
Posted by name on January 14, 2001, at 13:45:50
In reply to Re: reply » name, posted by Cam W. on December 31, 2000, at 15:48:44
> The promotion of pharmaceutical approaches to mental difficulty rather than promotion of dietary, personal and cultural approaches....
Could you please give examples of any of these approaches to treating mental illnesses that have worked as effectively as psychopharmaceuticals in alleviating many of the symptoms of mental disorders.
This is not exactly an example of an approach that might "have worked as effectively" because it is research, not clinical experience, but the following is a press release from the Salk Institute. In addition to learning ability, LTP or LTD of cells in the hippocampus likely correlates, directly or indirectly, with other difficulties.
Vitamin A Deficiency Impairs Learning Functions In Reversible Manner
http://www.salk.edu/NEWS/evans1172000.htmlLA JOLLA, CALIF. – Removing Vitamin A from the diets of mice diminishes chemical changes in the brain considered the hallmarks of learning and memory. When vitamin A is added back to their diets, the impairment is reversed.
"These data indicate that vitamin A is necessary for optimal function in the hippocampus, which we know to be a main seat of learning," said Salk researcher Sharoni Jacobs, who, with her colleagues, are presenting these results at the current Society for Neuroscience meeting in New Orleans, La. View Poster
Added Salk Professor Ronald M. Evans, senior author of the study: "The study indicates that the detrimental effects of vitamin A deprivation are remarkably reversible, which offers hope to the millions of children worldwide with vitamin A-deficient diets."
In the study, genetically identical litter mates were given either a normal diet or one lacking vitamin A. At periodic intervals, the hippocampus regions of their brains were examined for LTP (long-term potentiation) and LTD (long-term depression), chemical measures of brain cell adaptability long believed to correlate with learning ability.
"At 15 weeks of age, the responses of vitamin A-deprived mice are reduced to about 50 percent normal. At longer time points, LTP is stable at 50 percent, but LTD drops to almost undetectable levels," said Jacobs.
Adding vitamin A back to the diet for as little as two days restores brain responses to normal levels.
Normal function was also restored when isolated hippocampus tissue from the mice was bathed in vitamin A, indicating that the nutrient functions in the hippocampus directly, not in other parts of the brain that might influence the important learning region.
The current work builds on earlier studies from Evans’ laboratory, in which researchers found that mice born without receptors for vitamin A in the hippocampus lacked LTP ability and performed under par in standardized learning tests. Receptors are molecules within brain cells that detect and respond to the vitamin.
"What couldn’t be ruled out in those studies, however, was that vitamin A activity was needed during embryonic development to establish normal learning functions," said Evans. "Now we’ve shown that removing vitamin A from fully-developed animals impairs learning pathways, and equally important, the effects are reversible."
Salk co-authors include Dinah Misner, Yasushi Shimizu, Luigi De Luca and Professor Charles Stevens. The study, titled "A required role for vitamin A signaling in hippocampal long-term synaptic plasticity," was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI). Evans and Stevens are Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigators.
The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, located in La Jolla, Calif., is an independent nonprofit institution dedicated to fundamental discoveries in the life sciences, the improvement of human health and conditions, and the training of future generations of researchers. The Institute was founded in 1960 by Jonas Salk, M.D., with a gift of land from the City of San Diego and the financial support of the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
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.