 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / June 2008Sigmund Freud,cocaine and advice on my depression.
Sigmund Freud was able to use cocaine for 3 years,and it alleviated his depression. There are other substances avialable today which act on dopamine and have a stimulating effect,such as GHB, Adderall, Wellbutrin and Ritalin. However my psychiatrist has warned me that these drugs pose a long term risk, And I have seen evidence in the form of MRI scans etc that they destroy dopamingergic neurones. Hell, with a dopaminergic drug like Meth, you can actually see the brain tissue that's been eaten away, in the addicts MRI scans. Scary stuff. I have said before that psyhedlics like cannabis make me fearful, so I want to try and stop taking them. Ben Cultre suggested I try opates. Trouble is, all the opiates I've tried such as codiene, make me itchy and sleepy, and don't give much euphoria or pleasure. When I'm on any form of dopaminergic drug, I get euphoria and energy to work. I want to try a dopaminergic drug, but am worried that it will destroy the neurones in my brain, leading to even deeper depression. I have thought about the Dopaminergic antidepressant Selegline, but am worried that even that will cause neurotoxic damage to my brain. So, can anyone suggest a Dopaminergic stimulant drug/pharmaceutical which you think will not destroy nbrain neurones? Thanks for reading this and bye friends. > Sigmund Freud was able to use cocaine for 3 years,and it alleviated > his depression. There are other substances avialable today which act [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > which you think will not destroy nbrain neurones? > Thanks for reading this and bye friends. Hi Sal, regarding Freud did you know he had a friend who was heavily addicted to morphine, but freud was that enthusiast about coke that he recommended his friend to start shooting coke in order to remove morphine addiction well the morphine indeed went, but the poor sucker had to shoot that much coke that he became completely psychotic, thank you 'my friend' he must have thought in case he hopefuly regained sanity, something i dont know. You cant put Wellbutrin, GHB, Adderal and ritalin in the same sentence Sal stating that they have an action on dopamine levels, which is true yes, but wellbutrin and adderal are very different substances. Adderal is just a mix from four amphetamine salts, but wellbutrin is an anti depressant who prevents re uptake from dopamine so like you know re uptake inactivates dopmaine so when re uptake gets lowered more dopamine stays present in the synapsgap hence feeling better. Now something strange is that however dopamine and serotonine and nor adrenaline re uptake start an hour after taking the first dose still it takes, if at all, weeks before an anti depressing action shows. What amphetamines do is preventing reuptake from dopamine, but besides that they also stimulate dopamine production so that stuff works strong, coke prevent re uptake from dopamine, but does not stimulate the 'substantia nigra', a part in the brain producing dopamine, so coke works differently compared to amphs. Anyway low dosed amphetamine, never meth amph, can elevate depression without doing a bad number on your brain so these long term risks are relative, but wellbutrin regarding long term risks well a far as i know wellbutrin does not pose any longterm risk. GHB i consider as out of the question(meth amph ofcourse also), but opiates like suggested by Ben Culture well yes codeine does make you itchy a feeling what goes fast, but alright better not to start opiates i think you better first see about other ways like named ones and if really nothing helps you then i suggest a low dose of methadone like two times a day 5 mg something like that as that one i find the best depression relieving opioid, but a last resort option Sal for 'done being no joke. Seleginine is just a MAO inhibitor so MAO is Mono Amine Oxidase and breaks down serotonine and nor adrenaline, dont know if also dopamine gets broken down by seleginine, so less MAO means more not adrenaline and serotoine hence the anti depressant effect, but a MAO inhibitor like seleginine cannot be taken together with tyramine containing products present in old cheese, red wine for example as in that case bloodpressure can skyrocket and kill you. Also MAO inhibitors have a huge unpredictable effect on the strenghtening of opiates so those two may never be taken together also SSRI's and a MAO inhibitor can only be taken with minimally 14 days in between. Seleginine could be optional for you regarding depression relief if you take the required pre cautions, but what about low dose amphetamine so a dose who does not make you feel wired, but who does elevate your mood maybe something to consider also wellbutrin is optional, but dont forget that it takes many weeks, if at all, before both seleginine and wellbutrin show an effect, but low dosed amphs do fast like a few hours max without neuron destruction. When you feel this depressed Sal i think you better outweight advantages and disadvantages regarding neurotoxity so the chance for that is almost absent provided that you take amphs very responseble, but feeling depressed is real bad so when you can remove it f.ck possible neurotoxity and make it gone so the options are present the choice is yours. Good luck man. Regards, Freek. > > Sigmund Freud was able to use cocaine for 3 years,and it alleviated > > his depression. There are other substances avialable today which act [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > - Show quoted text - methadone really has anti-depressant properties? That's interesting, I didn't know that. > > > Sigmund Freud was able to use cocaine for 3 years,and it alleviated > > > his depression. There are other substances avialable today which act [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > methadone really has anti-depressant properties? That's interesting, I > didn't know that. SAL................ Mate please reconsider (if you are) using opaites to elleviate the 'depression' you experience. It will enevitably lead to problems far worse than initial depression itself. From someone who has been there, PLEASE don't take this path. scoobs > > > > Sigmund Freud was able to use cocaine for 3 years,and it alleviated > > > > hisdepression. There are other substances avialable today which act [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Thanks for the advice Scoobie. It's great to know people as kind as you are willing to give a heads-up to less expereinced folk, like me. > SAL................ Mate please reconsider (if you are) using opaites > to elleviate the 'depression' you experience. > It will enevitably lead to problems far worse than initial depression > itself. From someone who has been there, PLEASE don't take this path. > > scoobs Lord god, do I second that opinion. Oh, but I tried, let me tell you! I tried. On Adderal, it is one of the hardest drugs (IMHO) to manage. I tried on that too. Almost f.cking killed me. I don't know, maybe it's because I was trying to work full time at the same time, or maybe I'm just too much of an addict, I don't know, but I would say stay away from all new drugs. I'm sure you've already tried the conventional methods of depression. All I can say, is what Stevie Ray Vaughn said right before he died... may you find comfort and soon. Supe' > Sigmund Freud was able to use cocaine for 3 years,and it alleviated > his depression. There are other substances avialable today which act [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > which you think will not destroy nbrain neurones? > Thanks for reading this and bye friends. I have not seen any evidence that Selegiline or Wellbutrin can damage neurons. Many people claim the opposite for Selegiline, i.e. that it has a neuroprotective function. Wellbutrin is a rather weakly dopaminergic medication, compared to Selegiline. It inhibits reuptake of dopamine, as well as norepinephrine. Both Wellbutrin and Selegiline are regarded as safe medications, as far as neurotoxicity goes. (Overdosing is different, but overdosing on any medication is a bad idea.) Wellbutrin and Selegiline are both stimulating (energizign) medications, as they act to increase the concentration of norepinephrine as well as dopmaine. It is possible to get a more purely dopaminergic effect (without the stimulation) from the dopamine agonists (bromocriptine, pramipexole, cabergoline, etc.). This might be useful if increasing energy causes problems. You might want to visit my Web site for more information about these medications.  SignatureNom dePlume, Ph.D. Why, yes, in fact, I am a rocket scientist. Find my book, Medicines for Mental health, and free drug information, at www.MentalMeds.org ===== > > Sigmund Freud was able to use cocaine for 3 years,and it alleviated > > his depression. There are other substances avialable today which act [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > ===== You remind me of an old poster here from years ago, a girl named Elizabeth Shapere. Totally obsessed with psychiatry meds and talked like she was a doctor. Lots of bad and dangerous medical advice was peddled here. You dont have any business telling strangers they should consider taking such off label drugs as cabergoline, EVEN if you were a doctor, which you arent. Cabergoline is FDA approved for prolactin disorders, not for psychiatric disorders or for even hypogonadism. Those other dopamine agonists are FDA approved for parkinsons and things like RLS. Sure, they are used sometimes for off label uses in depression, especially for anhedonia relief. But thats really an issue that should be brought up by a person's own psychiatrist IRL. Its not your job, Kevin. Do you believe you are a doctor? Eric AKA LostBoyinNC > You remind me of an old poster here from years ago, a girl named > Elizabeth Shapere. Totally obsessed with psychiatry meds and talked [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > really an issue that should be brought up by a person's own > psychiatrist IRL. Its not your job, Kevin. I don't tell people to take drugs. I provide information for them to discuss with their doctors. SignatureNom dePlume, Ph.D. Why, yes, in fact, I am a rocket scientist. Find my book, Medicines for Mental health, and free drug information, at www.MentalMeds.org ===== > > You remind me of an old poster here from years ago, a girl named > > Elizabeth Shapere. Totally obsessed with psychiatry meds and talked [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > ===== Kevin, by your suggesting people here read your book and then go discuss the "suggestions" in your book with their doctor, you are implying to people you have credibility as some kind of psychopharmacology expert or consultant. And you are not any such thing. Suggesting to people they should consider asking their doctor to put them on an esoteric drug like cabergoline for depression, is an implied "I really, really, really know what Im talking about." Where is your credibility, Kevin? If we were talking physics here, Id say sure, Kevin is a physicist. You've got credibility on that subject. Why don't you go write books on that subject,something you would have credibility to write about. But we are talking complicated psychopharmacology here and you've got no business suggesting to strangers on the net they should go ask their doctors about non FDA approved, esoteric medications. Again, where are your psychopharmacology credentials? It would be fine for you to write a book if it was written from the perspective of "I survived major depression and this is how I did it" kind of thing. Lots of people have done that. But to write an actual manuscript type book on psychopharm when you've got no licensing or formal training in the subject is...weird to put it mildly. Your posts imply you are some sort of psychopharm consultant, doctor, etc. Which is a joke. Why don't you just be honest in your disclaimer and instead of saying "I'm Kevin Thompson and I'm a physicist with an interest in psychiatry drugs," why don't you say "I'm Kevin Thompson and I'm a physicist, a mental patient and have an amateur, obsessive interest in psychopharmacology." That describes you much better. Eric AKA LostBoyinNC > Where is your credibility, Kevin? If we were talking physics here, Id > say sure, Kevin is a physicist. You've got credibility on that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > approved, esoteric medications. Again, where are your > psychopharmacology credentials? One of the indicators that you are reading the words of a truly stupid person is they totally fail to comprehend who is in the room. > You remind me of an old poster here from years ago, a girl named > Elizabeth Shapere. Totally obsessed with psychiatry meds and talked > like she was a doctor. Elizabeth is not "old," and she was one of the most informed posters your group was ever fortunate enough to have. Not that you could have been expected to recognize this, as blinded by ignorance and prejudice as you are. Eric, you've never understood that the fact that mainstream psychiatry says something does not make that thing true (_agrumentum ad verecundiam_, not that you were ever one for spotting informal fallacies). SignatureYes, in fact, I am a neuropharmacologist. > > You remind me of an old poster here from years ago, a girl named > > Elizabeth Shapere. Totally obsessed with psychiatry meds and talked [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ever fortunate enough to have. Not that you could have been expected to recognize > this, as blinded by ignorance and prejudice as you are. Claiming that your friend Elizabeth was one of the most informed posters in this group is a highly subjective statement on your part. I would disagree with you vigorously. I initially thought your friend Elizabeth WAS highly informed as a patient and as a patient only. However, as a few years went by my perception of her changed dramatically and I realized she was basically totally and completely obsessed with drugs. > Eric, you've never understood that the fact that mainstream psychiatry says something > does not make that thing true (_agrumentum ad verecundiam_, not that you were ever one > for spotting informal fallacies). Ive never been a big fan of psychiatry and I am a huge critic of psychiatry. I believe Neurology should be running the show regarding severe mental illnesses, such as severe depression. psychiatry is a poor excuse for a branch of medicine and they dont a poor job of advocating for 1) the patients they try to treat and 2) they even do a poor job advocating for themselves as a branch of medicine. I hope you arent still doing that LSD you used to brag was such a fantastic psychopharmacology approach to serious mental illness. <eye roll> Eric AKA LostBoyinNC Eric said: > I believe Neurology should be running the show regarding > severe mental illnesses, such as severe depression. If "mental illnesses" were actually diseases, they would indeed be the province of neurology (as in the cases where neurosyphillis, and epilepsy, were discovered to have a genuine physical basis ... they immediately ceased to be part of psychiatry). Unfortunately, notwithstanding what NAMI, the drug industry, and biopsychiatry want you to believe, there still is not even a shred of evidence -- none -- to support the idea that even "schizophernia" (surely the most "severe" of the "severe mental illnesses") has a neurological basis. Of course, to the degree that it is a form of consciousness, and all forms of consciousness have neurochemical substrates, it is grounded in neurochemistry. But no more so than liberalism, prejudice, Christianity, mysticism, musical talent, or anything else about the human personality. D2 antagonists (whether "classical" or "atypical") simply diminish volitional behavior. They do this in anyone. They are not specific "treatments," because there is no disease to treat. Find me the chapter on "mental illness" in *any* pathology textbook (pathologists are the experts on all forms of pathophysiology ... however, none exists in the case of "mental illnesses"). The argument, "they must be diseases, because look how badly those folks are getting along ... so what else could they be?" is simply another logical fallacy. Same thing with "Have you ever known anyone who had schizophrenia?" These things may have emotional force, but they have no logical force. > Eric said: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > with "Have you ever known anyone who had schizophrenia?" These things may have > emotional force, but they have no logical force. You are wrong. In the past decade or so, studies by scientists are showing that the brains of schizophrenics are different than those of healthy people with no mental illness. For example, it have been PROVEN that schizophrenics use less of their frontal lobes compared to non mentally ill individuals. The frontal lobes are where executive functioning comes from...and people who have schizophrenia and other psychosis have major problems with "executive functioning" AKA cognition, planning, thinking logically and clearly, etc. Functional neuroimaging scan studies have proven that the brains of those afflicted with severe forms of mental illness metabolize glucose and use oxygen differently than those of non mentally ill, healthy people. Also, structural MRI type studies of those with schizophrenia are actually showing decreases in white matter in those with schizophrenia...actual loss of brain tissue or shrinking of brain tissue. I realize you are skeptical of the claims of the drug companies and their stool pigeon psychopharmacology researchers. I realize you are skeptical of NAMI. And you should be. Afterall, their objective is to make money...and lots of it. However, you shouldnt write off all research being done in these areas to drug companies and NAMI who have a conflict of interest with regards to objective research. Just recently, a major study announced a breakthrough regarding the genetics of schizophrenia. Researchers explained specific, defective genetics underlies schizophrenia. As a supposed psychopharmacology researcher, I would think youd be more aware of recent breakthroughs. As long as psychiatry and psychology are running the show, things will continue to be bleak and dismal for those afflicted with severe mental illness. Eric AKA LostBoyinNC Eric said: > As a supposed psychopharmacology researcher, I would think > youd be more aware of recent breakthroughs. I do try to keep up with the literature, but just to clarify things, I haven't been an active neuro/psycho pharmacology researcher in about 20 years. Nobody should get the wrong idea, and think that I'm a physician or something. My work was strictly preclinical (i.e., with animals only) and involved the molecular mechanism of action of drugs. However, I worked in both academia and then in the drug industry, and was astounded by the difference. Most of what I have to say about this particular subject is philosophical, and informed by my own interpretations of the original research. What is "this particular subject?" FUNCTIONAL IMAGING. Biopsychiatry has seized upon the most arcane kinds of imaging (single-photon emission computerized tomography [SPECT], functional magnetic resonance imaging [fMRI], positron emission tomography [PET]) to "prove" its claims (to truly "prove" something in science is impossible; even to raise it to the status of a theory takes a monumental amount of work -- not one paper underwritten by a drug company). Since the public knows very little about the interpretation of brain scans, and since the choice of what color should represent what in such a scan is arbitrary, it is an easy matter to create very impressive pictures. You say that it has been "PROVEN that schizophrenics use less of their frontal lobes" than other people. You don't cite any specific work, so I can't read the original data, but as a general rule, it is very difficult to find "schizophrenics" for a study who are not taking, and have not taken, D2 antagonists. These drugs are typically the cause of any observed frontal lobe hypoactivity (for that is what they do: the frontal lobes are rich in dopamine receptors, and "antipsychotics" shut them down). However, some studies (which can rarely be replicated) do try to control for the effect of the drugs. But all functional imaging studies are subject to the same criticism ... which goes beyond the fact that drug effects account for much of what is seen. First, if functional imaging is so good at identifying schizophrenics, then why can't a single doctor on Earth determine if someone "has" schizophrenia by looking at some kind of scan of that individual's brain? Similar claims have been made for functional imaging "proving" that "ADD" is a real disease. Okay, but if this is true, why can't anyone determine who has ADD by looking at their brain scans? It's true that when a doctor is given one set of scans from kids said to have "ADD," and another stack of scans from kids who are said to be "normal," and then asked to "find a difference" between the two piles of scans, he or she usually can. But then why can't the doctors run it in reverse? Why can't they diagnose based on brain scans? Can you imagine someone who was perfectly normal, happy, and well-adjusted being told by the doctor, "I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but the brain scans leave no room for doubt: you have major depression." Just the logical possibility of such a thing happening makes it clear how absurd the idea of diagnosing "mental illnesses" using physical tests is. Second, there have been a huge number of such studies that found nothing at all (for a summary, see Bearden et al., "The neuropsychology and neuroanatomy of bipolar affective disorder: a critical review," [2001], _Bipolar Disorder_, Jun(3)3 : 106 - 50). The fact that some studies came out the way you wanted them to hardly "proves" anything. Next, the PET scan, which measures glucose consumption (and thus presumably activity) in different parts of the brain is constantly changing. In one study, "normals" (i.e., people who had not been labeled by doctors with a psychiatric diagnosis) who were asked to recall a sad event showed scans that were not significantly different from those of depressed people (whom biopsychiatry refers to as people "with depression"). But most importantly, every kind of human consciousness has a neurochemical substrate. The PET scans of people listening to classical music are dramatically different from those of people listening to rock music. The only thing that functional imaging shows is that peoples' brains are active in different ways. It's a long way from there to proving that something is "pathological." Ultimately, "pathological" is a normative word that refers to a condition that some unspecified "we" finds undesirable. We didn't find something wrong in the neuroanatomy, and then declare it a disease called "schizophrenia." We found the behavior of certain people intolerable, and then whatever their neuroanatomy turns out to be, we'd like to call it "schizophrenia." The trouble is, aside from the effects of D2 antagonists, the neuroanatomy is pretty much the same as everyone else's. Whatever "breakthroughs" you think have been made, whatever you think has been "proven," it remains the case that there just aren't any objective laboratory tests that can diagnose "schizophrenia" or any other "mental illness." This is because there are no such diseases to diagnose. > Eric said: > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > objective laboratory tests that can diagnose "schizophrenia" or any other "mental > illness." This is because there are no such diseases to diagnose. The newer, atypical anti-psychotics do not dumb down dopamine in the pre-frontal cortex like the older D2 drugs do. The atypical anti- psychotics that most schizophrenics are on these days are said to block dopamine mostly only in the area of the brain where the positive psychotic symptoms occur. Furthermore, with the atypical anti- psychotics, these drugs are reported to actually increase dopamine in the pre-frontal lobes, improving "executive function" to some degree. Maybe not normalizing it, but improving it somewhat. Abilify is one of the atypicals that increases dopamine levels in pre-frontal lobes of schizophrenics, but really, all the atypicals do that. Clozaril increases dopamine in the pre-frontal lobes, Zyprexa does it too. The older, pure D2 blockers you are talking about are the drugs that "carpetbomb" dopamine receptors in the whole entire brain and would make brain imaging less worthwhile. Since few schizophrenics take these drugs anymore, Id disagree with your claims that functional MRI scans, PET scans, etc. are worthless and dont show a reasonably active picture of whats going on. Although with the recent admissions that atypical APs cause metabolic syndrome and diabetes, the older typical APs are making somewhat of a comeback. For how long, I dont know, I suppose until adequate replacement drugs can be developed that will have safe side effect profiles and wont offer up "surprises" like Zyprexa did. Your own admission that you havent worked in the field of psychopharmacology for 20 years implies a lot of omissions in your professional knowledge. To put it bluntly, your psychopharmacology knowledge is based upon eighties era, pre-prozac, pre-atypical anti- psychotic era psychopharmacology. To put it still another way, you havent kept up with technological changes in your former profession. Maybe you became jaded as a result of your experiences working in or with large, greedy drug companies....I dont know. I dont know what really happened to you...perhaps you dropped too much acid and are mildly psychotic. This isnt an ad hominem attack on you, you must admit that if you havent worked in the field for 20 years, you arent going to be up on the latest stuff. I keep up on the latest stuff better than you do. While I strongly disagree that schizophrenia is not a brain illness of some sort, not pinned down yet, but its GOT to be some sort of Neuro issue IMO. But if you dont believe that, what do you believe would cause such a devastating and chronic condition as schizophrenia? What do you believe causes the positive symptoms of the illness, the negative symptoms of the illness and the cognitive aspects of the illness. Schizophrenia is even reported to have movement disorders as an aspect of the illness. Krapelin reported on these weird movement issues a 100 years ago. These symptoms exist BEFORE administration of D2 blockers and are the reasons people are put on such drugs to begin with. Im not talking about using D2 blockers for behavioral control here...Im talking about schizophrenia. What do you believe might cause it? Whats your opinion? Lack of love? Your puppy dog died when you were eight and it devastated you? Freudian concepts of overbearing Mothers and repressed homosexuality? Neuro-viral infections as Dr. E. Fuller Torrey swears is the culprit? What you really think causes this condition? Because something is causing it and being a former psychopharmacology researcher, Id like to hear your opinion on the subject. Eric AKA LostBoyinNC > > Eric said: > [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Wading through the *insane* rambling on his blog, which was like digging through a garbage heap and hitting a sewage pipe, I found this little tidbit - "One of the first things I learned when I developed a nasty case of clinical depression in late 1997 at age 28, blah blah blah" So this lost "boy" is nearly 40 years old? I wouldn't have guessed that. I was almost *positive* he was in his late teens. All the more amusing. Har har har. Ok I'm done for tonight. Neo > > > Eric said: > [quoted text clipped - 140 lines] > "One of the first things I learned when I developed a nasty case of > clinical depression in late 1997 at age 28, blah blah blah" It happened right after he was asked to leave Heavens Gate when Marshall Applewhite told him there wasn't enough room on the spaceship for him. > First, if functional imaging is so good at identifying schizophrenics, then why can't a > single doctor on Earth determine if someone "has" schizophrenia by looking at some kind [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have major depression." Just the logical possibility of such a thing happening makes > it clear how absurd the idea of diagnosing "mental illnesses" using physical tests is. I hadn't gotten down to this post yet, but this is exactly my point. He's proven himself a fool, what's the point in wasting your time trying to convince a fool? He's locked into a pattern of thinking like a stubborn adolescent or a senile old man. I say killfile the little cocksucker. He's definately lost and I don't see him finding his way any time soon. On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 02:12:23 -0700 (PDT), >> First, if functional imaging is so good at identifying schizophrenics, then why can't a >> single doctor on Earth determine if someone "has" schizophrenia by looking at some kind [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >I hadn't gotten down to this post yet, Believe it or not, he's knocking ETF for his limited knowledge of a more recent class of drugs that he doesn't recomend taking anyhow, while simultaneously admitting his superior knowledge of the very class of older drugs he IS reccomending! I dunno..... (shakes head). Mycos Prohibition Funds Terrorism > Eric said: > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > objective laboratory tests that can diagnose "schizophrenia" or any other "mental > illness." This is because there are no such diseases to diagnose. Let's read some of the crap from your blog SmartBoyinNC, like this - "All TOO often, individuals with SEVERE forms of mental illness such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and SEVEARE forms of depression are not medicated. And these are the folks who NEED medication the MOST! The reasons are MANY...ONE of the reasons is MANY of these people are not medication compliant...MANY are SOOo0 far gone they do not realize or believe ANYTHING is wrong with them despite multiple hospitalisations, chronick vocational disibility, etc. ANOTHERE reason is POVERTY...MOST of these people with SERIOUS mental illnesses are chronically unemployed or if they DO work, usually its in LOW paying, meniel type jobs with NO private health insurance. MANY of these poor folks with SEVEARE mental illness cannot afford to pay to see a psychiatrist, nor pay for medications out of pocket." So Bipolar disorder is a "severe" form of mental illness? Let me guess, you think that because you've been diagnosed with this "mental illness"? Or maybe you've been diagnosed with a "SEVEARE" form of depression. Did you diagnose yourself? Sometimes I get depressed when I fail to think clearly for extended time periods. - Luckily, it's only happened once. Or how about this - "psychiatry does nothing to try to invent ways to make these severely mentally ill individuals aware they are not well, so they will become medication compliant. Brain and genetics research to try and understand WHY these people are the way they become is minimal. Apathy is high." That's funny, I wasn't aware that psychiatry could invent anything. Btw - your constant use of words in all caps makes you seem even a little dumber than you are, if that's even possible. Oh this one made me roll over! - "Additionally, the antidepressants USED to treat mild to moderete forms of depression such as SSRIs DO NOT work well in SEVERE forms of major depression. An example is the psychotic subtype of major depression. This severe form of major depression has no FDA approved drug treatment! NONE. Treatments for major depression with psychotic features are AD HOC and typically include an SSRI or tricyclic antidepressant combined with an anti-psychotic. ECT, historically the SINGLE MOST effective treatment for psychotic depression, is usually NOT used in the modern age. There has to be a reason WHY? And it aint just your environment, environment is a trigger but that's ALL. Then once all these things are figured out through SCIENCE and SCIENCE alone the medical community will be able to fix mental illness. There are reasons why people become the way they become and science has a reason for it" Oh I'm sure everyone's getting a good laugh now. Btw - ECT is used quite commonly now. Ok, that's enough of that. Hurry everyone - go read his blog, it paints a very good picture of the depth of his "mental illness" <g> > > Eric said: > [quoted text clipped - 128 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Whoops, that last post was supposed to be a reply to that idiot, not you Eaton; but I'm sure that's obvious =). -Neo . > Let's read some of the crap from your blog SmartBoyinNC, like this - > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > illness"? Or maybe you've been diagnosed with a "SEVEARE" form of > depression. Did you diagnose yourself? Lol. > Sometimes I get depressed when I fail to think clearly for extended > time periods. - Luckily, it's only happened once. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Oh this one made me roll over! - Lol. > "Additionally, the antidepressants USED to treat mild to moderete > forms of depression such as SSRIs DO NOT work well in SEVERE forms of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Ok, that's enough of that. Hurry everyone - go read his blog, it > paints a very good picture of the depth of his "mental illness" - Hehe. Funny. > the same as everyone else's. Whatever "breakthroughs" you think have > been made, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > other "mental > illness." This is because there are no such diseases to diagnose. Boy, do I not want to get into this one, but I would appreciate a clarification. Um, are you saying that schizophrenia has no biological component, including genetic? There is a mountain of evidence that schizophrenia has a genetic component, separated twin studies, you name it that shows that schizophrenia can't simply be something environmental. If two twins, separated at birth, grow up in two completely different families, both develop schizophrenia in their early 20's... what would you call that? I agree that doing MRIs of the brain isn't proving anything, but certainly separated twins both getting schizophrenia indicates there is something biological/genetic going on, particularly since there have been many cases of this in twins, separated sibling and offspring being diagnosed with schizophrenia. I'm just wondering what your response to that is? Supe' > > the same as everyone else's. Whatever "breakthroughs" you think have > > been made, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > since there have been many cases of this in twins, separated sibling > and offspring being diagnosed with schizophrenia. MRIs of schizophrenic brains usually show enlarged ventricles. I have no idea what the implication of that is, but it is considered a physical abnormality. Also: "This is the first study to visualize how schizophrenia develops in the brain," said Paul Thompson, an assistant professor of neurology at the UCLA School of Medicine and the study's chief investigator. "Scientists have been perplexed about how schizophrenia progresses and whether there are any physical changes in the brain. We were stunned to see a spreading wave of tissue loss that began in a small region of the brain. It moved across the brain like a forest fire, destroying more tissue as the disease progressed. "The scientists, at UCLA and the National Institute of Mental Health, employed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology to scan a group of teenagers repeatedly as they developed schizophrenia. Using a new image analysis method that detects very fine changes in the brain, the scientists detected gray matter loss of more than 10 percent first in the parietal, or outer, regions of the brain; this loss spread to engulf the rest of the brain over five years." Check out all the nice color scans: http://www.schizophrenia.com/research/schiz.brain.htm Another good site explaining physical changes to the brains of schizophrenics: http://www.schizophrenia.com/disease.htm > I'm just wondering what your response to that is? Me too. > Supe' These changes in the brains of schizophrenics are likely caused by the higly toxic medication we're forced to take. I'd be interested in a study comparing the brains of schizophrenics who have never taken schizophrenia medication with those who have. >> > the same as everyone else's. Whatever "breakthroughs" you think have >> > been made, [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > >> Supe' > These changes in the brains of schizophrenics are likely caused by the higly > toxic medication we're forced to take. I'd be interested in a study > comparing the brains of schizophrenics who have never taken schizophrenia > medication with those who have. Maybe, but the first scans were brains of recently diagnosed schizophrenics, so they wouldn't have been exposed to the medication you're talking about. Nevertheless the MRIs consistently revealed physical changes in certain parts of the brain. That tends to suggest the schizophrenia disease process itself involves destruction of brain tissue. I wonder, too, what impact the drugs have on the continued deterioration of gray matter. I think it would be interesting to see the study you suggested, too. > I'd be interested in a study comparing the brains of schizophrenics who have never > taken schizophrenia medication with those who have. The problem is, it's hard to find such people. Since schizophrenia is, by State and medico-legal fiat, a "disease," it is by definition unethical to withhold "treatment" from such people. You're right that almost all of the neurological damage attributed to schizophrenia is due to "antipsychotic" drugs, which are among the most neurotoxic drugs in existence. SignatureETF www.etfrc.com Astonished heart, loving unloved heart, heart of a heartless world, crazy heart of a dying world. Playing the game of reality with no real cards in one's hand. > > I'd be interested in a study comparing the brains of schizophrenics who have never > > taken schizophrenia medication with those who have. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -- I would argue hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD, PCP and ecstacy are more neurotoxic than the neuroleptics. Neuroleptics, while certainly neurotoxic, force a person to see reality whether they want to or not. Neuroleptics are the "truth" drugs. Hallucinogenics...such as your beloved LSD...are the "lets distort our perception and trip out" drugs. Why are hallucinogenic drugs such as your beloved LSD on the DEA controlled substances scheduled list of drugs? While neuroleptic drugs such as thorazine are not scheduled? Answer that, know it all. Lots of people have been driven crazy from acid trips...many many persons have ended up in the psych ward from playing around with hallucinogenics such as LSD too much. However, there are no cases of neuroleptics causing people to become insane. The insanity part comes first, the neuroleptics comes afterwards. The content of your writing illustrates distorted perception...most likely from one too many LSD trips by your own admission. Eric AKA LostBoyinNC Eric said: > I would argue hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD, PCP and ecstacy are > more neurotoxic than the neuroleptics. Of course you would. That doesn't mean anything. That's quite a grab-bag of unrelated compounds that "you would argue" are more neurotoxic than neuroleptics. You seem to think that "hallucinogen" is the name of a chemical or pharmacological class. But it isn't. "Hallucinogen" is the name of an *intentional* class, that is, it describes what we hope (or fear) the drugs will do ... not anything about their chemistry, pharmacology, or toxicology. To draw an analogy to drugs you may be familiar with: diazepam belongs to the chemical class "benzodiazepines," it belongs to the pharmacological class "nonselective omega agonists," and it belongs to the intentional class "anxiolytics" (formerly "anti-anxiety agents," formerly "minor tranquilizers"). There is no logical connection between a drug's intentional class and its neurotoxicity, if any. LSD is the least neurotoxic drug known, so if "you would argue" that it's *more* neurotoxic than, e.g., haloperidol, you would be laughed out of the room (assuming that the room contained honest pharmacologists). On the other hand, the jury is still out regarding the neurotoxicity of MDMA and PCP. The apparent mountain of evidence damning MDMA was pretty much all produced by a single researcher, one George Ricuarte, of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, who was given the job of "proving" that MDMA is bad. Even so, there is some evidence from less biased sources that suggests that single, very high doses of MDMA are in fact associated with long-term morphological changes in the brain. We call long-term morphological changes "damage" when they are due to recreational drugs, and "therapeutic effects" when they are due to compounds that the pharmaceutical industry wants to sell. There are no drugs that are genuine, primary "hallucinogens," so the category is empty and serves no purpose. You have bundled PCP, a psychodissociant, with LSD and MDMA, which are psychedelics, to create the category "hallucinogenic" ... a word which apparently means, "Drugs which Eric violently objects to." > Why are hallucinogenic drugs such as your beloved LSD on the DEA > controlled substances scheduled list of drugs? While neuroleptic drugs > such as thorazine are not scheduled? Answer that, know it all. Are you really this naïve? Can *anyone* be? Drugs are not Scheduled because of their "danger" (otherwise virtually all antineoplastic [cancer] chemotherapies would top the list), drugs are Scheduled because of their "abuse potential" (i.e., their ability to get someone high). The one and only exception to this rule is made in the case of your beloved anabolic steroids ... but here, too, the drugs are controlled because people *want* them, not because they are dangerous (notwithstanding the absurd term, "controlled dangerous substances"). One need not be a "know it all" to answer this question - but one must be a "know *something*," which excludes you. In the words of Thomas Szasz: "The FDA calls certain substances 'controlled.' But there are no controlled substances, only controlled people." SignatureETF www.etfrc.com Astonished heart, loving unloved heart, heart of a heartless world, crazy heart of a dying world. Playing the game of reality with no real cards in one's hand. "How would you like f.cking snitches with mikes you havent seen in 15 years stop by with copters flying overhead and your sessions logged as my isp has informed me via person as they are close" -- Lyin' Ben Leaman Feb 25, 2005 > Eric said: > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > -- Lyin' Ben Leaman > Feb 25, 2005 I wish i could build a website :-( Erin > you would be laughed out of the room > On the other hand, the jury is still out regarding the neurotoxicity of > MDMA and PCP. I have only done PCP once. It is related to ketamine, a dissociative anesthetic approved for human consumption. Subjectively, ketamine is a cross between a dry drunk and a psychedic drug. I am currently a practicing ketamine addict and I can detect no impairment of my intellectual function. I get my pure crystalline ketamine from a local organized crime (Triads) group of which I am an active member. Given the chemical similarity between ketamine and PCP, I would conclude that PCP is not neurotoxic. However given the extreme discrepancy between the potency of PCP and ketamine, I would accept the notion that PCP has a greater capacity to impair judgment. Ethyl alcohol in its pure form also has an extreme capacity to impair judgment. Hence I would not endorse consumption of PCP or alcohol. I consume a beer once in a while. I first synthesized pure crystalline MDMA in 1976 as an M.Sc. student in chemistry. It did not impair my ability to acquire an M.Sc. nor a Ph.D. so I would conclude it is not neurotoxic either. If you were to propose that either ketamine, PCP or MDMA was neurotoxic, I would laugh you out of the room. Did I mention methamphetamine? I was a methamphetamine addict for three periods in my life, for six months, for 5 years and then for eight years and I did prison time for methamphetamine. I am currently 66 years old. Hence I would conclude that methamphetamine in its pure crystalline form is not neurotoxic either, because it has neither impaired my intellect now my longevity. But its is addictive, but so is marijuana, of which I am a lifetime addict. Although addictive, neither methamphetamine nor marijuana gives withdrawal symptoms. Hence, one can be sent to prison for years with no ill effects except for the possibility of death by imprisonment. Again, if you were to suggest that either methamphetamine or marijuana is neurotoxic, I would laugh you out of the room. Would you like to play a word game with me? I could beat your pants off. I am a skilled semanticist. Ms. 2 On Wed, 28 May 2008 02:39:00 GMT, >Would you like to play a word game with me? I could beat your pants off. I >am a skilled semanticist. Lawyer or politician? Mycos Prohibition Funds Terrorism > Would you like to play a word game with me? I could beat your pants > off. I am a skilled semanticist. > > Ms. 2 ...and I am a cunning linguist... > > I'd be interested in a study comparing the brains of schizophrenics who have never > > taken schizophrenia medication with those who have. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -- I would argue hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD, PCP and ecstacy are more neurotoxic than the neuroleptics. Neuroleptics, while certainly neurotoxic, force a person to see reality whether they want to or not. Neuroleptics are the "truth" drugs. Hallucinogenics...such as your beloved LSD...are the "lets distort our perception and trip out" drugs. Why are hallucinogenic drugs such as your beloved LSD on the DEA controlled substances scheduled list of drugs? Why are neuroleptic drugs such as thorazine not scheduled like LSD? Answer that, know it all. Lots of people have been driven crazy from acid trips...many many persons have ended up in the psych ward from playing around with hallucinogenics such as LSD too much. However, there are no cases of neuroleptics causing people to become insane. The insanity part comes first, the neuroleptics comes afterwards. The content of your writing illustrates distorted perception...most likely from one too many LSD trips by your own admission. Eric AKA LostBoyinNC > > > the same as everyone else's. Whatever "breakthroughs" you think have > > > been made, [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > http://www.schizophrenia.com/disease.htm That's really impressive; i wonder if strokes and dementias show more dramatic changes in MRIs; also comparisons of being ON meds for schizophrenia or other mental disorders and being OFF, before, during, after and after-after-- i.e. when the possibly med-induced changes in the brain have taken place. I wonder if that is often over-looked when they talk about post-mortem changes in a schizophrenic's brain, for example. Erin > > > > the same as everyone else's. Whatever "breakthroughs" you think have > > > > been made, [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Erin Since the first article talks about tracking how schizophrenia develops in adolescents, my guess is that the 10% loss is baseline for medication-naive subjects who had been recently diagnosed. Since it's considered unethical to withhold medication for research purposes, subsequent MRIs would likely be taken while on meds. My question is, do the meds accelerate the neurodegenerative process, slow it down (atypicals and lithium, maybe some others are alleged to be neuro- protective), or simply have no impact on the physical progression of the disease? Don't know about dementia, but I believe strokes are routinely picked up on MRI. I think they tend to show more localized damage, and the results likely would vary from person-to-person, depending on the site and severity of the hemorrhage. Erin said: > That's really impressive Are you an expert on the interpretation of brain scans? SignatureETF www.etfrc.com Astonished heart, loving unloved heart, heart of a heartless world, crazy heart of a dying world. Playing the game of reality with no real cards in one's hand. > Check out all the nice color scans Cool pictures. Are you telling me that they withheld all pharmacological treatment from these adolescents as they became increasingly psychotic? They would have had to, for the pictures to say anything about "schizophrenia." But if you believe that schizophrenia is a disease, then aren't there moral problems with withholding the "medication" for it from some entirely random (?) group of adolescents? Can anyone point me to the original publication, not to the pretty pictures? I'd be very interested in taking a look at their methodology. From the links that have been given, there's no way for me to evaluate the study. SignatureETF www.etfrc.com Astonished heart, loving unloved heart, heart of a heartless world, crazy heart of a dying world. Playing the game of reality with no real cards in one's hand. > > Check out all the nice color scans > > Cool pictures. Are you telling me that they withheld all pharmacological treatment > from these adolescents as they became increasingly psychotic? They would have had to, > for the pictures to say anything about "schizophrenia." No, I think they established baseline scans of individuals recently diagnosed as schizophrenic who would have been (at that point) medication-näive. I suspect subsequent scans were taken while the subjects were medicated due to the ethical concerns you mentioned below. > But if you believe that schizophrenia is a disease, then aren't there moral problems > with withholding the "medication" for it from some entirely random (?) group of > adolescents? One would think. > Can anyone point me to the original publication, not to the pretty pictures? I'd be > very interested in taking a look at their methodology. From the links that have been > given, there's no way for me to evaluate the study. I followed some links and came across this page that may provide abstracts of some of the information you're looking for: http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/thompson_pubs.html If you read any of the studies, it would be interesting to hear your opinion. > -- > ETFwww.etfrc.com [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Playing the game of reality with no real cards in one's hand. > > > Check out all the nice color scans > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > If you read any of the studies, it would be interesting to hear your > opinion. A more diverse selection of articles: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez Key words: MRI schizophrenia > I'm just wondering what your response to that is? Superman? The same one? Jeez, it's been *years* ... My response is, to quote Dylan: "But you and I, we've been through that And this is not our fate So let us not talk falsely now The hour is getting late." SignatureETF www.etfrc.com Astonished heart, loving unloved heart, heart of a heartless world, crazy heart of a dying world. Playing the game of reality with no real cards in one's hand. > > I'm just wondering what your response to that is? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Playing the game of reality with no real cards in one's hand. So you just ignore empirical evidence when it conflicts with your beliefs? marcia said: > So you just ignore empirical evidence when it conflicts with your > beliefs? Of course not. I said what I said merely because someone using the handle "Superman" came by here some years ago, and we had an extended discussion of these subjects. Regarding empirical evidence: we have all seen the impressive pictures, but I can't seem to get anyone to refer me to the original work. I have read hundreds of such papers, and in most cases, the scientific methodology and statistical analysis were unforgivably sloppy. If a study is poor designed and poorly controlled, it is of no significance at all that it produces pretty pictures. The pictures are designed to impress people who know nothing about, say, positron emission tomography, in order to secure more grant money and/or gifts from drug companies. It is very misleading to call something "empirical evidence" when you have not been able to read the methodology and see the raw data. I used to believe with all my heart in biopsychiatry. I did many, many experiments designed to inquire into the neurophysiological underpinnings of mental illness. I co-authored many papers supporting the biopsychiatric view of these phenomena. Later in life, I realized that these were political and philosophical, not scientific, questions, and that the reasoning that supports biopsychiatry is circular. Intellectual honesty demanded that I stop being involved with what I had concluded was a massive fraud. There are several purely logical considerations that are fatal to the idea that mental illnesses are "diseases like any other," and these _a priori_ considerations rule out that possibility before anyone even puts on his or her white coat and enters the lab. Biopsychiatry is generally not good science, and many of the things it claiims to have "proven" are not even false; they're simply incoherent. SignatureETF www.etfrc.com Astonished heart, loving unloved heart, heart of a heartless world, crazy heart of a dying world. >> I'm just wondering what your response to that is? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So let us not talk falsely now > The hour is getting late." Haha, yeah, it's me. Just checkin' in. Good advice. I don't think we want to get into this again. I'm glad to see you are still around, and as cogent as I remember. Do you still use Effexor? I'm still on it myself. I got off for six months, but my mood was too rollercoaster. As I remember you were an enthusiastic user of Adderall as well. I tried that for a while, before I got on Suboxone, man that stuff messed me up. I don't know how you do it. Greater willpower, I suppose. Seems as if we've both mellowed in our years. Thank God for small miracles, huh? My response is to quote I Cor 13: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." Supe' I managed to get myself a regular modafinil (Alertec) 'script and was wondering why this drug is listed as being okay for apnea-related tiredness, and yet the regular methylphenidate is all my MSP will cover, but that one doesn't specifically say "apnea" anywhere in the indications thus my (relatively) young just-entering-practice doctor wont prescribe it....especially not to a known drug-whore such as myself <g>. G~ What's the difference? And anyone On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:46:36 -0500, >>> I'm just wondering what your response to that is? >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Supe' Mycos Prohibition Funds Terrorism > Ultimately, "pathological" is a normative > word that refers to a condition that some unspecified "we" finds [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > whatever their neuroanatomy turns out to be, we'd like to call it > "schizophrenia." Also, I think that's a pretty broad interpretation (and untruthful). People with schizophrenia don't just go along happily in life, doing their thing and suddenly someone comes along and says, "Oh gee, I don't like your behavior". People with schizophrenia most often present *themselves* to doctors, because they are in agony. I know this firsthand because I had a good friend in college who was diagnosed with schizophrenia and I watched firsthand his horrific decline into this illness. He heard voices, he couldn't separate reality from fiction. He described it as "living each moment in a vicious nightmare". The MMPI has a scale for schizophrenia. There is even a genetic test for schizophrenia now. I'm not up on the literature concerning the test, but I know it's a genetic test. It's not "us" finding the "behavior of certain people intolerable", it was the people that have the illness finding their symptoms intolerable. Supe' "Superman" <juderunner(at)gmail(daht)com> wrote in message news:200804182328038930- > It's not "us" finding the "behavior of certain people intolerable", it was > the people that have the illness finding their symptoms intolerable. Schizophrenia is a diagnosis of convenience and is severely overdiagnosed. In my 20s I presented with lifelong undiagnosed Asperger Syndrome with secondary psychosis and was labelled schizophrenic after a 30-second "examination." Now that I've been taking antipsychotics for 17 years I really have become schizophrenic from brain damage caused by the medication, plus the meds have helped give me diabetes and have messed up my thyroid. > "Superman" <juderunner(at)gmail(daht)com> wrote in message > > news:200804182328038930- > > > It's not "us" finding the "behavior of certain people intolerable", it was > > the people that have the illness finding their symptoms intolerable.. > Schizophrenia is a diagnosis of convenience and is severely overdiagnosed. > In my 20s I presented with lifelong undiagnosedAspergerSyndromewith > secondary psychosis and was labelled schizophrenic after a 30-second > "examination." Now that I've been taking antipsychotics for 17 years I > really have become schizophrenic from brain damage caused by the medication, > plus the meds have helped give me diabetes and have messed up my thyroid. I agree - there's too much ignorance about Asperger's and I know two people who have been damaged for years by the wrong diagnosis of schizophrenia and then got the correct diagnosis of Asperger's by a top specialist in Autism. One of those people is a famous author, artist and poet Wendy Lawson, originally from Britain and now based in Australia. She's an amazing, kind, deep and highly intelligent human being and she's been mistreated BECAUSE she was misunderstood for her Autism and BECAUSE of the schizophrenia diagnosis that has so much stigma attached (not meaning any disrespect, but I don't know if someone who really does have schizophrenia it even matters how other perceive them. Maybe, they don't care! But people with Asperger's do and want to belong and this wrong diagnosis of schizophrenia only serves to alienate them further and be rejected more). How do you cope emotionally? do you create at all? do you write, poetry or prose? do you paint? do you write or play music? I'd like to hear more about your coping ways if poss. I'm an Autistic woman (diagnosis of Asperger's 2 years ago, when I was 35) and a mother of Autistic son and I've been called 'many things' in my life, but not by medical professionals - mainly by bitchy females who couldn't understand why someone would say what they mean (unlike some women who talk in riddles and say things between the lines. Being Autistic, I'm straightforward and hate lies and ALWAYS speak up, whether asked to or not). I cope by making art, writing music, poetry, songs and lately writing blog on Autistic art and creativity movement. It realy helps to cope with anxeity and stress of being ;different' because I don't think I can ever change now to fit in better, I'm stuck with who I was born so I'm making the best I can of what I have. Roza xx www.myspace.com/rozagy Superman said: > It's not "us" finding the "behavior of certain people intolerable", it was the people > that have the illness finding their symptoms intolerable. I know, Supe. The point I was making was simply that the biopsychiatric thesis is entirely consistent with scenarios like a doctor telling a perfectly happy patient that, based on tests, she "has" depression. I apologize for any confusion. SignatureETF www.etfrc.com Astonished heart, loving unloved heart, heart of a heartless world, crazy heart of a dying world. > Superman said: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > happy patient > that, based on tests, she "has" depression. I apologize for any confusion. Cool. I knew a man as knowledgeable as you wouldn't be proposing such things. Glad to see you are still the reasonable person I remember. Supe' PCP and ketamine are commonly said to be neurotoxic and cause brain lesions in the pyramidal neurons of the posterior cingulate/ retrosplenial (PC/RS) cortex (known as Olney's Lesions) in almost all the drug blogs as well as government drug web sites. The problem is this was reported in adult rats and has not always been reproducible. Most people do not understand the difference between apoptosis and necrosis and while there may be a possible affect on neuroapoptosis, it only seems to happen in the developing brains of human children. The other problem with this NMDA antagonist induced developmental problem is that it seems to occur with other anesthetics in children like midazolam and propofol if the duration of anesthesia is long enough, although the significance is not completely known, There is no evidence of Olney's Lesions when fMRIs, SPECT or PET scans are done with humans with any NP type of NMDA antagonists (PCP, PCE, ketamine, tiletamine). This are not as much data on heavy DXM use, and since this does not bind to the same subunit on the NMDA receptor, it may have a different effect. NMDA and Kainate have been shown to cause glutamatergic neurotoxicity (necrosis) in adult rats and this study likely extends to humans as the oxidative mechanism is putatively analogous in human and rat brains, but antagonists may even be neuroprotective, at least in some regions of the brain .The June 2008 issue of Anesthesia and Analgesia has some good summaries of data and is worth reading if you can find a copy. One interesting thing about ketamine and PCP, drugs of this type are the only known class of drugs that will continue to be self- administered in animal models even when the Nucleus Accumbens is directly blocked with a D2 antagonist like sulpiride. This interesting because it suggests an additional reward mechanism in addition to the Nucleus Accumbens. Although LSD appears to have no neurotoxicity, saying it is the least neurotoxic drug known may be a stretch. Heroin also appears to have no neurotoxicity, as do many other known drugs. MobiusDick > PCP and ketamine are commonly said to be neurotoxic and cause brain > lesions in the pyramidal neurons of the posterior cingulate/ [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > MobiusDick Hi Mobi, It has been a long time since I have 'seen' or 'heard' anything from you. I TRULY hope you doing well mate. Love Scoobs Eric said: > I hope you arent still doing that LSD you used to brag was such a > fantastic psychopharmacology approach to serious mental illness. Every chance I get! (which are fewer and fewer these days). Psychedelics, properly used, facilitate psychotherapy and produce long-lasting, positive changes in behavior. In particular, Shulgin has called MDMA "penicillin for the soul." Decades of research and tens of thousands of papers in the literature bear this out. Of course, used capriciously or improperly, these drugs can cause major disasters for people who are already disturbed. I don't advocate suicidal people dropping acid as a means to getting better, although you always try to caricature my views that way. >Eric said: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >people who are already disturbed. I don't advocate suicidal people dropping acid as a >means to getting better, although you always try to caricature my views that way. There in lies a lot of (some of) the problem associated with LSD and the like. The media and the "powers-that-be" have done a serious job on the great unwashed by lumping all drugs-of-possible-enjoyment/psychic adjustment as if they're all the same. Therefore, as you're fully aware, they become "*demonised". What a waste. It's a disgrace that all drugs are not given equal attention. If the media got it's undies-in-a-bunch about NSAIDs the way they have, for example, with LSD and opioids, then perhaps the truth would come out enough that these drugs could be utilised to their best. Yes, I'm aware that there will always be those that get carried away with their drug use although, just as "drug abuse" is an abused turn of phrase, it is difficult to define just what problematic drug use is. Most particularly because, IMHO, a significant and possibley the majority of the problems associated with drug use is as a result, directly or not, of prohibition. Combine this with other problems that are a result of the so called civilised societies we reside in, and the recipe results in a serious mismanagement of drugs and drug research and all the combination implies. Yet another stinging indictment against our "first world" is we pay lip service to caring for people who exhibit symptoms of what are described as schizophrenia, Asperger's, Depression, so-called "bi-polar/manic depression", **excessive opioid use, et al, yet refuse to research all of the available drugs and the previous research because they're "no-go" areas. Not because these drugs are inherently dangerous. They don't blow up when exposed to air or anything. No, it's because they've been "demonised". And for what end? Out of concern for the safety of humanity? No, of course not. One just has to think a little to know that most people are not at any real risk of damage through drug use. If it was, then alcoholic drink would not be sold and promoted at all. It's all about vested interests and that is to the detriment to us all and a grave disservice to those who are effected by behavioural/emotional/societal (neurological - yet to be shown?) "disorders" that I've mentioned. =JS PS: For those that haven't read it but have an interest, allow me to suggest you read, "The Pursuit of Oblivion: A Global History of Narcotics, 1500 - 2000" by Richard Davenport-Hines. It is the ideal tome for the layperson (and professional, for that matter) with an interest in psycoactive drugs. their history, management and impact. *for want of a better word ** excessive drug use is, under current societal constraints, almost impossible to define. > >Eric said: > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > ** excessive drug use is, under current societal constraints, almost > impossible to define. Rationalizing your usage of illegal recreational drugs you are doing... Rationalization of illegal or immoral behavior is common with all criminals. Eric AKA LostBoyinNC On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:52:46 +1200, red said.... >There in lies a lot of (some of) the problem associated with LSD and >the like. The media and the "powers-that-be" have done a serious job [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >** excessive drug use is, under current societal constraints, almost >impossible to define. Goddamn! You really are one smart cookie there, aren't ya. Pulled together then neatly summed several different topics having only 'drugs"as the common denominator. I sure could of used your help back when the editor of "Under The Influence: The Disinformation Guide To Drugs" asked me to submit an entry from the magic mushroom angle. I was very caught up in my own problems at the time and somehow managed to let this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity slip past the deadline without submitting a single "finished" word. C'est la vie...I guess. Anyhow, besides personal glorification <g>, the reason I brought that up is that this is another title with numerous short essays about the facts of prohitbion vs. the BS that the police and prison guard unions use to frighten the population into giving them what the ask to fight the drug-war. We tend to think that things have improved since Reefer Madness was shown to be the hysterical fantasy film that it is. Well, they haven't. They simply moved on to other drugs, exaggerating their effects, confusing black-market crime and violence with drug-induced violence....a cause of death that is in fact very rare, especially in comparison to the fatalities that are produced systemically whenever bags of easy money can be made by people who would otherwise know only poverty. The police unions,lawyers and representatives all know very well that with Alcohol Prohibition came huge increases in the budgets Congress doled out to LE. With Repeal, the remaining drugs still prohibited were seized upon as the Horn Of Plenty that meant the difference between the huge cuts to law-enforcement that would surely come with the reduced crime-rate that would surely come with a similar repeal on drug-prohibition laws as it did when alcohol prohibition was buried due it's exacerbating effect on crime-rates. They've been milking drug-prohibition with more fear-mongering bullshit, more whining and crying about how selfless and thankless their job is, never stopping to wonder why society would want to thank them for ruining millions of peoples lives by busting them for drugs that millions do every day without anywhere near the damage a drug-record does to our kids chances in life. f.cking parasites! I tell ya, that Inspector in Les Miserables paints a picture that everyone can love to hate, but what I know and what I've seen of the LEO and prison guard personality makes me see each and every one of them with that same less-than-human vision. Acchh! And now I went and put myself in a tailspin again when I only set out to say a few words. Wingnuts....they just gotta go.That's all there is to it.... <g>. . Mycos Prohibition Funds Terrorism > Eric said: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > people who are already disturbed. I don't advocate suicidal people dropping acid as a > means to getting better, although you always try to caricature my views that way. And it shows in your posts, Eaton. All that LSD and whatever else hallucinogenic drugs you have done in your life has eaten away your ability to think clearly and rationally. Perhaps a neuroleptic drug might allow you to think more truthfully and objectively on these matters. Eric AKA LostBoyinNC Eric said: > Perhaps a neuroleptic drug might allow you to think more > truthfully and objectively on these matters. No, Eric. Neuroleptic drugs *prevent* thought, and especially volitional behavior (exercise of the will), they do not *improve* it. The very suggestion is so absurd that it can't be taken seriously. Did you know that, when chlorpromazine (Thorazine®} was first marketed in the US, the manufacturer, Smith, Kline & French, used to *brag* in their advertisements that the drug was equivalent to "a chemical lobotomy?" Today, they would *bristle* at the suggestion that that's what it is (of course, it *is* a chemical lobotomy, regardless of who bristles). Modern psychiatrists prefer the word "antipsychotic" to "neuroleptic." Of course, a rose (or, in this case, a skunk cabbage) by any other name is still a rose. Well, over the past 60 years, very little has been "proven" in biopsychiatry, but they have lent a huge amount of support to P.T. Barnum's famous thesis. SignatureETF www.etfrc.com Astonished heart, loving unloved heart, heart of a heartless world, crazy heart of a dying world. > Eric said: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (exercise of the will), they do not *improve* it. The very suggestion is so absurd > that it can't be taken seriously. Well, if neuroleptic drugs *prevent* thought, why dont you get on one so I wouldnt have to read the crap you write that you think counts for thoughts? > Did you know that, when chlorpromazine (Thorazine®} was first marketed in the US, the > manufacturer, Smith, Kline & French, used to *brag* in their advertisements that the > drug was equivalent to "a chemical lobotomy?" Yeah yeah...who cares? Did you know that when thorazine was originally brought out, there was absolutely NO drug whatsoever that would shut down the severe paranoia, hallucinations, delusions, agitation and other positive symptoms of schizophrenia? Thorazine, while far from perfect, allowed a percentage of schizophrenics to live some semblance of their life not being hidden away in somebody's closet, curled up in a ball. To be honest, a lobotomy might be better than living through schizophrenia untreated IMO. I personally liked the German approach...euthanasthia for severely mentally ill. At least they were honest about the seriousness of certain mental illnesses. You get certain severe mental illnesses...and life is over. I think they should bring it back, except make it voluntary euthenasthia of course. Lets all just be honest about severe forms of mental illness. You might as well just be dead in many cases of it. This is my personal opinion. > Today, they would *bristle* at the suggestion that that's what it is (of course, it > *is* a chemical lobotomy, regardless of who bristles). Modern psychiatrists prefer the > word "antipsychotic" to "neuroleptic." Of course, a rose (or, in this case, a skunk > cabbage) by any other name is still a rose. If you say so...personally I think you is full of bullshit > Well, over the past 60 years, very little has been "proven" in biopsychiatry, but they > have lent a huge amount of support to P.T. Barnum's famous thesis. Do you have any credibility to make such statements? Where are your citations and proof to back up such a wide claim as this? Eric AKA LostBoyinNC |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message