# Is chemical imbalance in the brain a big myth?



## paradox002 (Oct 13, 2009)

watch this video and let me know what you guys think! I find i very interesting.

Also please visit this site with an article about social anxiety and chemical imbalance. 
http://www.socialanxietyinstitute.org/chemical.html

This is very good information for those who are on medication. please make wise decisions toward your treatment.


----------



## Annoyed (Nov 22, 2009)

*Wow really?*

I guess the brain is not an organ and hence there is no way it can malfunction or that a genetic trait only happens from the head down. Please be more careful, this type of misleading information kills people.


----------



## bmwfan07 (Jun 3, 2007)

I can't even watch that drivel. I only got to about 5 minutes before I realized that not one person with any clear medical or scientific training whatsoever was featured (not interviewed) in the segment. That's because any sane person *with* such training would immediately and logically refute any and all claims made in the video.

One of my biggest pet peeves in the 5 minutes that I watched is that they ironically and inadvertently insulted anyone with mental illness by--in conveniently taking the comments of those psychiatrists whom they interviewed out of context--conveying that "no tests exist" to diagnose them, which makes all too clear the fact that whoever produced that video a) likely have not experienced severe mental illness themselves, and/or b) obviously have an agenda of their own. Would these people not believe that neurological diseases like Parkinson's or ALS exist, just because no formal tests exist to diagnose them? Why is the scientific method any more valid in asserting legitimacy than human experience? Anyone who has been endogenously depressed and tried every self-help book out there to improve knows that it's often impossible to get better on one's own. Just as one cannot rid himself of Parkinson's or any other neurological disorder, one cannot usually rid himself of any neuropsychological one. Both are equally legitimate.

The other thing that vexes me is the appeal to emotion in featuring family members of people that have committed suicide or worsened on anti-depressants talking about how agitated and how much worse their relatives got. While I appreciate the right to free speech, anti-depressants and psychotropics do help millions of people get their lives back, and the producers make no distinction between types of psychotropic drugs (let alone the fact that most of the people who commit suicide on SSRIs have bipolar disorder, but I can't blame them entirely because this isn't yet common knowledge), nor do they go into any detail--at least in the unbearable 5 minutes I sat through--about the psychopharmacology of the drugs. They just have professors of no-name universities and obviously "alternative" practitioners going on and on about the same old "big pharma conspiracy" BS. I don't see any difference between these people and the "truthers" that claim the government was responsible for 9/11. Both groups are trying to stir the pot and have political agendas of their own that are not necessarily any nobler than the groups they so condemn.


----------



## bben (Oct 24, 2009)

The chemical imbalance in the brain theory is true, but thinking we currently have the technology to create medications selective enough to do what they are suppose to do without possible harm is false.

I hope in the next 20 years we come up with more stuff concentrating on brain derived neurotrophic growth factor analogues that allow the brain to repair itself acutely rather than inducing bdnf through pathetic ssris and such. The serotonin hypothesis has little evidence behind it.


----------



## bmwfan07 (Jun 3, 2007)

bben said:


> The chemical imbalance in the brain theory is true, but thinking we currently have the technology to create medications selective enough to do what they are suppose to do without possible harm is false.
> 
> I hope in the next 20 years we come up with more stuff concentrating on brain derived neurotrophic growth factor analogues that allow the brain to repair itself acutely rather than inducing bdnf through pathetic ssris and such. The serotonin hypothesis has little evidence behind it.


I agree with all of this. I just think it's incredibly irreverent and irresponsible to basically trash an entire field on essentially the premise that it's profitable.


----------



## Ego Dead (Dec 3, 2010)

bmwfan07 said:


> I can't even watch that drivel. I only got to about 5 minutes before I realized that not one person with any clear medical or scientific training whatsoever was featured (not interviewed) in the segment. That's because any sane person *with* such training would immediately and logically refute any and all claims made in the video.
> 
> One of my biggest pet peeves in the 5 minutes that I watched is that they ironically and inadvertently insulted anyone with mental illness by--in conveniently taking the comments of those psychiatrists whom they interviewed out of context--conveying that "no tests exist" to diagnose them, which makes all too clear the fact that whoever produced that video a) likely have not experienced severe mental illness themselves, and/or b) obviously have an agenda of their own. Would these people not believe that neurological diseases like Parkinson's or ALS exist, just because no formal tests exist to diagnose them? Why is the scientific method any more valid in asserting legitimacy than human experience? Anyone who has been endogenously depressed and tried every self-help book out there to improve knows that it's often impossible to get better on one's own. Just as one cannot rid himself of Parkinson's or any other neurological disorder, one cannot usually rid himself of any neuropsychological one. Both are equally legitimate.
> 
> The other thing that vexes me is the appeal to emotion in featuring family members of people that have committed suicide or worsened on anti-depressants talking about how agitated and how much worse their relatives got. While I appreciate the right to free speech, anti-depressants and psychotropics do help millions of people get their lives back, and the producers make no distinction between types of psychotropic drugs (let alone the fact that most of the people who commit suicide on SSRIs have bipolar disorder, but I can't blame them entirely because this isn't yet common knowledge), nor do they go into any detail--at least in the unbearable 5 minutes I sat through--about the psychopharmacology of the drugs. They just have professors of no-name universities and obviously "alternative" practitioners going on and on about the same old "big pharma conspiracy" BS. I don't see any difference between these people and the "truthers" that claim the government was responsible for 9/11. Both groups are trying to stir the pot and have political agendas of their own that are not necessarily any nobler than the groups they so condemn.


Ok, so where exactly are the studies that prove symptoms of "diseases" like SA, depression, and bipolar disorder are actually caused by a "chemical imbalance".

There really isn't any, these "diseases" are actually nothing more then unique personality traits and a sensitivity to emotions that everyone has.

Im sorry, but I refuse to call social anxiety a disease, a disorder, or a "chemical imbalance". Simply because its not. Can SA be debilitating and limit what you want to do in life? Yes it can.

Is there anything wrong with your brain or do you have a "chemical imbalance" causing SA? No.

There is real disease of the brain, mental retardation, and then there is personality traits and a abnormal sensitivity to normal emotions that result in symptoms that can be classified into a "disease" by medical professionals so he can give you a drug and make money.

Literally, go into a psychiatrist's office, tell him your sad, or tell him you have trouble focusing, or tell him you have irational fears of socializing, or tell him you "snap" and get really mad sometimes, and I guarentee you he will tell you that you have a disease and that you need to take some drugs he gives you.

When I was in highschool, I cant even begin to tell you how many kids would get bad grades in school, then go to a doctor and "fake ADD" so he could get amphetamines, then go sell them and/or get high off them.

If you want to take a drug to lower your inhibitions and make socializing easier, or change your personality traits and emotions im perfectly fine with that, theres nothing wrong there.

But don't pretend your "sick" and you need some drug to cure your "disease" unless you actually have a true disease or something wrong with your brain.

Seriously, the symptoms of depression, SA, bipolar disorder and ADD/ADHD, does not mean you have a "chemical imbalance". There is no proof or studies to even back up that claim.


----------



## Kon (Oct 21, 2010)

I think mental disease is higher than it should be compared to say other organs because our mental organ could not have anticipated such a messed up social environment. It's like living in a smoke-filled environment and wondering why the rates of lung cancer are so high. Sometimes lung disease will occur even in a good environment due to genetics but if it occurs very high, it's probably because of some enviromental influences. Over 20% of the population having some type of mental disease seems too high suggesting that something in the way our society is organized isn't in sink with our natural human nature/needs.


----------



## racingmind (Sep 26, 2010)

Ego Dead said:


> Ok, so where exactly are the studies that prove symptoms of "diseases" like SA, depression, and bipolar disorder are actually caused by a "chemical imbalance".
> 
> There really isn't any, these "diseases" are actually nothing more then unique personality traits and a sensitivity to emotions that everyone has.
> 
> ...


There's plenty of studies. ADHD is caused by a dysfunction in the D1 and D4 receptors. Bipolar is a mood disorder that may be due to irregularities in glutamate function. Social anxiety is caused by irregularities in modulating the D2 receptor, as well as NA dysfunction (overactive). Said dysfunction is determined through double bind studies. Mice are ****in cut into pieces then examined on a petri dish. Read pubmed.com before making another post. Thanks.


----------



## jim_morrison (Aug 17, 2008)

I didn't watch it, but it looks like one of those Scientology anti-psychiatry propaganda (aka CCHR) vids.


----------



## Recipe For Disaster (Jun 8, 2010)

racingmind said:


> There's plenty of studies. ADHD is caused by a dysfunction in the D1 and D4 receptors.


correlation doesn't equal causation. show me proof that that is the true cause of ADHD.



> Bipolar is a mood disorder that *may* be due to irregularities in glutamate function.


but it may not, right?



> Social anxiety is caused by irregularities in modulating the D2 receptor, as well as NA dysfunction (overactive). Said dysfunction is determined through double bind studies. Mice are ****in cut into pieces then examined on a petri dish. Read pubmed.com before making another post. Thanks.


let's have a look at these studies and then analyze their methods and conclusions. can you provide the links?


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

bmwfan07 said:


> I can't even watch that drivel.


You even tried to start watching? lol, obvious nonesense is obvious.


----------



## js367124 (Dec 30, 2010)

For the last years my symptoms have been the following

Mild SA

Moderate depresion

mood swings

apathy

ADD

lack of energy


This all started after a binge of exstacy, xanax, and weed coupled with some other negative lifestyle changes.


Though urine neurotransmitter testing is controversial and does not show the central nervous system level of neuros , it never the less can give you a general idea of what your brain balance looks like . 

Mine is terrible


epinephrine 5.8 range 7-12 

Norepinephrine 25.4 range 30-45 

Dopamine 115.7 range 115-175 

serotonin 68.6 range 120-185 (who called the low serotonin) 

Glycine 426.3 range 455-980 

GABA 3.0 range 4.7-7.0 

Glutamate 19.6 range 15-32 

PEA 28.1 range 30-70 

Histamine 11.8 range 14-24 


Why dont you guys take a risk and get a urine neurotransmitter test done. Honestly theres no point to bickering put the controversy to rest and see whats actually going on. Iv found the test to refect my mood and feelings spot on. 

just my two cents


----------



## js367124 (Dec 30, 2010)

the reason i posted that is because i think going to a psychiatrist and getting aassigned random ssris, snris, or benzos whatever based on symptoms your describing is ****ing retarted and is the reason that so many people get little relief or short term relieft from pharamacuticals. 

can make an underlying imbalance ten times worse.


----------



## jim_morrison (Aug 17, 2008)

js367124 said:


> the reason i posted that is because i think going to a psychiatrist and getting aassigned random ssris, snris, or benzos whatever based on symptoms your describing is ****ing retarted and is the reason that so many people get little relief or short term relieft from pharamacuticals.


The other thing you could try is getting a brain scan, too much/too little activity in certain brain regions can be an indicator of certain mental and neurological disorders.

http://www.auuuu.com/health/medicin...0&tbnw=178&start=0&ndsp=43&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0

http://www.wellsphere.com/anxiety-a...a-new-way-of-looking-at-mental-illness/603980


----------



## SaGgY (Aug 3, 2005)

ego dead, you keep asking for proof, why dont you give us proof that its not a chemical imbalance.


----------



## peaceandlove09 (Aug 10, 2010)

I think people who have done drugs that affect neurotransmitters, it could be very likely that there are imbalances. 

And I am sure some people are born with less of XYZ neurotransmitter.


----------



## js367124 (Dec 30, 2010)

im not saying all SA and depresion is neccasrily caused by imbalances. 

I do however think a vast majority of it is. I mean in my case the way i felt two years ago compared to how i feel now is light and day. and depsite my best efforts to be happy, positive , friendly its just not the same when your body chemistry is off. Its like your faking your moods which is bull **** in the end. 

anyway...i highly recomend people invest in a test like that. Ya its gona cost you lik 200 bucks but its better to know. 


also.....iv been taking high dose amino acids for the last 6 weeks. 

this is my protocol 

5 grams tyrosine 
500 mg alpha gpc 
50mg p5p 

1pm 

2 grams tryptophan 
10 grams glutamine 
1000 mg niacinamide 
75 mg subligual 5htp 
50 mg p5p 

5pm 

5 grams tyrosine 
500 mg alpha gpc 
50mg p5p 

10pm 

2 grams tryptophan 
10 grams glutamine 
1000 mg niacinamide 
75 mg subligual 5htp 
50 mg p5p 

Its been about 6 weeks and i do feel better. I have more energy, less anxiety and depresion ( still there obviously) but most importantly iv been alot more social. Not as social and funny as i used to be but definetly alot more outgoing and carefree again. 

Keep in mind its only been 6 weeks. Most amino acid therpies take months at least. 

also im doing a retest febuary 1st to see what these dosages get me to. At that point im gona reavaluate and readjust my doses.

iv spoken to several people on other forums who this has worked for.

after that iv gota balance my hormones ( testosterone, estrodial, thyroid) and i sould be good to go and be the old me again.


----------



## jonnynobody (Dec 3, 2010)

Certain people very well may have a chemical imbalance in their brain that requires certain medications to alleviate particular symptoms the patient may suffer. In reality, we're most likely talking about between 15-20% of people that actually fall into that category...furthermore, I'll bet your incompetent doctor never even attempted to order any tests to determine exactly "what" imbalance you may have to determine the appropriate medication to remedy your problem....they're just lakey's to the pharmaceutical sales reps. The whole chemical imbalance thing is marketing at it's best my friends....as I said, some people may need these medications but what preliminary tests are ever conducted to determine exactly "which" chemical imbalance is needing remedy before the chop shop doc writes you a script for whatever he / she feels like prescribing...ohhhh that takes too much time for all that. Lets just try "x" medication and see how that works....if it doesn't work...we'll try "y" medication. Chemical imbalance is a huge marketing scheme that too many stupid people fall for as a crutch to explain why they have psychological problems which is only backed up by their lazy doc who didn't order appropriate tests to determine exactly which imbalance you have. Dammit I hate docs sometimes....

BTW, I'll bet 99% of the time, the med the doc prescribes you is still in patent...If you don't know the implications of that...you really need to do some research on doctor / pharmaceutical company relationships and how they operate. Doc's get kickbacks from the pharm comps for promoting their drug...in one way or another....cruise to the Bahama's anybody? **** I wish I lived in Canada where health care is really health care and not a for-profit industry. Further note...the UK as well as Canada has approved a medication called "Sativex" which uses the entire plant material from cannabis...which is the opposite of "MARINOL", which is a synthetic version of THC (active ingredient in marijuana) which excludes about 300 other compounds within the cannabis plant that provides a profound efficacy difference between itself and "marinol" (the DEA's idea of medical marijuana, which is 1 compound only; THC) (i.e. marijuana) as an under the tongue spray, which for some f'd up reason the US FDA has not yet approved (pharmaceutical politics anyone?) ....that medication could be EXTREMELY useful for people like me who don't want addictive narcotics to alleviate conditions that are detrimental to our lives. By the way, I have consumed marijuana edibles (i.e. not smoked marijuana which has a longer lasting body hight type of effect) and the benzo / SSRI (i.e. anti-depressant / MAOI manufacturers) producing manufacturers would be out of a job if such a thing were approved in the good old US. OF A.....ain't life a bizzl when it comes to politics of a pharmaceutical nature. I can't wait to get back to just smoking / medibling my cannabis when this is all over with.


----------



## racingmind (Sep 26, 2010)

Recipe For Disaster said:


> correlation doesn't equal causation. show me proof that that is the true cause of ADHD.


ADHD symptoms improve after modulation of these receptors. Results are recorded after the patients are in double blind tests and report their results.

Furthermore, "ADHD" is a very broad term encompassing various disorders and may be due to various of other things including lyme disease, depression, bipolar, etc. We do not have the technology to pinpoint the exact cause of these "symptoms" but its obviously due to imbalances. These imbalance cause these "symptoms" but the disorder itself is unknown and may be due to multiple reasons since pretty much every disorder known to man has some kind of "ADHD symptom".

let's have a look at these studies and then analyze their methods and conclusions. can you provide the links?
-www.pubmed.com read up.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15138447 after 2 seconds of googling. I'm not gonna pull the rest.


----------



## jonnynobody (Dec 3, 2010)

racingmind said:


> ADHD symptoms improve after modulation of these receptors. Results are recorded after the patients are in double blind tests and report their results.
> 
> Furthermore, "ADHD" is a very broad term encompassing various disorders and may be due to various of other things including lyme disease, depression, bipolar, etc. We do not have the technology to pinpoint the exact cause of these "symptoms" but its obviously due to imbalances. These imbalance cause these "symptoms" but the disorder itself is unknown and may be due to multiple reasons since pretty much every disorder known to man has some kind of "ADHD symptom".
> 
> ...


'
In my opinion, ADHD is a fraud! Oh my goodness my child can't sit still for any length of time and drives me nuts...he / she is disruptive in class and I just can't keep control. " LEARN TO BE A FREAKING PARENT INSTEAD OF STICKING AMPHETAMINES DOWN YOUR CHILD'S THROAT." Years from now, we'll look back at this and say, "oh my god, I can't believe we were giving speed to kids just so they would stay quiet and not bother me" ...BTW...ALL Stimulant ADD/ ADHD medication is a stimulant with the exception of straterra (which apparently doesn't work at all).....I just wish these parents knew they were giving their child essentially pharmaceutical grade methamphetamine....god, how under-educated parents are before they stuff pills down their kids throats.....absolutely horrible.


----------



## mark555666 (May 1, 2008)

jonnynobody said:


> '
> In my opinion, ADHD is a fraud! Oh my goodness my child can't sit still for any length of time and drives me nuts...he / she is disruptive in class and I just can't keep control. " LEARN TO BE A FREAKING PARENT INSTEAD OF STICKING AMPHETAMINES DOWN YOUR CHILD'S THROAT." Years from now, we'll look back at this and say, "oh my god, I can't believe we were giving speed to kids just so they would stay quiet and not bother me" ...BTW...ALL Stimulant ADD/ ADHD medication is a stimulant with the exception of straterra (which apparently doesn't work at all).....I just wish these parents knew they were giving their child essentially pharmaceutical grade methamphetamine....god, how under-educated parents are before they stuff pills down their kids throats.....absolutely horrible.


Not really. Remember therapeutic dosing is something different than abusing it. I guess you just saw some doc about crystal meth or something because ADHD (For me ADD) is some real disorder. Google pubmed.


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

jonnynobody said:


> '
> In my opinion, ADHD is a fraud! Oh my goodness my child can't sit still for any length of time and drives me nuts...he / she is disruptive in class and I just can't keep control. " LEARN TO BE A FREAKING PARENT INSTEAD OF STICKING AMPHETAMINES DOWN YOUR CHILD'S THROAT." Years from now, we'll look back at this and say, "oh my god, I can't believe we were giving speed to kids just so they would stay quiet and not bother me" ...BTW...ALL Stimulant ADD/ ADHD medication is a stimulant with the exception of straterra (which apparently doesn't work at all).....I just wish these parents knew they were giving their child essentially pharmaceutical grade methamphetamine....god, how under-educated parents are before they stuff pills down their kids throats.....absolutely horrible.


Cool story bro, kinda sucks all what your saying has been disproven years ago.

First Direct Evidence That ADHD Is a Genetic Disorder: Children With ADHD More Likely to Have Missing or Duplicated Segments of DNA

ScienceDaily (Sep. 29, 2010) - New research provides the first direct evidence that attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a genetic condition. Scientists at Cardiff University found that children with ADHD were more likely to have small segments of their DNA duplicated or missing than other children.

The study also found significant overlap between these segments, known as copy number variants (CNVs), and genetic variants implicated in autism and schizophrenia, proving strong evidence that ADHD is a neurodevelopmental disorder -- in other words, that the brains of children with the disorder differ from those of other children.
The research, published in the journal The Lancet, was largely funded by the Wellcome Trust, with additional support from Action Medical Research, the Medical Research Council and the European Union.
"We hope that these findings will help overcome the stigma associated with ADHD," says Professor Anita Thapar. "Too often, people dismiss ADHD as being down to bad parenting or poor diet. As a clinician, it was clear to me that this was unlikely to be the case. Now we can say with confidence that ADHD is a genetic disease and that the brains of children with this condition develop differently to those of other children."
ADHD is one of the most common mental health disorders in childhood, affecting around one in 50 children in the UK. Children with ADHD are excessively restless, impulsive and distractible, and experience difficulties at home and in school. Although no cure exists for the condition, symptoms can be reduced by a combination of medication and behavioural therapy.
The condition is highly heritable -- children with ADHD are statistically more likely to also have a parent with the condition and a child with an identical twin with ADHD has a three in four chance of also having the condition. Even so, until now there has been no direct evidence that the condition is genetic and there has been much controversy surrounding its causes, which some people have put down to poor parenting skills or a sugar-rich diet.
The team at Cardiff University analysed the genomes of 366 children, all of whom had been given a clinical diagnosis of ADHD, against over 1,000 control samples in search of variations in their genetic make-up that were more common in children with the condition.
"Children with ADHD have a significantly higher rate of missing or duplicated DNA segments compared to other children and we have seen a clear genetic link between these segments and other brain disorders," explains Dr Nigel Williams. "These findings give us tantalising clues to the changes that can lead to ADHD."
The researchers found that rare CNVs were almost twice as common in children with ADHD compared to the control sample -- and even higher for children with learning difficulties. CNVs are particularly common in disorders of the brain.
There was also significant overlap between CNVs identified in children with ADHD and regions of the genome which are known to influence susceptibility to autism and schizophrenia. Whilst these disorders are currently thought to be entirely separate, there is some overlap between ADHD and autism in terms of symptoms and learning difficulties. This new research suggests there may be a shared biological basis to the two conditions.
The most significant overlap was found at a particular region on chromosome 16 which has been previously implicated in schizophrenia and other major psychiatric disorders and spans a number of genes including one known to play a role in the development of the brain .
"ADHD is not caused by a single genetic change, but is likely caused by a number of genetic changes, including CNVs, interacting with a child's environment," explains Dr Kate Langley. "Screening children for the CNVs that we have identified will not help diagnose their condition. We already have very rigorous clinical assessments to do just that."
Dr John Williams, Head of Neuroscience and Mental Health at the Wellcome Trust, which has supported Professor Thapar's work for ten years, says: "These findings are testament to the perseverance of Professor Thapar and colleagues to prove the often unfashionable theory that ADHD is a brain disorder with genetic links. Using leading-edge technology, they have begun to shed light on the causes of what is a complex and often distressing disorder for both the children and their families."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100929191312.htm

En nog meer bewijs:


> J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2008 Jun;28(3 Suppl 2):S39-45.
> Catecholamine dysfunction in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: an update.
> Prince J.
> 
> ...


Awaits comments how flawed those study's are :lol.


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

Ego Dead said:


> Ok, so where exactly are the studies that prove symptoms of "diseases" like SA, depression, and bipolar disorder are actually caused by a "chemical imbalance".
> 
> There really isn't any, these "diseases" are actually nothing more then unique personality traits and a sensitivity to emotions that everyone has.
> 
> ...


You are one of the people that think sa disappears after one has build up he's confidence, exposes himself chronically and gained all social skills right?


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

And for what its worth, tolerance to amphetamine's develops rapidly if someone hasnt got ADHD, so far for the kids getting high comment


----------



## bmwfan07 (Jun 3, 2007)

Ego Dead said:


> Ok, so where exactly are the studies that prove symptoms of "diseases" like SA, depression, and bipolar disorder are actually caused by a "chemical imbalance".
> 
> There really isn't any, these "diseases" are actually nothing more then unique personality traits and a sensitivity to emotions that everyone has.
> 
> ...


You say tomato, I say tom-ah-toh. What's the difference? Fundamentally, none. You're arguing semantics and terminology. If something impairs your life and manifests chronically, it's a disorder. Social anxiety meets both criteria, as does every other mental _disorder_ currently defined.

Define "abnormal sensitivity to emotions." Doesn't the fact that it's abnormal tell you something? And, humor me: why is mental retardation a "legitimate" disease--and where, exactly, is the disease--but social anxiety or bipolar disorder is not?



js367124 said:


> the reason i posted that is because i think going to a psychiatrist and getting aassigned random ssris, snris, or benzos whatever based on symptoms your describing is ****ing retarted and is the reason that so many people get little relief or short term relieft from pharamacuticals.
> 
> can make an underlying imbalance ten times worse.


Neutotransmitter tests are not particularly useful, because they only tell you if you're absolutely low in one or more. They don't tell you how they're interacting with your neurons or how much are present in your neuronal synapses. They also don't tell you anything at all besides where your levels are compared to what laboratories have defined to be the "normal range." If you have a mental illness, and we're operating under the monoamine imbalance theory, you probably need a higher than average amount in your urine to even approach what most, non-diseased people have in their synapses. I don't personally believe that the monoamine imbalance theory explains even close to everything, either, but the point is that neurotransmitter tests are not particularly helpful or indicative of what's actually going on, or going wrong, in your brain.



jonnynobody said:


> Certain people very well may have a chemical imbalance in their brain that requires certain medications to alleviate particular symptoms the patient may suffer. In reality, we're most likely talking about between 15-20% of people that actually fall into that category...furthermore, I'll bet your incompetent doctor never even attempted to order any tests to determine exactly "what" imbalance you may have to determine the appropriate medication to remedy your problem....they're just lakey's to the pharmaceutical sales reps. The whole chemical imbalance thing is marketing at it's best my friends....as I said, some people may need these medications but what preliminary tests are ever conducted to determine exactly "which" chemical imbalance is needing remedy before the chop shop doc writes you a script for whatever he / she feels like prescribing...ohhhh that takes too much time for all that. Lets just try "x" medication and see how that works....if it doesn't work...we'll try "y" medication. Chemical imbalance is a huge marketing scheme that too many stupid people fall for as a crutch to explain why they have psychological problems which is only backed up by their lazy doc who didn't order appropriate tests to determine exactly which imbalance you have. Dammit I hate docs sometimes....
> 
> BTW, I'll bet 99% of the time, the med the doc prescribes you is still in patent...If you don't know the implications of that...you really need to do some research on doctor / pharmaceutical company relationships and how they operate. Doc's get kickbacks from the pharm comps for promoting their drug...in one way or another....cruise to the Bahama's anybody? **** I wish I lived in Canada where health care is really health care and not a for-profit industry. Further note...the UK as well as Canada has approved a medication called "Sativex" which uses the entire plant material from cannabis...which is the opposite of "MARINOL", which is a synthetic version of THC (active ingredient in marijuana) which excludes about 300 other compounds within the cannabis plant that provides a profound efficacy difference between itself and "marinol" (the DEA's idea of medical marijuana, which is 1 compound only; THC) (i.e. marijuana) as an under the tongue spray, which for some f'd up reason the US FDA has not yet approved (pharmaceutical politics anyone?) ....that medication could be EXTREMELY useful for people like me who don't want addictive narcotics to alleviate conditions that are detrimental to our lives. By the way, I have consumed marijuana edibles (i.e. not smoked marijuana which has a longer lasting body hight type of effect) and the benzo / SSRI (i.e. anti-depressant / MAOI manufacturers) producing manufacturers would be out of a job if such a thing were approved in the good old US. OF A.....ain't life a bizzl when it comes to politics of a pharmaceutical nature. I can't wait to get back to just smoking / medibling my cannabis when this is all over with.


Do you have any mental disorders yourself, or are you just here to troll? You could be a troll anyway, but not having mental disorders yourself increases that possibility exponentially.

And, no, the most common prescription is for SSRIs, which are almost all, if not all, past their patent period and have generic equivalents. Prozac, Lexapro, and Zoloft are probably the most commonly prescribed in the United States, and all have been around for a while and have generic equivalents.

Some of the heavier-duty drugs like atypical anti-psychotics and mood stabilizers are still under patent. Abilify is currently one that's heavily marketed, but most people are not on any of these and never will be (although that doesn't mean they shouldn't be). However, many p-docs are also reluctant to prescribe drugs they have limited experience with (i.e. new ones) and instead revert to ones they've had good results with (i.e. old ones with generic equivalents).

Contrary to your pathological cynicism, doctors have numerous factors that keep them in check, not the least of which is their own sense of ethics and morality (few doctors are sociopaths). More relevantly, they have huge legal liabilities and malpractice insurance premiums that they can't risk increasing with a payout due to irresponsible practices and the subsequent lawsuit. In one of the most litigious nations in the world, this is especially true.


----------



## bmwfan07 (Jun 3, 2007)

jonnynobody said:


> '
> In my opinion, ADHD is a fraud! Oh my goodness my child can't sit still for any length of time and drives me nuts...he / she is disruptive in class and I just can't keep control. " LEARN TO BE A FREAKING PARENT INSTEAD OF STICKING AMPHETAMINES DOWN YOUR CHILD'S THROAT." Years from now, we'll look back at this and say, "oh my god, I can't believe we were giving speed to kids just so they would stay quiet and not bother me" ...BTW...ALL Stimulant ADD/ ADHD medication is a stimulant with the exception of straterra (which apparently doesn't work at all).....I just wish these parents knew they were giving their child essentially pharmaceutical grade methamphetamine....god, how under-educated parents are before they stuff pills down their kids throats.....absolutely horrible.


Wow. I guess you really are a troll. :idea

You're one of those people that equate ADHD to a moral defect. If you had any idea what that point of view could mean to someone close to you who might have ADHD, you would stop saying those things. I have ADHD, and anyone who's been around me knows I'm "different," and it's nothing I have control over. ADHD is a neurological wiring difference in the frontal lobes, among others, which has been proven by studies and brain scans alike. It's also highly heritable, the most heritable neuropsychological disorder in fact, along with bipolar disorder, which supports this idea.

Tell me: how can parents "better educate" themselves before medicating their children, many of whom are unmanageably hyperactive, cannot focus (and thus, succeed) in school, and who do things impulsively that threaten their own safety and lives? Also, realize that ADHD exists on a spectrum; some people have milder versions, especially with less hyperactivity, impulsivity, while others have very severe versions that have very far-reaching implications for other disorders developing and even criminality. ADHD also has a very high rate of psychiatric and sleep disorder comorbidity.

Just because an illness is invisible does not render it nonexistent. Your supposed chronic pain, or whatever you use your medical marijuana for, is a perfect example of this. Or should we instead assume that people like you are abusing drugs and are making up a problem to get medications, or that you're not trying hard enough and are morally defective? Imagine being called essentially that every day and then imagine how you might feel. Maybe think about that next time you reduce people's illnesses to a manufactured, moral defect and deeply insult them and their suffering, not unlike yours, in the process.


----------



## jonnynobody (Dec 3, 2010)

Freesix88 said:


> Not really. Remember therapeutic dosing is something different than abusing it. I guess you just saw some doc about crystal meth or something because ADHD (For me ADD) is some real disorder. Google pubmed.


Good response for the people on this board my friend. Misguided, but a response nonetheless shows you at least have the competence to respond.

Very...very few people need a CII narcotic to control their ADD / ADHD symptoms. I certainly hope you agree with that simple concept. "Some" people need it which is why the medication exists but it has been so far over marketed to the point that if you feel like you can't keep your day organized, you qualify for adderall. You and I both know that's BS! I'm certainly in no position to discount your particular symptoms / issues so if you and your doctor feels the meds you take are necessary....you're both probably right. My problem is that all you have to do to get a CII controlled substance (basically methamphetamine slightly altered) is to tell your gp or psych that you can't concentrate and....booom...there's your CII amphetamine handed out like candy. Please tell me you at least understand my freagin point here. (BTW, I know this from personal experience). The come-down from an ADD stimulant med is not worth the UP. Anybody that takes an ADD stimulant med without a nighttime sleep aid (narcotic also BTW) is only fooling themselves. I've seen friends go through this...i've gone through it myself....you know what tha nazi's gave to their soldiers in WWII? Amphetamine's so that they could stay up days on end fighting the good fight while losing their life at the same time. Amphetamines are BAD!


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

jonnynobody said:


> Good response for the people on this board my friend. Misguided, but a response nonetheless shows you at least have the competence to respond.
> 
> Very...very few people need a CII narcotic to control their ADD / ADHD symptoms. I certainly hope you agree with that simple concept. "Some" people need it which is why the medication exists but it has been so far over marketed to the point that if you feel like you can't keep your day organized, you qualify for adderall. You and I both know that's BS! I'm certainly in no position to discount your particular symptoms / issues so if you and your doctor feels the meds you take are necessary....you're both probably right. My problem is that all you have to do to get a CII controlled substance (basically methamphetamine slightly altered) is to tell your gp or psych that you can't concentrate and....booom...there's your CII amphetamine handed out like candy. Please tell me you at least understand my freagin point here. (BTW, I know this from personal experience). The come-down from an ADD stimulant med is not worth the UP. Anybody that takes an ADD stimulant med without a nighttime sleep aid (narcotic also BTW) is only fooling themselves. I've seen friends go through this...i've gone through it myself....you know what tha nazi's gave to their soldiers in WWII? Amphetamine's so that they could stay up days on end fighting the good fight while losing their life at the same time. Amphetamines are BAD!


lol, comparing the practive of drugging out nazi's with meth compared to giving therapeutic doses to people, some never before seen nonesense, but oh well, it does turn around me day a bit.


----------



## bmwfan07 (Jun 3, 2007)

jonnynobody said:


> Good response for the people on this board my friend. Misguided, but a response nonetheless shows you at least have the competence to respond.
> 
> Very...very few people need a CII narcotic to control their ADD / ADHD symptoms. I certainly hope you agree with that simple concept. "Some" people need it which is why the medication exists but it has been so far over marketed to the point that if you feel like you can't keep your day organized, you qualify for adderall. You and I both know that's BS! I'm certainly in no position to discount your particular symptoms / issues so if you and your doctor feels the meds you take are necessary....you're both probably right. My problem is that all you have to do to get a CII controlled substance (basically methamphetamine slightly altered) is to tell your gp or psych that you can't concentrate and....booom...there's your CII amphetamine handed out like candy. Please tell me you at least understand my freagin point here. (BTW, I know this from personal experience). The come-down from an ADD stimulant med is not worth the UP. Anybody that takes an ADD stimulant med without a nighttime sleep aid (narcotic also BTW) is only fooling themselves. I've seen friends go through this...i've gone through it myself....you know what tha nazi's gave to their soldiers in WWII? Amphetamine's so that they could stay up days on end fighting the good fight while losing their life at the same time. Amphetamines are BAD!


So, let me get this straight. You're saying you've "been through this personally." Does this mean you simply went to your GP or p-doc, said "I can't concentrate," and were given amphetamine? I don't believe that for a minute, unless said doctor was comatose, about to lose his license anyway, or your friend. Doctors can *lose their licenses*, be sued, even get arrested for illegitimately prescribing any drug, but particularly controlled drugs. There is so much oversight with controlled drugs that some of the big-name pharmacies, in an effort to eliminate fraud and minimize their own liability, will not fill a prescription for controlled drugs if the patient doesn't have insurance.

There are DSM criteria for ADHD, as with any psychiatric disorder, and they go far beyond, "cannot organize one's day." They are far more pervasive than that, I assure you. If you don't have ADHD, you cannot possibly conceive of the inner experience of someone who does; the only thing you can do is respect people as people and have faith that they are trying their hardest. We all are. That doesn't preclude failure, often repeated failure and inappropriateness in the case of people with ADHD. That can be hard to swallow for people without the disorder ("that's just a cop-out"), but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

And, as far as amphetamines being bad, they're only bad if you're not supposed to take them, i.e. you don't have ADHD. The ADHD brain processes amphetamines and stimulants differently than the non-ADHD mind. Rather than "stimulating" them and making them even more hyperactive, impulsive, and inattentive, it makes them _less_ of all of those. The average person on cocaine has a much different reaction.


----------



## jonnynobody (Dec 3, 2010)

crayzyMed said:


> lol, comparing the practive of drugging out nazi's with meth compared to giving therapeutic doses to people, some never before seen nonesense, but oh well, it does turn around me day a bit.


Perhaps that make sense of your response prior to actually sending it to the open public of this forum. You must be a young person who has yet to see the forest for the trees but I certainly won't hold that against you )) BTW, I'm drunk and under the effect of 40mg of valium and I seem to be more coherently responsive than you. That is not by any means saying what you have to contribute is irrelevant, but I was simply trying to make a loose comparison. Are you old enough to understand that premise?


----------



## bmwfan07 (Jun 3, 2007)

jonnynobody said:


> Perhaps that make sense of your response prior to actually sending it to the open public of this forum. You must be a young person who has yet to see the forest for the trees but I certainly won't hold that against you )) BTW, I'm drunk and under the effect of 40mg of valium and I seem to be more coherently responsive than you. That is not by any means saying what you have to contribute is irrelevant, but I was simply trying to make a loose comparison. Are you old enough to understand that premise?


The only thing I understand in your posts is that you're here to troll. We would be happy to show you the door, or perhaps a moderator can.


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

jonnynobody said:


> Perhaps that make sense of your response prior to actually sending it to the open public of this forum. You must be a young person who has yet to see the forest for the trees but I certainly won't hold that against you )) BTW, I'm drunk and under the effect of 40mg of valium and I seem to be more coherently responsive than you. That is not by any means saying what you have to contribute is irrelevant, but I was simply trying to make a loose comparison. Are you old enough to understand that premise?


First time trying to be "offensive" on a forum i assume?8)


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

bmwfan07 said:


> The only thing I understand in your posts is that you're here to troll. We would be happy to show you the door, or perhaps a moderator can.


Come now bmwfan, i tought it was clear there's lots we can learn from "jonnynobody".


----------



## js367124 (Dec 30, 2010)

i know two people who have done neurotransmitter testing.....both had similar results to mine.


after months ( one case 6 months other case 10 months ) of high dose amino acid therapy their levels were more then adequate and all their symptoms were gone. 

I agree that neuro testing is not the greatest diagnostic tool but its better then random guessin and it can very well show a rough image of what is in fact goin on in your body. 

also iv gotten a plasma fractured catecholomines test done and it was identical to my neuro results.


----------



## bmwfan07 (Jun 3, 2007)

js367124 said:


> after months ( one case 6 months other case 10 months ) of high dose amino acid therapy their levels were more then adequate and all their symptoms were gone.


Correlation, not necessarily causation.

What were their symptoms to begin with?


----------



## leon21 (Nov 8, 2009)

jonnynobody said:


> BTW, I'm drunk and under the effect of 40mg of valium and I seem to be more coherently responsive than you.


:drunk


----------



## 49erJT (Oct 18, 2010)

jonnynobody said:


> Good response for the people on this board my friend. Misguided, but a response nonetheless shows you at least have the competence to respond.


0


----------



## kokasit (Jan 6, 2011)

It's my first time posting on this board -- I landed here while searching for information about a prescription medication. I have a question for the proponents of the "chemical imbalance" theory: so how do you explain the huge success of CBT and similar therapies? Shouldn't the "chemical imbalance" prevent any possibility of improvement ?!

That said, I do believe that certain conditions are caused by some sort of brain dysfunction. I repeat,_ certain_ conditions. i do not think that SA is caused by anything more than emotional trauma.

Oh, and to the person saying that the rule is that ADD improves with medication: I've been diagnosed with ADD by more than one doctor and the only thing that Ritalin does to me is severe anxiety and agitation. Not everyone improves by raising dopamine in the brain and that's a fact.


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

kokasit said:


> It's my first time posting on this board -- I landed here while searching for information about a prescription medication. I have a question for the proponents of the "chemical imbalance" theory*: so how do you explain the huge success of CBT and similar therapies?* Shouldn't the "chemical imbalance" prevent any possibility of improvement ?!
> 
> That said, I do believe that certain conditions are caused by some sort of brain dysfunction. I repeat,_ certain_ conditions. i do not think that SA is caused by anything more than emotional trauma.
> 
> Oh, and to the person saying that the rule is that ADD improves with medication: I've been diagnosed with ADD by more than one doctor and the only thing that Ritalin does to me is severe anxiety and agitation. Not everyone improves by raising dopamine in the brain and that's a fact.


Thats a simple one, social anxiety has differend causes, read my previous posts on the subject here:



> The biggest problem with therapy is the ignorance that some ppl need medication, if SA is caused by a neurological problem and it isnt being taken away with meds therapy is practically useless.





> It all depends wheter your SA has a physiological or neurological cause, if its neurological you just CANT act normally in social situations, wich leads to failure of being able to develop a confidence and social skills, so even if you learn things with therapy youd still feel inhibited around others and cant put the things you learned in pracktice.
> 
> If its physiological then building a confidence, overcoming your mental issues is all whats needed to fix anxiety.
> 
> If you want to start with therapy keep a close eye on improvement, if you feel that it doesnt work then start medication.


I didnt suffer from any trauma's, i was born with SA, a inability to feel comfortable around others, mostly mediated by a lack of reward, read my thread for more information on the subject:



> School avoidance and social phobia triggered by haloperidol in patients with Tourette's disorder
> 
> EJ Mikkelsen, J Detlor and DJ Cohen
> 
> Fifteen patients with Tourette's disorder developed school and work avoidance syndromes when treated with low doses (mean 2.5 mg/day) of haloperidol for short periods of time (mean, 8 weeks). The phobic syndromes disappeared completely with discontinuation or reduction of the haloperidol dose. Haloperidol's effects on dopaminergic functioning support a role for catecholamines in the pathogenesis of phobic syndromes. It is not known whether phobias are precipitated by haloperidol only in patients with Tourette's disorder as a consequence of the specific metabolic alterations in this disorder or are a medication side effect in other psychiatric disorders as well.


Altough this is about patients with tourette this further confirms that dopamine is highly implicated in social behaver, and that dopamine antagonism can significantly worsen symptons of social anxiety.

Study's have confirmed that people with social anxiety are at a much higher risk for developping parkinson (1), indicating that we are suffering from dopaminergic dysfunctioning. Dopamine has also been implicated in social status (2) and as last the D2 gene's have been associated with extrovertism (3).

This data supports that dopaminergics are the best treatment for social anxiety, possible options are either MAOI's (parnate, nardil), dopamine agonists (pramipexole, ropinirole) and stimulants (dexedrine, adderall etc).

Anecdotal reports confirm the effiacy of those treatments in social anxiety disorders. Further discission about this subject can be found in this thread.

1. Frequency of social phobia and psychometric properties of the Liebowitz social anxiety scale in Parkinson's disease. PMID: 18661550
2. Dopamine Type 2/3 Receptor Availability in the
Striatum and Social Status in Human Volunteers Full text
3. Variation in DRD2 dopamine gene predicts Extraverted personality. PMID: 19897017
http://www.socialanxietysupport.com...promosing-treatment-for-social-anxiety-99183/


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

kokasit said:


> Oh, and to the person saying that the rule is that ADD improves with medication: I've been diagnosed with ADD by more than one doctor and the only thing that Ritalin does to me is severe anxiety and agitation. Not everyone improves by raising dopamine in the brain and that's a fact.


Failure with ritalin is very common for those that have comorbid social anxiety and ADHD, in those cases amphetamine works best, altough motivational issues stay for many ppl hard to treat, nonetheless some do like ritalin here.


----------



## mark555666 (May 1, 2008)

CBT is basically a coping mechanism to deal with your anxiety or depression. It doesn't cure mental disorders is most cases. I'm talking about real disorders, not people who go to the doctor who are a bit depressed because they just divorced or so. However CBT / therapy should certainly be tried imo, too bad it just doesn't work for me. The placebo effect also plays an big role in this. Studies showed that SSRIs were barely more effective than the placebo group for depression. The mind is some powerful thing, but in many severe cases it only works to some extend.


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

I think CBT is particurally effective for the subgroup that suffers from excess nerveusness in social situations (eg take the nerveusness away and their anxiety is gone) rather then those lacking social reward and those feeling uncomfortable around others (not mediated by nerveusness and not taking away by "anxiolytics" rather they are in need of stimulants).


----------



## bmwfan07 (Jun 3, 2007)

kokasit said:


> It's my first time posting on this board -- I landed here while searching for information about a prescription medication. I have a question for the proponents of the "chemical imbalance" theory: so how do you explain the huge success of CBT and similar therapies? Shouldn't the "chemical imbalance" prevent any possibility of improvement ?!
> 
> That said, I do believe that certain conditions are caused by some sort of brain dysfunction. I repeat,_ certain_ conditions. i do not think that SA is caused by anything more than emotional trauma.
> 
> Oh, and to the person saying that the rule is that ADD improves with medication: I've been diagnosed with ADD by more than one doctor and the only thing that Ritalin does to me is severe anxiety and agitation. Not everyone improves by raising dopamine in the brain and that's a fact.


*Hey jonnynobody, *

CBT is generally not a "huge success" by itself in treating anything other than psychological or reactive depression, as well as modified forms for certain forms of OCD and GAD. CBT when _combined_ with medications, which facilitate the ability to question one's thoughts and beliefs, *sometimes* helps *some conditions*. Conditions like bipolar disorder, ADHD, and psychotic disorders, among others, are generally entirely immune to cognitive-behavioral therapy. Modified versions sometimes produce some modicum of efficacy in, for example, bipolar disorder, mainly in managing life with the illness, or working to prevent recurrences of mood episodes.


----------



## kokasit (Jan 6, 2011)

crayzyMed said:


> Study's have confirmed that people with social anxiety are at a much higher risk for developping parkinson (1), indicating that we are suffering from dopaminergic dysfunctioning. Dopamine has also been implicated in social status (2) and as last the D2 gene's have been associated with extrovertism (3).


What if it's the other way around? I don't think you're considering the fact that thought patterns influence brain chemistries; your thought patterns may be what's causing your dopamine deficiency.

here's the facts: our knowledge of how the brain works is still very limited and we simply don't know what causes mental diseases. Many specialists disagree with that theory of chemical imbalance. And have you thought that imbalances of chemicals other than dopamine, serotonin, etc. may be the real cause? Who knows?...


----------



## kokasit (Jan 6, 2011)

bmwfan07 said:


> *Hey jonnynobody, *
> 
> CBT is generally not a "huge success" by itself in treating anything other than psychological or reactive depression, as well as modified forms for certain forms of OCD and GAD. CBT when _combined_ with medications, which facilitate the ability to question one's thoughts and beliefs, *sometimes* helps *some conditions*. Conditions like bipolar disorder, ADHD, and psychotic disorders, among others, are generally entirely immune to cognitive-behavioral therapy. Modified versions sometimes produce some modicum of efficacy in, for example, bipolar disorder, mainly in managing life with the illness, or working to prevent recurrences of mood episodes.


First, in case you didn't notice, you're not replying to jonnynobody, I'm a different user. Second, I do know people with hard-to-treat mental conditions who were helped by CBT. Yes, of course it won't help if you have schizophrenia and I never implied that; this is a board related to SA and that's what I was referring to.


----------



## Arisa1536 (Dec 8, 2009)

jim_morrison said:


> I didn't watch it, but it looks like one of those Scientology anti-psychiatry propaganda (aka CCHR) vids.


AGREED:yes


----------



## burner00 (Oct 11, 2009)

Damn i was brainwashed for 10 minutes after watching that video. Thank god im back in my normal mental state. :b


----------



## Nae (Nov 10, 2003)

Of course on some level, unless you argue for dualism, our chemistry influences us. It _is _us. As far as the idea of a 'chemical imbalance' is concerned, it is and was largely a marketing tool, and perhaps a poor description for trying to explain to people what their meds were supposedly doing.


> Contemporary neuroscience research has failed to confirm any serotonergic lesion in any mental disorder, and has in fact provided significant counterevidence to the explanation of a simple neurotransmitter deficiency. Modern neuroscience has instead shown that the brain is vastly complex and poorly understood [11]. While neuroscience is a rapidly advancing field, to propose that researchers can objectively identify a "chemical imbalance" at the molecular level is not compatible with the extant science. In fact, there is no scientifically established ideal "chemical balance" of serotonin, let alone an identifiable pathological imbalance. To equate the impressive recent achievements of neuroscience with support for the serotonin hypothesis is a mistake.
> 
> With direct proof of serotonin deficiency in any mental disorder lacking, the claimed efficacy of SSRIs is often cited as indirect support for the serotonin hypothesis. Yet, this ex juvantibus line of reasoning (i.e., reasoning "backwards" to make assumptions about disease causation based on the response of the disease to a treatment) is logically problematic-the fact that aspirin cures headaches does not prove that headaches are due to low levels of aspirin in the brain. Serotonin researchers from the US National Institute of Mental Health Laboratory of Clinical Science clearly state, "[T]he demonstrated efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors&#8230;cannot be used as primary evidence for serotonergic dysfunction in the pathophysiology of these disorders" [12]


 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020392


----------



## burner00 (Oct 11, 2009)

Anyone who believes anything remotely related to that video has not suffered any sort of mental illness. You don't know what it takes to chronically live being impaired unable to lead _normal_ life its like dead from the inside. The information you gathered from that video is just flatout pure anti-psychiatry propoganda in another words its bull$hit.


> As far as the idea of a 'chemical imbalance' is concerned, it is and was largely a marketing tool, and *perhaps a poor description for trying to explain to people what their meds were supposedly doing.*


You got a better term for that? oh you suffer from serotonin :lol


----------



## CopadoMexicano (Aug 21, 2004)

Im not a doctor or neuroscientist so i wouldnt know. :duck


----------



## MattFoley (Dec 5, 2009)

Chemical imbalance? As some people have pointed out that's stupidly simplistic. Is it biological? I am 100% certain it is. That's not to saying treatments other than medicine are useless. Just look at some of the recent scientific research on meditation and it's clear that our chosen behavior has huge impacts on our biology and our brains. 

Anyways, pay attention to what Crazymed and bmwfan have to say. I ran into them in another science thread and they know what they're talking about more than most.


----------



## Ego Dead (Dec 3, 2010)

bmwfan07 said:


> You say tomato, I say tom-ah-toh. What's the difference? Fundamentally, none. You're arguing semantics and terminology. If something impairs your life and manifests chronically, it's a disorder. Social anxiety meets both criteria, as does every other mental _disorder_ currently defined.
> 
> Define "abnormal sensitivity to emotions." Doesn't the fact that it's abnormal tell you something? And, humor me: why is mental retardation a "legitimate" disease--and where, exactly, is the disease--but social anxiety or bipolar disorder is not?


Can you have something wrong with your brain, IE a "chemical imbalance" and have symptoms of social anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, or ADD/ADHD? Yes you can.

Does that mean that those "chemical imbalances" are the cause of those "diseases" or just a contributing factor?

People with absolutely NOTHING wrong with there brain, and I mean a perfectly healthy brain, no "chemical imbalances" or anything can have personality traits and emotions that would be classified by medical professionals as severe social anxiety, bipolar disorder, depression, or ADD/ADHD.

Having those "diseases" does not mean there is anything wrong with your brain or that you have a chemical imbalance and it never did.

The whole "chemical imbalance" thing is mostly myth and blatant bull-**** with a grain of truth, because brain dysfunction and "chemical imbalance" can be a CONTRIBUTING FACTOR to those "diseases". But having symptoms of those "diseases" or being diagnosed with those "diseases" does ABSOLUTELY NOT mean there is anything wrong with your brain or that you have a "chemical imbalance.


----------



## Ego Dead (Dec 3, 2010)

bmwfan07 said:


> So, let me get this straight. You're saying you've "been through this personally." Does this mean you simply went to your GP or p-doc, said "I can't concentrate," and were given amphetamine? I don't believe that for a minute, unless said doctor was comatose, about to lose his license anyway, or your friend. Doctors can *lose their licenses*, be sued, even get arrested for illegitimately prescribing any drug, but particularly controlled drugs. There is so much oversight with controlled drugs that some of the big-name pharmacies, in an effort to eliminate fraud and minimize their own liability, will not fill a prescription for controlled drugs if the patient doesn't have insurance.
> 
> There are DSM criteria for ADHD, as with any psychiatric disorder, and they go far beyond, "cannot organize one's day." They are far more pervasive than that, I assure you. If you don't have ADHD, you cannot possibly conceive of the inner experience of someone who does; the only thing you can do is respect people as people and have faith that they are trying their hardest. We all are. That doesn't preclude failure, often repeated failure and inappropriateness in the case of people with ADHD. That can be hard to swallow for people without the disorder ("that's just a cop-out"), but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
> 
> And, as far as amphetamines being bad, they're only bad if you're not supposed to take them, i.e. you don't have ADHD. The ADHD brain processes amphetamines and stimulants differently than the non-ADHD mind. Rather than "stimulating" them and making them even more hyperactive, impulsive, and inattentive, it makes them _less_ of all of those. The average person on cocaine has a much different reaction.


Hmmmm. Interesting. Ive had a few friends in highschool who got bad grades, behaved badly, and then there parents took them to a psychiatrist or someone similar.

You know what they said happened? He filled out a survey, got a 20 minute interview from the "medical professional". And walked out with a script for amphetamines.

He was diagnosed by a medical professional with ADD/ADHD, so he was supposed to take them and theres nothing wrong about it. Right? O ya, he has ADD so he cant get high off them, and it effects him differently.

I remember it was good times, us popping lots of adderall and staying up for days, and then selling them at ridiculous prices to stupid kids. And yes, he would get ridiculously high on them. O but wait, he has ADD so he must be lying about getting high, because if your "diagnosed" by a "medical professional" with ADD/ADHD that definitely means you can't get high off amphetamines.

C'mon, do you seriously think its hard to get drugs from some doctors? I knew a doctor that was literally a drug dealer. He would get people to pay him money in exchange for a script of there drug of choice.

He went to court once for it and he still has his license.

Bottom line, its MUCH easier then you think to get recreational drugs out of some doctors. Just because YOUR doctor/psychiatrist is strict about that **** doesn't mean they all are.


----------



## bmwfan07 (Jun 3, 2007)

kokasit said:


> What if it's the other way around? I don't think you're considering the fact that thought patterns influence brain chemistries; your thought patterns may be what's causing your dopamine deficiency.
> 
> here's the facts: our knowledge of how the brain works is still very limited and we simply don't know what causes mental diseases. Many specialists disagree with that theory of chemical imbalance. And have you thought that imbalances of chemicals other than dopamine, serotonin, etc. may be the real cause? Who knows?...


Riddle me this, kokasit: if you propose a cognitive model for mental illness, why do these thoughts occur to some people in the first place, and not to others? We are the result of our neurology, our wiring, our DNA. We are the sum of our parts. In fact, "we" cannot even be defined, but that's another story. The best way to describe us that we're what happened when "God," or the universe, hid part of itself and is trying to find that part. It finds it, and us, again at the end of our lifetimes. How that end is brought about is ostensibly up to "us."

Our consciousness itself is the result of an intricate system of neurons firing all at once to give the illusion of such an inexplicable notion of "consciousness." These neurons also generate the thoughts that we experience as being "our" own. Everything we do and think is determined at a quantum level before we are even "aware" of it. Thoughts, for instance, are generated several fractions of a second before they enter conscious existence, where they are experienced and "judged." As they too are thoughts, intense fears of being judged, criticized, or rejected are also generated by the mind _in certain people_ (us) before we are even aware of them. These fears, according to you, _led_ to the development of a disorder. But, why don't these fears occur in others? And, I can assure you, they don't, and if they do, they are momentary, fleeting, barely recognizable, situational, and do not lead to disorders. This is likely because of some kind of neurological gene-environment interaction that expresses the underlying predisposition. The thoughts, whether they precede or follow the actual expression of the illness (which is currently impossible to measure), are irrelevant. The combination of the environment and the genetic or neurological predisposition created the thought in the first place.

The dopaminergic dysfunction evident in most social phobics does not necessarily indicate etiology, but it is a distinct neurological marker that indicates a dysregulation in how social interaction is interpreted and managed--much like how a certain model of computer with similar electronic components that has experienced a power surge may exhibit a particular, common symptom. Just because the user was on the computer at the time, does not mean he or she created the problem. The power surge caused the problem, and the damaged component needs to be repaired or replaced. Unfortunately, we haven't yet figured out the precise "power surge" that occurs in social phobia that sends one aspect of the dopamine system haywire in social situations. But, we've figured out a few treatments that can repair, at least temporarily, the damaged component.



kokasit said:


> First, in case you didn't notice, you're not replying to jonnynobody, I'm a different user.


I don't believe that for a second. jonnynobody was trolling, had a join date of December 2010, and suddenly, here you come a few hours later, spontaneously and inexplicably finding this thread that probably hasn't even been indexed on Google yet, sticking your nose in a debate with no background or context to back you up.

The onus is on you to prove you aren't jonnynobody, if you wish to. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... and as I indicated above, you fulfill both criteria.



> Second, I do know people with hard-to-treat mental conditions who were helped by CBT. Yes, of course it won't help if you have schizophrenia and I never implied that; this is a board related to SA and that's what I was referring to.


I'd love to hear about your friends with bipolar disorder, ADHD, or even social phobia that were totally cured with CBT. We weren't talking about "helped," particularly in the context of bipolar or social phobia, where I specifically mentioned that modified forms of CBT can help both in specific ways. We were talking about a viable treatment option as an alternative to the medications which you seem to be so opposed to.



becks said:


> Anyways, pay attention to what Crazymed and bmwfan have to say. I ran into them in another science thread and they know what they're talking about more than most.


Why thank you.  There are a lot of knowledgeable people here that I am continually learning from.



Ego Dead said:


> Can you have something wrong with your brain, IE a "chemical imbalance" and have symptoms of social anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, or ADD/ADHD? Yes you can.


Not only can you, but you always do--not necessarily a "chemical imbalance," but definitely something is "wrong" with the brain when someone experiences the disorders you mentioned above. That is why they're called disorders: a deviation from _order_ or normal function. If you enjoy your disorders, that's precious, but most of us don't. If you want to continue focusing on some quackery that holds "acceptance" or some other agenda of its own to be the standard by which all others should be compared, that's your prerogative. But, most of us want to skip the delusion, the BS positive self-talk, and whatever other nonsense an "alternative" practitioner or pseudo-science preaches, and discover the actual neuroscientific basis for our disorders. That's where the fundamental problem lies.



> Does that mean that those "chemical imbalances" are the cause of those "diseases" or just a contributing factor?


If a plane's engines fail in severe weather and the pilots were too busy arguing to notice, which was the cause of the plane crashing? Sure, the engines failed, but the pilots could not take any corrective action because they were too preoccupied in argument. I think the mind is similar. These conditions developed in the course of our interactions with the environment. We simply didn't notice, because we are completely clueless as to what's actually occurring in our brains, and some make the mistake of attributing as causation our thoughts and psychological suffering at the time, when they are merely the result of the condition and not the cause.

There are, of course, conditions that are strongly cognitively based, like adjustment disorder following the loss of a job or partner, perhaps even a major depressive episode with melancholic features. Social anxiety has strong cognitive manifestations, but I don't make the mistake of believing its etiology is cognitive in nature.



> People with absolutely NOTHING wrong with there brain, and I mean a perfectly healthy brain, no "chemical imbalances" or anything can have personality traits and emotions that would be classified by medical professionals as severe social anxiety, bipolar disorder, depression, or ADD/ADHD.
> 
> Having those "diseases" does not mean there is anything wrong with your brain or that you have a chemical imbalance and it never did.


And *how do you know there is "absolutely NOTHING wrong with their brain?"* Are you omnipotent, or have you invented a form of brain scans that reveal the underlying neurobiology of mental disorders (and performed it on these people) that you're keeping secret?

Since you likely meet neither criteria, your entire post can be summed up in one word: speculation.


----------



## Ego Dead (Dec 3, 2010)

bmwfan07 said:


> Riddle me this, kokasit: if you propose a cognitive model for mental illness, why do these thoughts occur to some people in the first place, and not to others? We are the result of our neurology, our wiring, our DNA. We are the sum of our parts. In fact, "we" cannot even be defined, but that's another story. The best way to describe us that we're what happened when "God," or the universe, hid part of itself and is trying to find that part. It finds it, and us, again at the end of our lifetimes. How that end is brought about is ostensibly up to "us."
> 
> Our consciousness itself is the result of an intricate system of neurons firing all at once to give the illusion of such an inexplicable notion of "consciousness." These neurons also generate the thoughts that we experience as being "our" own. Everything we do and think is determined at a quantum level before we are even "aware" of it. Thoughts, for instance, are generated several fractions of a second before they enter conscious existence, where they are experienced and "judged." As they too are thoughts, intense fears of being judged, criticized, or rejected are also generated by the mind _in certain people_ (us) before we are even aware of them. These fears, according to you, _led_ to the development of a disorder. But, why don't these fears occur in others? And, I can assure you, they don't, and if they do, they are momentary, fleeting, barely recognizable, situational, and do not lead to disorders. This is likely because of some kind of neurological gene-environment interaction that expresses the underlying predisposition. The thoughts, whether they precede or follow the actual expression of the illness (which is currently impossible to measure), are irrelevant. The combination of the environment and the genetic or neurological predisposition created the thought in the first place.
> 
> ...


What your pushing IS pseudo-science that became a truism through mass indoctrination from pharmaceutical companies and "medical professionals" looking for profit.

My statement still stands as true. There ARE REAL PEOPLE (not ones I made up through "speculation") who have NOTHING wrong with there brain or any form of "chemical imbalance" and still suffer from symptoms of SA, depression, bipolar disorder, and ADD/ADHD and have been diagnosed by medical professionals with these "diseases".

Having those "diseases" DOES NOT mean there is something wrong with your brain.

Simply because those "diseases" are just a combination of unique personality traits and sensitivity to normal emotions that can be lumped into symptoms that fit into one "diagnoses."

Brain dysfunction or "chemical imbalances" can be a big contributing factor in SOME people, but you DO NOT need to have ANYTHING wrong with your brain to suffer from severe SA, bipolar disorder, or depression.

And if you disagree, then stop talking to me, and start talking to the psychiatrists who "diagnose" people with these "diseases" even though there isn't a single shred of evidence to show that those individual patients have anything wrong with there brain or have any form of "chemical imbalance".

And really, the tactics and arguments you are using to discredit me are pathetic and childish.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

What a pile of BS.

Please note this comment is coming from me, a guy who has bashed big pharma as much as anybody in the history of SAS, regularly describing them as huge marketing firms with a tiny chemistry lab out back. I still hold that view.

While I'm not impressed by the pill-of-the-month club I'm also not impressed by meds are evil crowd either. Both are idiots.

I was terrified of strangers from my earliest memories. I sure didn't know what a psychiatrist was in the late 1970s as a small child with severe social phobia, a condition that didn't officially exist in the DSM till a few year later. Of course, I didn't have a term for my condition, not learning social phobia was the term till the age of 27. Was I influenced into thinking I was sick when I had no idea I was the poster boy for social phobia?


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Ego Dead said:


> I remember it was good times, us popping lots of adderall and staying up for days, and then selling them at ridiculous prices to stupid kids. And yes, he would get ridiculously high on them. O but wait, he has ADD so he must be lying about getting high, because if your "diagnosed" by a "medical professional" with ADD/ADHD that definitely means you can't get high off amphetamines.


I just wanted to say thank you to all the kids (and adults) out there who did the same, giving amphetamines a bad name.

Some of us use them for a different reason, like because it's either take am amphetamine to make life seem tolerable or put a bullet in our brain. Is using them to avoid death by suicide a legitimate use?


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

kokasit said:


> What if it's the other way around?


As ive said before, for some poeple exposure, tharapy, gaining confidence, learning social skills is the cure for social anxiety and in those yes adaptive changes in the dopaminergic system can occur, however for others that doesnt work at all, and for those it can be said they have a neurological problem, its simple as that.


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

kokasit said:


> And have you thought that imbalances of chemicals other than dopamine, serotonin, etc. may be the real cause? Who knows?...


Thats a real possibility, dopamine doesnt explain all, but the fact is that stimulants like amphetamine and MAOI's that raise dopamine work very well for people with social anxiety which is in support with the associations of dopamine with social behavor.


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

Ego Dead said:


> Hmmmm. Interesting. Ive had a few friends in highschool who got bad grades, behaved badly, and then there parents took them to a psychiatrist or someone similar.
> 
> You know what they said happened? He filled out a survey, got a 20 minute interview from the "medical professional". And walked out with a script for amphetamines.
> 
> ...


Umm, people with ADHD are more sensitive to the rewarding effects of stimulants, however as with everyone tolerance develops rapidly if they keep taking the same doses everyday.


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

Ego Dead said:


> What your pushing IS pseudo-science that became a truism through mass indoctrination from pharmaceutical companies and "medical professionals" looking for profit.
> 
> My statement still stands as true. There ARE REAL PEOPLE (not ones I made up through "speculation") who have NOTHING wrong with there brain or any form of "chemical imbalance" and still suffer from symptoms of SA, depression, bipolar disorder, and ADD/ADHD and have been diagnosed by medical professionals with these "diseases".
> 
> ...


You live in a country with a massive medical industry, dont generalize to other country's where medication is prescribed according to the pathology of a patient rather then according to the big money business.

Altough the use of antipsychotics is a sick joke that has spread around here too.


----------



## kokasit (Jan 6, 2011)

bmwfan07 said:


> I don't believe that for a second. jonnynobody was trolling, had a join date of December 2010, and suddenly, here you come a few hours later, spontaneously and inexplicably finding this thread that probably hasn't even been indexed on Google yet, sticking your nose in a debate with no background or context to back you up.
> 
> The onus is on you to prove you aren't jonnynobody, if you wish to. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... and as I indicated above, you fulfill both criteria.
> /QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## bmwfan07 (Jun 3, 2007)

Ego Dead said:


> What your pushing IS pseudo-science that became a truism through mass indoctrination from pharmaceutical companies and "medical professionals" looking for profit.


You could say any science is a pseudoscience because it likely isn't understood to even a fraction of the degree that we're deluded enough to believe it is. However, this is a matter of relativity, given that the outright speculation about a lack of "anything wrong in people's brains with mental disorders" pales in comparison to the many research trials indicating otherwise. Certainly, saying that there is nothing wrong with people's brains who have *mental disorders* is much like saying that there is nothing wrong with the brains of people with Parkinson's disease. Definitive laboratory tests exist for neither.

Do you not believe in electricity because you cannot witness it yourself? You can't even observe electricity directly, either, only its effects and can conduct scientific experiments to determine many of its properties, much like those we conduct to determine the properties of mental disorders.



> My statement still stands as true. There ARE REAL PEOPLE (not ones I made up through "speculation") who have NOTHING wrong with there brain or any form of "chemical imbalance" and still suffer from symptoms of SA, depression, bipolar disorder, and ADD/ADHD and have been diagnosed by medical professionals with these "diseases".


Again, what "real people" are you talking about? I want names. Anecdotes. Specifics. And, since by your own admission we don't "know" anything about this "pseudoscience," how do *you* know there is nothing wrong with their brain?



> Having those "diseases" DOES NOT mean there is something wrong with your brain.


Wrong.



> Simply because those "diseases" are just a combination of unique personality traits and sensitivity to normal emotions that can be lumped into symptoms that fit into one "diagnoses."


This is *your* definition of disease. That's not the definition that any legitimate neuroscientists, doctors, or psychologists operate on, and thank God for that.



> Brain dysfunction or "chemical imbalances" can be a big contributing factor in SOME people, but you DO NOT need to have ANYTHING wrong with your brain to suffer from severe SA, bipolar disorder, or depression.


Again, wrong.



> And if you disagree, then stop talking to me, and start talking to the psychiatrists who "diagnose" people with these "diseases" even though there isn't a single shred of evidence to show that those individual patients have anything wrong with there brain or have any form of "chemical imbalance".


Why would I need to talk to them? I agree with the fundamental principles of their work. I don't necessarily agree with the implementation of it in many cases, but then again, I'm a layman and not a doctor.



> And really, the tactics and arguments you are using to discredit me are pathetic and childish.


That's hilarious.



kokasit said:


> You're making an *** of yourself. I thought this is board where people "stick their noses in the debate" -- or should I ask for permission first ?? And permission from whom, BTW?? But go ahead and ask a moderator to compare the IP adresses -- I bet he's not even from the same country I am. I'm from Portugal, so I may be the only person on this board from that country.


If you aren't jonnynobody, I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts you're somebody else here who's either been banned or created an additional account to troll and debate about this topic almost exclusively. I've seen your kind countlessly, and I've moderated enough forums to know your MO.


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

> how do you know there is nothing wrong with their brain?


Haha i was wondering that too.


----------



## kokasit (Jan 6, 2011)

bmwfan07 said:


> If you aren't jonnynobody, I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts you're somebody else here who's either been banned or created an additional account to troll and debate about this topic almost exclusively. I've seen your kind countlessly, and I've moderated enough forums to know your MO.


I see, you're trying to prove there's something *****d up with your brain by behaving as someone who obviously has his brain *****ed up. You keep attacking me in post after post and the only thing I did was participating in the discussion in a respectful way. Just a few wise words, dude: if this is how you behave in real life, no wonder people don't like you and you feel anxious around them. 'nough said.


----------



## bmwfan07 (Jun 3, 2007)

kokasit said:


> I see, you're trying to prove there's something *****d up with your brain by behaving as someone who obviously has his brain *****ed up. You keep attacking me in post after post and the only thing I did was participating in the discussion in a respectful way. Just a few wise words, dude: if this is how you behave in real life, no wonder people don't like you and you feel anxious around them. 'nough said.












What other ad hominem "attactics" do you have up your clever sleeve, ole ye Jonny?


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

The simple fact that a medical test can't currently provide objective evidence of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'm going to bet that back problems like herniated disks and excruciating pain resulting from such existed long before modern medicine gave us MRIs (starting within only the last 40 years) to take really pretty pictures of what's causing the back pain.

The start of the video (as far as I could stand watching) was just plain silly with the "by the year 2000 we'll be able to control every aspect of blah, blah, blah..." WTF are these magic pills that control everything? Ironic that the video talks about 1967 and how we'd have some brave new world of mind control pills by 2000, yet in 2011 still the most effective mood altering meds were all around half a century ago! What have we got as the best: benzos, MAOIs, amphetamines -- all of which first hit the market between 1935 and 1960. Golly, what stunning progress we haven't made in the last 50 years.


----------



## Ego Dead (Dec 3, 2010)

bmwfan07 said:


> You could say any science is a pseudoscience because it likely isn't understood to even a fraction of the degree that we're deluded enough to believe it is. However, this is a matter of relativity, given that the outright speculation about a lack of "anything wrong in people's brains with mental disorders" pales in comparison to the many research trials indicating otherwise. Certainly, saying that there is nothing wrong with people's brains who have *mental disorders* is much like saying that there is nothing wrong with the brains of people with Parkinson's disease. Definitive laboratory tests exist for neither.
> 
> Do you not believe in electricity because you cannot witness it yourself? You can't even observe electricity directly, either, only its effects and can conduct scientific experiments to determine many of its properties, much like those we conduct to determine the properties of mental disorders.
> 
> ...


So let me get this straight, you keep repeating YOUR WRONG, YOUR WRONG, YOUR WRONG, SHOW ME THE PROOF, SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE, SHOW ME THE SPECIFICS. When you have nothing to back up your stupid claims and apparently the only thing you can think of is "dur... well, YOUR STUPID AND WRONG".

What does having SA, depression or bipolar disorder mean? It doesn't mean there is necessarily something wrong with your brain, it means you demonstrate unique personality traits and sensitivity to normal emotions that result in disruption to your normal life.

Ill say this again, brain dysfunction and "chemical imbalances" can be a huge contributing factor in SOME people. But you do not need to have a single damn thing wrong with your brain to suffer from severe SA, depression, or bipolar disorder.

Just because you have a irrational fear of socializing doesn't mean your brain is ****ed up and your neuro-transmitters are misfiring. But having something wrong with your brain can be the cause of that in SOME people.

Simple as that, please explain to me why you believe so strongly that you MUST have something wrong with your brain to suffer from severe fear of socializing, constant sadness, or have a short fuse and get mad easily or change your mood quickly.

Why do YOU believe that if you display those personality traits and sensitivity to emotions there 100% HAS TO BE something wrong with your brain?

Where does it say that you have to have something wrong with your brain to have a fear of socializing? Since when has not being normal become being mentally retarded?


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

> Just because you have a irrational fear of socializing doesn't mean your brain is ****ed up and your neuro-transmitters are misfiring. But having something wrong with your brain can be the cause of that in SOME people.


Social anxiety isnt just caused by irrelevant fears, atleast in my case i dont have any fears anymore, just feel extremely uncomfortable around others, however for some indeed this is the main problem and this can have been brought on by past traumatic events.

I would agree that its just highly dependent, SA can have been caused by differend things, however i would say that _chronic_ depression or bipolar is caused by neurological problems.


----------



## bmwfan07 (Jun 3, 2007)

Ego Dead said:


> So let me get this straight, you keep repeating YOUR WRONG, YOUR WRONG, YOUR WRONG, SHOW ME THE PROOF, SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE, SHOW ME THE SPECIFICS. When you have nothing to back up your stupid claims and apparently the only thing you can think of is "dur... well, YOUR STUPID AND WRONG".
> 
> What does having SA, depression or bipolar disorder mean? It doesn't mean there is necessarily something wrong with your brain, it means you demonstrate unique personality traits and sensitivity to normal emotions that result in disruption to your normal life.
> 
> ...


Whether you want to attribute these disorders to psychological problems is your prerogative. But, what creates our psychology? Our neurology...our neurochemistry...chemicals...quantum mechanics...near-randomness. By definition, *disorder* is deviation from order. A mental disorder implies that one's mental state, and thus his underlying neuropsychological state, is awry in some way. By definition, you cannot have a mental disorder and have normal neuropsychology. Whether it's PTSD, borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, social phobia, bipolar disorder, or any other mental disorder, all of these are language for particular areas of neuropsychological dysfunction. Just because we haven't identified these particular areas to precise detail in most of these conditions does not mean they don't exist.

You can choose to continue seeking non-pharmacotherapeutic solutions for neuropsychological issues. I'll seek treatments that actually work for the conditions I have. I'm well aware--even a big proponent--of the powers of CBT, and what it is generally accepted not to do. And until you prove to me that CBT and other ways of questioning and modifying cognition, rather than neurochemistry, can cure (not just help) social phobia or bipolar disorder, your argument is essentially invalid.


----------



## Ego Dead (Dec 3, 2010)

Ok you "win", I give up.

Being different and not displaying similar thought process and personality traits of "normal people" means you are mentally retarded and have a ****ed up brain now. 

Thank you for teaching me this, now I can feel like a victim of a disease and blame that for every problem and mistake in my life instead of blaming myself.


----------



## bmwfan07 (Jun 3, 2007)

Ego Dead said:


> Ok you "win", I give up.
> 
> Being different and not displaying similar thought process and personality traits of "normal people" means you are mentally retarded and have a ****ed up brain now.
> 
> Thank you for teaching me this, now I can feel like a victim of a disease and blame that for every problem and mistake in my life instead of blaming myself.


I'm not sure how mental illness equates to mental retardation. Can you explain this logical leap?

Feeling like a victim of your disease is more accurate than blaming yourself for mental disorders you didn't ask and are not responsible for. If your parents taught you otherwise, they were sadly mistaken and the result is very unfortunate: their son (I'm assuming you're a guy) blames himself for totally organic mental disorders. If you feel the burning need to blame someone, your parents for marrying and having you is far more logical. Blame is irrelevant and unhelpful, though. Solutions are both.


----------



## jim_morrison (Aug 17, 2008)

No matter what the root cause may infact be, what we do know at this stage is that certain treatments and medications have high remission rates, like the MAOI's for example. It's simply evidence-based medicine.

Are these treatments actually doing something far more complex than simply correcting a chemical imbalance or boosting certain neurotransmitters? It's certainly possible indeed. But it's not necessarily a reason to eschew a medication if it works, unless the risks totally outweigh the benefits.


----------



## 49erJT (Oct 18, 2010)

I expect many of these types of questions to be answered over the next 50 years...I do believe in taking responsibility for your actions and not playing the "victim" role but SA is real and we didn't just choose to have it. I tend to believe it's caused less from the environment and more from genetics. I'm still waiting to meet someone who had severe SA that fully recovered and maintained recovery without medications....


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

49erJT said:


> I'm still waiting to meet someone who had severe SA that fully recovered and maintained recovery without medications....


I think thats the major difference between social anxiety disorder and confidence issues.


----------



## Ego Dead (Dec 3, 2010)

bmwfan07 said:


> I'm not sure how mental illness equates to mental retardation. Can you explain this logical leap?
> 
> Feeling like a victim of your disease is more accurate than blaming yourself for mental disorders you didn't ask and are not responsible for. If your parents taught you otherwise, they were sadly mistaken and the result is very unfortunate: their son (I'm assuming you're a guy) blames himself for totally organic mental disorders. If you feel the burning need to blame someone, your parents for marrying and having you is far more logical. Blame is irrelevant and unhelpful, though. Solutions are both.


Your just like me, I don't take responsibility for my mistakes and problems in my life either, I just blame them on a alleged brain dysfunction that I THINK I have even though there is not a single shred of evidence to show that there is something wrong with my brain.

Thanks for showing me this great philosophy, now I can have a new outlook on life.

But seriously, If you can take solace in THINKING that you have a "chemical imbalance" in your head that is causing all your emotional and personality problems then go ahead. If it makes you feel comfortable to not put the blame on yourself and instead pretend that your a victim of a fictitious "disease" and can't do anything about it other then change your neuro-transmitters with some drug then go ahead.

And Im not "anti medication". Certain drugs can help lower your inhibitions and make socilazing easier, and Im fine with anyone taking those, there isn't anything wrong with doing that.

Im just against the mindset that you HAVE to take those drugs because your a helpless victim of a disease and you need them to "cure" you.


----------



## bmwfan07 (Jun 3, 2007)

Ego Dead said:


> Your just like me, I don't take responsibility for my mistakes and problems in my life either, I just blame them on a alleged brain dysfunction that I THINK I have even though there is not a single shred of evidence to show that there is something wrong with my brain.


Here are a few such studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19568481

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19188539

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19154647

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19717138

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21195189 (of particular interest: "Our findings point to an intrinsic neural substrate underlying social anxiety that is not associated with prior adverse social conditioning, thereby providing the first neural evidence for the inherent social aspect of this enigmatic phenomenon.")

I could go on.



> Thanks for showing me this great philosophy, now I can have a new outlook on life.


As you should. Yours of blaming yourself for something you had no hand in creating is flawed and more destructive to your self-concept than you realize, and than blaming either nothing (and accepting--preferable) or blaming the disease.



> But seriously, If you can take solace in THINKING that you have a "chemical imbalance" in your head that is causing all your emotional and personality problems then go ahead. If it makes you feel comfortable to not put the blame on yourself and instead pretend that your a victim of a fictitious "disease" and can't do anything about it other then change your neuro-transmitters with some drug then go ahead.


Blame cannot be placed on something that doesn't exist. The concept of "I" or "you" cannot be defined and does not exist. So blaming either of us for something that "we" could not have inherently done is silly. Criminality is different only insofar as "we" cannot tolerate it as a society. If you learn not to blame anything or anyone, and hold nothing against anyone, only then will you achieve some modicum of enlightenment.

... and even then, you'll probably still be subject to the mental disorders you already have.


----------



## Ego Dead (Dec 3, 2010)

Heres a quote from the first link, "However, few studies have examined brain responses in socially anxious participants during general emotional processing."

Heres a quote from the second link, "the neural bases of emotional reactivity and cognitive regulation during social and physical threat, and their relationship to social anxiety symptom severity, HAVE YET TO BE INVESTIGATED."

The third link was just funny. What they did there was took people who showed symptoms of SA, and showed them a series of peoples faces, some angry, some sad, and some happy.

While those people where looking at pictures of faces they used 
something called "functional magnetic resonance imaging" to scan there "amygdala" which wikipedia says is a part of the brain that is "Shown in research to perform a primary role in the processing and memory of emotional reactions"

Basically they showed people with SA pictures of scary faces and happy faces and saw how they reacted to them. Do you know how stupid and trivial that is? The way someone reacts to pictures of happy and angry faces has something to do with social phobia right?

Quotes from the 4th link. "Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is characterized by distorted negative self-beliefs (NSBs)".

"Cognitive reappraisal is a type of emotion regulation used to alter NSBs".

Cognitive reappraisal is actually where "patients are taught to monitor and evaluate negative thoughts and replace them with more positive thoughts and images. "

So what they did is took 27 healthy control subjects (HCs) and 27 people with SAD, and put them through cognitive reappraisal.

Here are there findings. " However, when cued, participants in BOTH groups were able to use cognitive reappraisal to decrease negative emotion. Neurally, reacting to NSBs resulted in early amygdala response in BOTH groups."

And the 5th link is just a summary of what they are going to do in that study and basically what social anxiety is.

In all of this, you have yet to show me any proof or evidence that anyone who suffers from symptoms of social anxiety HAS TO HAVE something wrong with there brain.

Simply because you don't. No medical professional or research organization on Earth has proof or evidence to say that YOU MUST HAVE something wrong with your brain to suffer from social phobia, or have a uncomfortable feeling or fear of socializing.

I mean I realize that you are committed to this argument, and you firmly don't want to blame your emotional problems and personality issues on yourself. And that you would rather take solace in blaming it on some kind of "chemical imbalance" that YOU THINK you have even though there is no evidence to suggest that YOU have something wrong with your brain.

I get it, Im fine with you believing that. But when it comes down to it, its a indisputable fact that you don't HAVE to have anything wrong with your brain to have a fear of socializing and sensitivity to shyness.

Not EVERY single person who has the personality traits and sensitivity to emotions that would classify as "social anxiety" has something wrong with there brain, thats just stupid to even say.


----------



## bmwfan07 (Jun 3, 2007)

Ego Dead said:


> Heres a quote from the first link, "However, few studies have examined brain responses in socially anxious participants during general emotional processing."
> 
> Heres a quote from the second link, "the neural bases of emotional reactivity and cognitive regulation during social and physical threat, and their relationship to social anxiety symptom severity, HAVE YET TO BE INVESTIGATED."
> 
> ...


There's no real use in arguing with someone who is immune to logic. I knew you would dismiss any studies I linked to in some irrelevant way, which is why I didn't before. Your arguments are not worth rebutting.



> Simply because you don't. No medical professional or research organization on Earth has proof or evidence to say that YOU MUST HAVE something wrong with your brain to suffer from social phobia, or have a uncomfortable feeling or fear of socializing.
> 
> I mean I realize that you are committed to this argument, and you firmly don't want to blame your emotional problems and personality issues on yourself. And that you would rather take solace in blaming it on some kind of "chemical imbalance" that YOU THINK you have even though there is no evidence to suggest that YOU have something wrong with your brain.
> 
> ...


... whatever helps you sleep better at night. In your case, that appears to be illogical, masochistic self-deprecation. I've already explained how we are the result of our neurology, and that mental _disorders_ implies something is wrong with the mind. Cognition is but one tiny layer of the mind; you don't seem to even be cognizant (hah) of that.

Just as someone with Parkinson's has something wrong with their brain, which is manifested in a lack of motor control and other neurological symptoms, someone with a mental disorder does, which is manifested in various ways, one of which is social anxiety. The problem is, mental disorders aren't as clear-cut, because they're inherently subjective; that doesn't rule out neurobiology as a cause.


----------



## Ego Dead (Dec 3, 2010)

Where both retarded, but atleast I'm a retarded winner.

Thank you for coming to realize that your argument was completely irrational.

EVERY single person on Earth who has the personality traits and sensitivity to emotions that would be classified as "social anxiety disorder" has something wrong with there brain, IE. a "chemical imbalance"? Ya, I didn't think so.

Thats all I was trying to say, I was just trying to tell you that, and you decided to start arguing against that?


----------



## bmwfan07 (Jun 3, 2007)

Ego Dead said:


> Where both retarded, but atleast I'm a retarded winner.


The only thing you're a winner at is contradicting your username and proving that your ego is well and alive, but something else up there obviously isn't.



> Thank you for coming to realize that your argument was completely irrational.


:clap

Which Special Olympian in that picture are you? Your intellect is clearly on par with the lowest one of theirs.



> EVERY single person on Earth who has the personality traits and sensitivity to emotions that would be classified as "social anxiety disorder" has something wrong with there brain, IE. a "chemical imbalance"? Ya, I didn't think so.
> 
> *Thats all I was trying to say*, I was just trying to tell you that, and you decided to start arguing against that?


Um, no. You specifically stated that *most* people with these disorders *do not* have something wrong with their brains.

If there is nothing wrong with their brains, where does the dysfunction lie? Do thoughts not come from the brain?


----------



## 49erJT (Oct 18, 2010)

)


----------



## metamorphosis (Dec 18, 2008)

Beautiful, Now show me some abstracts double blind studies!!!
I can not stand the "wasth y-yube".Give me some real authentic study.
How many Youtube watch and are Believers!!!!!!


----------



## equilib (Sep 15, 2010)

Misconseptions, oversimplifications, cognitive biases, and logical fallacies about things we DO know are dangerous and misleading.

For example epigenetics which is rapidly growing, show that there is a lot more interaction than we first thought between genes and the environment and seem to be in a constant "dialog". What you experience today and blame some "bad" deterministic genes could be the long term result of perfectly normal genes and something like this:

http://fhs.mcmaster.ca/ceb/community_medicine_page/docs/Epigenetic%20programming%20by%20maternal%20behaviour.pdf

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/jun/15-brain-switches-that-can-turn-mental-illness-on-off


----------



## Kon (Oct 21, 2010)

Thanks for those links!


----------



## MattFoley (Dec 5, 2009)

equilib said:


> Misconseptions, oversimplifications, cognitive biases, and logical fallacies about things we DO know are dangerous and misleading.
> 
> For example epigenetics which is rapidly growing, show that there is a lot more interaction than we first thought between genes and the environment and seem to be in a constant "dialog". What you experience today and blame some "bad" deterministic genes could be the long term result of perfectly normal genes and something like this:
> 
> ...


Epigenetics is mind blowing. I've posted about it before somewhere else on the forum and I think everyone should take time to look into it.

This is part one of a good documentary called the "Ghost in Your Genes". Watch it.






One really interesting thing thats come out of epigenetics in the past few years is that your mother's diet when you're in the womb can have a huge impact on your endocrinology. Specifically, if your mom eats a high fat diet while you're in the womb it can activate genes that dis-regulate your HPA-axis. Your HPA-axis is the system of organs that pump stress hormones through your body. If this gets messed up there is a good chance you will react inappropriately to potentially stressful situations; Ie. anxiety. You can literally be born predisposed to anxiety.

Epigenetics can be really empowering though too. We aren't stuck with what we're born with. Just look up anything regarding Epigenetics and exercise. There are real things we can do to help ourselves.


----------



## MattFoley (Dec 5, 2009)

equilib said:


> Misconseptions, oversimplifications, cognitive biases, and logical fallacies about things we DO know are dangerous and misleading.
> 
> For example epigenetics which is rapidly growing, show that there is a lot more interaction than we first thought between genes and the environment and seem to be in a constant "dialog". What you experience today and blame some "bad" deterministic genes could be the long term result of perfectly normal genes and something like this:
> 
> ...


Ok, I guess I should have read your links before I posted. I accidentally summarized them without even knowing it. This is definitely some of the research that I have seen. Having read through so many studies like this I honestly believe that this direction of research is going to be what ultimately helps people who have depression or anxiety. There is such a strong correlation between the HPA-axis, glucocorticoid hormone and receptor regulation, the hippocampus, all the nuerotrophic factors and growth factors, Neuronal plasticity, and depression and anxiety. It's insanely complex and I'm nowhere close to fully understanding it all but it never ceases to amaze me that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together so well. So yeah, all this research has me really hopeful and excited that there is some kind of legitimate treatment out there.

Plus if there's one thing all of my research has taught me it's that depression and anxiety are biological diseases. This doesn't absolve people from their responsibility of seeking treatment, but anyone who claims that these disorders are not biological (chemical imbalance or however you want to phrase it) in nature is completely ignorant and dangerous.


----------



## 49erJT (Oct 18, 2010)

becks said:


> Plus if there's one thing all of my research has taught me it's that depression and anxiety are biological diseases. This doesn't absolve people from their responsibility of seeking treatment, but anyone who claims that these disorders are not biological (chemical imbalance or however you want to phrase it) in nature is completely ignorant and dangerous.


+1


----------



## CopadoMexicano (Aug 21, 2004)




----------



## Forza Italia (Oct 30, 2009)

Ego Dead said:


> Ok, so where exactly are the studies that prove symptoms of "diseases" like SA, depression, and bipolar disorder are actually caused by a "chemical imbalance".
> 
> There really isn't any, these "diseases" are actually nothing more then unique personality traits and a sensitivity to emotions that everyone has.
> 
> ...


Acyually, there are dozens of studies. Do you want any ?



> What your pushing IS pseudo-science that became a truism through mass indoctrination from pharmaceutical companies and "medical professionals" looking for profit.
> 
> My statement still stands as true. There ARE REAL PEOPLE (not ones I made up through "speculation") who have NOTHING wrong with there brain or any form of "chemical imbalance" and still suffer from symptoms of SA, depression, bipolar disorder, and ADD/ADHD and have been diagnosed by medical professionals with these "diseases".
> 
> ...


What about scientist's ? Are they lying too ? You're saying my teachers are lying to me ? They're all in the scam ?

And you keep using 'sensitivity to normal emotions', but I really don't think you know what that means. Seriously, what do you mean by that ?


----------



## QuietBoy99 (Sep 7, 2010)

*chemical imbalance where is the proof?*

I was on meds for some years before i got the hell off of them let me tell you it was hell. My psychiatrist told me I had a chemical imbalance but yet there is no stinking test nor proof that I have an "imbalance". The public believes it? If your doctor told you that you had cancer without running any test would you believe it? This is such a scam.


----------



## A Sense of Purpose (May 8, 2011)

Ugggh. Revolting documentary/film. Produced by a bunch of scientologists. Like really... Come on. I dont usually hate on religion but sh!t like this is pathetic and just wrong. There should be a warning on this dvd box that it was made by a religious sect. Yes there have been unfortunate and devestaing results from medications, and we now know about the black box warning. This has happend to a degree in all forms of medicine, whether it be neurology ICU or cardio. All meds come with side effects and risks. All doctors can be good or bad. All medication decision can be positive or negative. But saying that its poison and will kill you is both irresponsible and reckless. Especially if a stable individual takes this seriously and decides to drastically alter their meds or lifestyle. I'd like to see some acutal proof behind half the junk they try and pass out during that film.


----------



## QuietBoy99 (Sep 7, 2010)

A Sense of Purpose said:


> Ugggh. Revolting documentary/film. Produced by a bunch of scientologists. Like really... Come on. I dont usually hate on religion but sh!t like this is pathetic and just wrong. There should be a warning on this dvd box that it was made by a religious sect. Yes there have been unfortunate and devestaing results from medications, and we now know about the black box warning. This has happend to a degree in all forms of medicine, whether it be neurology ICU or cardio. All meds come with side effects and risks. All doctors can be good or bad. All medication decision can be positive or negative. But saying that its poison and will kill you is both irresponsible and reckless. Especially if a stable individual takes this seriously and decides to drastically alter their meds or lifestyle. I'd like to see some acutal proof behind half the junk they try and pass out during that film.


I can understand your frustration behind the film; I was on meds and as I stated above it was total hell. Yes people all meds have side effects but if its to the point where it causes people behave or think violiently or become more suicidal than it is something that cannot be ignored and must be address asap. I have nothing to do scientology nor do I want to be associated with them. Do you know how the theory "chemical imbalance" came into effect? How the FDA drug approval works? The cases that involved murders (columbine and numerous others). These facts alone cannot be ignored.


----------



## A Sense of Purpose (May 8, 2011)

QuietBoy99 said:


> I can understand your frustration behind the film; I was on meds and as I stated above it was total hell. Yes people all meds have side effects but if its to the point where it causes people behave or think violiently or become more suicidal than it is something that cannot be ignored and must be address asap. I have nothing to do scientology nor do I want to be associated with them. Do you know how the theory "chemical imbalance" came into effect? How the FDA drug approval works? The cases that involved murders (columbine and numerous others). These facts alone cannot be ignored.


I agree with you. We know very little about the mind in comparison to the rest of the body / other organ systems. It IS the last frontier if you like...
The fact that some individuals respond positively to medication suggests that there is a biological basis for a lot of the probelms out there. (this is completely opposed and neglected in the film). However, im not saying that meds are the right option for everyone. And furthermore, it does not solely suggest that these probelms stem only from human biology. Mostly a complex interaction between environment,predisposition, exacerbating stimuli or general pressure. A mix of all things.


----------



## QuietBoy99 (Sep 7, 2010)

A Sense of Purpose said:


> I agree with you. We know very little about the mind in comparison to the rest of the body / other organ systems. It IS the last frontier if you like...
> The fact that some individuals respond positively to medication suggests that there is a biological basis for a lot of the probelms out there. (this is completely opposed and neglected in the film). However, im not saying that meds are the right option for everyone. And furthermore, it does not solely suggest that these probelms stem only from human biology. Mostly a complex interaction between environment,predisposition, exacerbating stimuli or general pressure. A mix of all things.


I see with where your coming from and I understand. Let me ask you have you ever been on these meds yourself? Do know about the study that a placebo worked just as good if not better than antidepressants without all the side effects? It was all marketing and I have to admit it got me really good. Most psychiatrist including the one that I was seeing failed to mention all the possible harm that can be done when taking these meds. Yeah it maybe working for certain amount of the population that are on it but there are some serious long term side effects of these meds (possible brain damage, uncontrollable movements, etc). When I was on them I was more suicidal, tired, cried a lot, violent, sexual side effect and such. I couldn't even focus in school; it took me more years to get my bachelors. All the times that I pushed with medication (counselor, therapist, etc) when I could've just said **** NO I'm not taking them you take them. It is quite sad that our population are being pushed with meds when they could've just tried something else.


----------



## A Sense of Purpose (May 8, 2011)

QuietBoy99 said:


> I see with where your coming from and I understand. Let me ask you have you ever been on these meds yourself? Do know about the study that a placebo worked just as good if not better than antidepressants without all the side effects? It was all marketing and I have to admit it got me really good. Most psychiatrist including the one that I was seeing failed to mention all the possible harm that can be done when taking these meds. Yeah it maybe working for certain amount of the population that are on it but there are some serious long term side effects of these meds (possible brain damage, uncontrollable movements, etc). When I was on them I was more suicidal, tired, cried a lot, violent, sexual side effect and such. I couldn't even focus in school; it took me more years to get my bachelors. All the times that I pushed with medication (counselor, therapist, etc) when I could've just said **** NO I'm not taking them you take them. It is quite sad that our population are being pushed with meds when they could've just tried something else.


I have indeed been on psych meds. A TCA amitriptyline, Another TCA Dothiepin an Anti convulsant Topamax, an Anti Psychotic Chlopromazine. These were for severe migraine purposes and stabilized them to a degree. I removed the CPZ as SOON as functionally possible because i hate the side effect profile of Antipsychotics.

For the most part, depression and anxiety disorders are somewhat different to mood disorders such as schizophrenia. What i mean by people respond to medications is that things such as lithium, lamictal and antipsychotics (which remove positive symptoms) do indeed help many people function better than their alternative.

Medication benefits need to be weighed up with risks. Obviously if a patient is suicidal, unstable or just unable to comprehend good from bad, telling them a huge list of side effects that are likely to make them not take a medication, and thus will reduce the efficacy of a treatment is not neccesarily a priority if you are immediately contemplating the patients safety. On the other hand, the psych could mention a whole list of undesireable effects, make the patient feel worse off, and potentially inflate the chance of a suicide due to the natural progression of the depression due to the idea that they simply cannot be helped.

In my eyes a good psychiatrist will weigh the pros and cons, point out these where applicable and if they can be comprehended by the individual. If not, the patient stabilized and then brought to terms with the potential risks of continuing a medication treatment, and suggesting alternatives such as CBT, book club... anything that sparks interest in an individual and makes them feel good about themselves.

It may be right, it may be wrong..... but its up to the patient to choose THEIR psychiatrist and whether they conform to the treatment offered. This leaves it in the interest of the patient to investigate the side effects of anything suggested by a doctor. Regardless og how esteemed or valued an opinion is, granted my situation i always research a med before i take it. Obviously this isnt the case if someone is comitted against their will due to fear for their safety. Every situation needs to be taken into consideration on an individual level. For example my issue is strickly 'usually' a neurologists field of work, however i have not recieved treatment appropriate to fixing my problem, hence why im now investigating psychiatry for some relief. Medication is not for everyone, hence people need to make the ultimate decision. 
This is where i believe the medical board / psychiatrists need to put more effort in and perhaps spend less time focusing on directly categorising people and following 'what is written' in their bible (DSM-IVTR) and _listening_ to how their patients feel and respond to meds.


----------



## kev (Jan 28, 2005)

First of all, my sound doesn't work so I couldn't listen to it but just watching it it had an Propaganda-like presentation trying to disgust you with the vast array of meds and scare you with tales of suicide and people giving short brief one-line sentences. Not scientific enough to be very effective and I can tell this even without hearing a word of it.

It is an interesting argument to debate and talk about the pros and cons of meds (there are certainly many), but this video just uses shameless scare tactics without offering both sides of the issue.

There really is no proof about chemical imbalance _causing_ mental illness yet, but that doesn't mean they don't help people function. And as the saying goes absence of proof is not proof of absence.

And yeah, some people are harmed by them. It really is tragic and psychiatrists really need to take a hard look at themselves and decide if they are doing the right thing - and also be able to hold themselves accountable if their "precious" med causes suicidal or homicidal ideation (too often, it is said "oh, the depressed person just finally had the energy to attempt suicide" but that is obviously just BS)

It might be enough for people to say they should be banned altogether, but I owe my life to these silly meds. I don't know if I could have gotten through some of my darker times without them. I think the problem is docs prescribing the wrong meds and not being able to keep in close contact with the patient (what good is a 15 minute appointment once a month going to do?) It certainly isn't entirely safe - I will grant the med haters that one.

Also, antidepressants increase in effectiveness with increasing severity of depression. Unfortunately they don't work that well for dysthymia (a terribly disabling condition because of the chronic nature but not as intense as major depression).


----------



## kev (Jan 28, 2005)

I just read the article now, which I do agree with, by the way. I believe that certain people have a predisposition to generalized anxiety, which will often lead to social anxiety. But to a large extent social anxiety is learned, even if it is indirectly related to generalized anxiety.


----------



## 49erJT (Oct 18, 2010)

kev said:


> I just read the article now, which I do agree with, by the way. I believe that certain people have a predisposition to generalized anxiety, which will often lead to social anxiety. But to a large extent social anxiety is learned, even if it is indirectly related to generalized anxiety.


I wonder if OCD and SA are somewhat related to one another?


----------



## Duke of Prunes (Jul 20, 2009)

It's not entirely false, but it's often not the case. Genetic abnormalities leading to crappy receptors that don't bind properly, too few receptors, too many transporters, inefficient synthesis of neurotransmitters, etc, are very real.


----------



## sherbert (Jun 24, 2005)

If drugs were no better than placebo than this argument would have some merit, but that's certainly not the case. I've had my frustrations with the ambiguity of the 'chemical imbalance', but that doesn't make it less accurate. 


Drugs are useful tools, but they're not going to change everything in your life and make everything rosy like the commercials like to portray. With monitoring, they can be weaned off of and eventually replaced too. If you need them, they're there to be used. 


Psychiatrists prescribe meds. b/c that's what is in their tool bag. It's like the corny saying, 'if you give a man a hammer all he sees are nails.' They know that drugs can be effective and it's easier to dole out w/o breaking the Hippocratic oath. Shock therapy in recent years has been shown to be helpful with people who have severe depression. How strange is that?


----------



## QuietBoy99 (Sep 7, 2010)

A Sense of Purpose said:


> I have indeed been on psych meds. A TCA amitriptyline, Another TCA Dothiepin an Anti convulsant Topamax, an Anti Psychotic Chlopromazine. These were for severe migraine purposes and stabilized them to a degree. I removed the CPZ as SOON as functionally possible because i hate the side effect profile of Antipsychotics.
> 
> For the most part, depression and anxiety disorders are somewhat different to mood disorders such as schizophrenia. What i mean by people respond to medications is that things such as lithium, lamictal and antipsychotics (which remove positive symptoms) do indeed help many people function better than their alternative.
> 
> ...


That sounds great and I can understand where your coming from because I once too thought the same way. When/If something bad happens when a client/patient is on these meds the psychiatrist/doctors have never been prosecuted or disciplined because of a clause used to protect them in these situations. Throughout our dialog you have not once provided any proof of a "chemical imbalance". The DSM-IVTR is not backed up by scientific evidence of any sort; not to mention anyone on this planet earth can fall into the categories listed in there which means more potentials profits for drug companies and psychiatrist/doctors. You do know that psychiatrist/doctors get kickbacks from drug companies every time they prescribe these meds so that means a conflict of interests.

What (biological, blood) tests has your psychiatrist/doctor ran on you to see if you have your condition? I had a friend who was prescribe with antidepressant even though she did not need them when she came in because she complained of pain in her arm; that is such nonsense. The consumer must be well informed and be prepared to say "NO" or walk away to a different doctor if they are pushed on with meds. The patient has every right to be informed of the potential harm that maybe caused by the meds, however most psychiatrist have failed to do that. The psychiatrist I was seeing told me that I had to be on the meds for the rest of my life; he wouldn't tell me anything else about the potential harm of these meds. Please everyone do your research first before taking these potential harmful meds.


----------



## CopadoMexicano (Aug 21, 2004)

Mental illness is caused by unfortunate life, experience not biology" anonymous


----------



## Bacon (Jul 4, 2010)

Honestly I think we are turning this into something about Biochemistry and we don't have the research behind it to Legitimize it. I Don't Belive in the SSRI Brain Chemical imbalance....if anything my SSRI causes an imblance.....No sex drive, Ejaculation problems.....thats a freaking imbalance. Now Older Drugs like Benzo's And Amphetamines. Those work alot better. SSRI's make you into a zombie. Maybe i need to try an SNRI. But ill leave the arguement Open. Just my 2 words.


----------



## moke64916 (May 31, 2011)

Sure, it is a big money making industry. But do you get benefits from any medication. I take beta-blockers for my heart. If it wasn't for the medication my heart would beat 160 beats a minute, and my blood pressure would skyrocket. I'd get severe chest pains. Now the medication helps. Sure it's a moeny making industry. But you benefit as well from certain medications. Medications should be used with coping skills.


----------



## QuietBoy99 (Sep 7, 2010)

moke64916 said:


> Sure, it is a big money making industry. But do you get benefits from any medication. I take beta-blockers for my heart. If it wasn't for the medication my heart would beat 160 beats a minute, and my blood pressure would skyrocket. I'd get severe chest pains. Now the medication helps. Sure it's a moeny making industry. But you benefit as well from certain medications. Medications should be used with coping skills.


I do agree that these medications do benefit a few, however it comes with a price and sometimes it's hefty. It's a huge money making industry and sadly drug companies do not ever want you to come off the meds because they want you for life!!!! Remember there is no money in the cure. Do you think that drug companies want you to get better so you can stop the meds? They are making billions a year and do you think they want to lose all of that? Be informed and make your decision and don't trust no one but your own instincts.


----------



## A Sense of Purpose (May 8, 2011)

QuietBoy99 said:


> I do agree that these medications do benefit a few, however it comes with a price and sometimes it's hefty. It's a huge money making industry and sadly drug companies do not ever want you to come off the meds because they want you for life!!!! Remember there is no money in the cure. Do you think that drug companies want you to get better so you can stop the meds? They are making billions a year and do you think they want to lose all of that? Be informed and make your decision and don't trust no one but your own instincts.


Its a gamble for drug companies as well. Of course they are always going to want to maximise profits and push a drug onto as many disorders as it can.


On average: A drug from its planning stages to final production takes between 8-15 years. Thats including all phase trials, toxicity, animal studies, FDA approval (TGA here in Australia).
Cost to the drug company, from paying chemists, marketing, studies equates to around *$1 billion AUD*. This is BEFORE they even sell their first product, and before the drug begins to hit a prescribing threshold due to its efficacy or potential to help.
You cannont for a second believe that they are in it for your health. It works as a mutual relationship. They develop something that can potentially aid your lifestyle for the better, but they want your money for it. 
Additionally, why do you think copyrights get extened or re-instated for drugs that essentially do the same things, but just have different labels? Some companies apply for further coverage aka, topamax primarily an anticonvulsant. It has sought approval for migraine prophylaxis hence holding its patent for longer it the FDA approves this. If that is not pursued, then they often make chemically similar compounds, that have similar actions (take Citalopram and Escitalopram as an example. Venlafaxine vs Desvenlafaxine.) The companies have no loyalty. They often try and use eachothers compounds as their 'own' Take pristiq as an example of using Effexor as a base.

Thing to keep in mind is, risk vs benefit and where to draw the line.


----------



## QuietBoy99 (Sep 7, 2010)

A Sense of Purpose said:


> Its a gamble for drug companies as well. Of course they are always going to want to maximise profits and push a drug onto as many disorders as it can.
> 
> 
> On average: A drug from its planning stages to final production takes between 8-15 years. Thats including all phase trials, toxicity, animal studies, FDA approval (TGA here in Australia).
> ...


Again where is the proof of a "chemical imbalance". Do you even know what goes on at these test trials? The way the drug companies ran the test trials of new drugs and keep in mind that drug companies run the test trials not an independent company or the FDA so there is room for manipulation. For example, during the Cymbalta test trials a couple of the participants actually committed suicide; they found one of them hanging from the bathroom shower curtain inside the testing area. What did Eli Lily do? Did they stop the medication from being pushed through? Nope, they pushed for it to get approved and guess what? it did. Where did you get your figures from? Could you post a link to the article that says it cost drug companies a billion dollars to make these meds? Remember that psychiatrist/doctors get "kickbacks" from these drug companies to prescribe their meds as much as they can so there is obviously a conflict of interests; how sad.

Pretty soon these drug companies want everyone to be on the drug because that makes their wallets fatter. They even want to prescribe you meds even if you don't have a mental illness they claim it to be a "preventative measure". I'm telling you folks be aware and be informed.


----------



## CD700 (Apr 22, 2010)

QuietBoy99 said:


> Again where is the proof of a "chemical imbalance". Do you even know what goes on at these test trials? The way the drug companies ran the test trials of new drugs and keep in mind that drug companies run the test trials not an independent company or the FDA so there is room for manipulation. For example, during the Cymbalta test trials a couple of the participants actually committed suicide; they found one of them hanging from the bathroom shower curtain inside the testing area. What did Eli Lily do? Did they stop the medication from being pushed through? Nope, they pushed for it to get approved and guess what? it did. Where did you get your figures from? Could you post a link to the article that says it cost drug companies a billion dollars to make these meds? Remember that psychiatrist/doctors get "kickbacks" from these drug companies to prescribe their meds as much as they can so there is obviously a conflict of interests; how sad.
> 
> Pretty soon these drug companies want everyone to be on the drug because that makes their wallets fatter. They even want to prescribe you meds even if you don't have a mental illness they claim it to be a "preventative measure". I'm telling you folks be aware and be informed.


You sound pretty obsessed...maybe you need some drugs yourself


----------



## dutchguy (Jun 8, 2009)

js367124 said:


> For the last years my symptoms have been the following
> 
> Mild SA
> 
> ...


But you still don't know where the lack of certain neurotransmitters come from. Maybe you lack serotonin for example because you lack love from other people. Maybe you lack dopamine because you're to stressed.

It could be possible that you can effect neurotransmitters with food our supplements but I think its very likely that these effects will also occur when you change your life experiences.


----------



## kev (Jan 28, 2005)

49erJT said:


> I wonder if OCD and SA are somewhat related to one another?


Probably.

From what I have seen of OCD (I don't have it myself) it appears to have a distinct neurological feel to it. I can't actually prove that, but I know people with tics are more likely to have OCD and tics are pretty much proven to be a neurological problem.

Even though I don't think SA in particular is neurological, I think anxiety is in general. Some people are just more wound up than others. It's hard to debate that - it's pretty much common sense and debating otherwise just seems kind of foolish to me.


----------



## A Sense of Purpose (May 8, 2011)

QuietBoy99 said:


> Again where is the proof of a "chemical imbalance". Do you even know what goes on at these test trials? The way the drug companies ran the test trials of new drugs and keep in mind that drug companies run the test trials not an independent company or the FDA so there is room for manipulation. For example, during the Cymbalta test trials a couple of the participants actually committed suicide; they found one of them hanging from the bathroom shower curtain inside the testing area. What did Eli Lily do? Did they stop the medication from being pushed through? Nope, they pushed for it to get approved and guess what? it did. Where did you get your figures from? Could you post a link to the article that says it cost drug companies a billion dollars to make these meds? Remember that psychiatrist/doctors get "kickbacks" from these drug companies to prescribe their meds as much as they can so there is obviously a conflict of interests; how sad.
> 
> Pretty soon these drug companies want everyone to be on the drug because that makes their wallets fatter. They even want to prescribe you meds even if you don't have a mental illness they claim it to be a "preventative measure". I'm telling you folks be aware and be informed.


If you had bothered to read my post you'd understand that i do not condone or advocate the use of medication. I clearly stated that for some individuals meds are usefull, and for some disorders there *appears* to be a biological basis, becase the drugs themselves manipulate neurotransmitters that occur naturally in the brain. The fact that *some* individuals feel relief and positive effects from treatment does indeed substantiate the idea that meds are beneficial in managing and treating certain psychological issues.

Further the figures i sourced are from A) *"The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs" - *DiMasi J, Hansen R, Grabowski H (2003). 
Even further... http://www.outsourcing-pharma.com/Preclinical-Research/Drug-development-costs-hit-1.7-billion.

Additionally, my university conducts clinical trials for a vast range of mood disorders with regard to medication and supplement therapies. These figures are validated, supported and presented in my lectures on psychopharmacology by the Professor in charge of such studies. They work first hand with supplement companies, research alzheimer's, vascular dementia and an array of different medications. It is a seriously pricey arena to be involved in.

Now to the bit where you dicuss patient suicide. 
For one, testing an antidepressant medication on individuals who have depression seems like a logical thing, right? ... Right. And it is very unfortunate that some individuals feel that they are unable to cope and hence their choice of suicide. However there is no way to determine whether those individuals died as a result of the reaction to the drug, OR if it was the nature of their illness taking its course. Furthermore, clinicians and psychiatrists alike have become accustomed to the suicide ideation that ssris and other novel antidepressants are now known for producing (in a small % of individuals). That is precisely why the black box warnings persist.

Dont come to me and tell me psych meds shouldnt be manufactured when you are obviously ignorant to the fact that deaths that occur to *All* types of medications, whether it be chemotherapy agents, benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants, cardiovascular drugs and the vast array of other things that have the potential to kill. That is just being blissfully ignorant.
Hence, all of these chemicals are to serve particular purposes. It is up to the individual to decide whether the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits.

Please actually read a post to completion before rattling off the first BS that comes to mind.

*Where are your references for *"participants actually committed suicide; they found one of them hanging from the bathroom shower curtain inside the testing area"

In Australia (for your information) there are *NO* drug campaigns or adds for psychiatric medications. Doctors *do not* get given prescription samples to trial and throw at patients willy-nilly. Obviously there needs to be some regulation set in place in certain countries, or people need to inform themselves about what they are getting themselves into. The system is flawed, but its not all doom and gloom.


----------



## QuietBoy99 (Sep 7, 2010)

A Sense of Purpose said:


> If you had bothered to read my post you'd understand that i do not condone or advocate the use of medication. I clearly stated that for some individuals meds are usefull, and for some disorders there *appears* to be a biological basis, becase the drugs themselves manipulate neurotransmitters that occur naturally in the brain. The fact that *some* individuals feel relief and positive effects from treatment does indeed substantiate the idea that meds are beneficial in managing and treating certain psychological issues.
> 
> Further the figures i sourced are from A) *"The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs" - *DiMasi J, Hansen R, Grabowski H (2003).
> Even further... http://www.outsourcing-pharma.com/Preclinical-Research/Drug-development-costs-hit-1.7-billion.
> ...


Again I'm asking you to provide me with proof of a "chemical imbalance" and you have failed to do so which leads me to believe that you cannot prove it. We are just having a discussion here there is no need for name calling and such; if you cannot handle this discussion than I suggest you stop posting. What biological test has your doctor ran on you to determine that you have a disorder?

You mentioned that your school conducts clinical trials? By any chance do you know if your school or professor are getting any financial help or "kickbacks" from these drug companies? And if your school or professor does have financial ties with the drug companies don't you think there is a conflict of interests? Which may lead to manipulation of the clinical trials and results? I'm going to leave you alone to think about that. :idea

When big drug companies run clinical trials they get HEALTHY PEOPLE to participate in them. So you are incorrect that they get people who are already depressed. Most of these trials are short usually lasting a few weeks so we don't know the long-term effect of these meds. If the drug has only been out for a year or two than basically anyone taking it would be a guinea pig. The article you mentioned doesn't relate to antidepressants specially just the pharmaceutical industry in general. By the way here is the link to the Cymbalta suicides during clinical trials and a link to murders/suicides caused by antidepressants.

http://www.drugawareness.org/recent...s-commit-suicide-during-clinical-trials-u-s-a

http://uniteforlife.wordpress.com/2...olence-and-murder-by-mothers-antidepressants/

I never said these meds shouldn't be made, however they are over prescribed and why are they over prescribed? FOR PROFITS!!! True, all meds do carry side effects but if it's to the point where people are committing murders, suicides, and violent acts than it is something that cannot be ignored and must be addressed. When was the last time you heard of someone committing murders, suicides, violent acts while on *Tylenol* or even *Viagra*? :no

Does Australia represent a large part of the world? You do know why these drug companies give out free samples to psychiatrist to give to patients/clients right? It's to get you hooked and to come back for more but only this time you must PAY FOR IT and possibly with your life. I understand from your point of view after all I was once on these meds that I thought was helping me but in reality it was hurting me from living a fulfilled life.


----------



## QuietBoy99 (Sep 7, 2010)

blakeyz said:


> You sound pretty obsessed...maybe you need some drugs yourself


Obessed? No, just expressing my opinions. Not only that but your only proving my point that drugs are the answer to everything. Don't you feel silly or did you forget to take your drugs? :mum


----------



## A Sense of Purpose (May 8, 2011)

QuietBoy99 said:


> Again I'm asking you to provide me with proof of a "chemical imbalance" and you have failed to do so which leads me to believe that you cannot prove it. We are just having a discussion here there is no need for name calling and such; if you cannot handle this discussion than I suggest you stop posting. What biological test has your doctor ran on you to determine that you have a disorder?
> 
> You mentioned that your school conducts clinical trials? By any chance do you know if your school or professor are getting any financial help or "kickbacks" from these drug companies? And if your school or professor does have financial ties with the drug companies don't you think there is a conflict of interests? Which may lead to manipulation of the clinical trials and results? I'm going to leave you alone to think about that. :idea
> 
> ...


I was going to reply with some effort and try and inform you of the processes that are put in place with regards to phase trials, animal studies, toxicology trials, healthy and affected individuals but clearly there is no point. You are obviously set in your ways and pure negativity. I like to think that i have provided a balanced argument, *and i never said i supported or disputed the chemical imalance theory*.

I'd like to bring to your attention that blog posts and net forums are not a valid reference form to argue a point. Peer reviewed is a good place to start 
Tylenol is behind the highest % of phonecalls to the american posion hotline for oversdose. By your logic, we should stop selling pain relief too.
Watson, William A. et al. "2003 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposure Surveillance System." American Association of Poison Control Centers. 2004.

"A Profile of U.S. Poison Centers in 2001: A Survey Conducted by the American Association of Poison Control Centers." American Association of Poison Control Centers

*Regardless, ive said what i wanted to say and im not prepared to argue with you. By all means share your experience, but dont cast a blanket of misery on something that works for some people even though it doesnt for you*.

Thats one step away from a religious debate, and man i hate nothing more.


----------



## Positive (Jun 29, 2009)

It is true w/ obvious observation.


----------



## QuietBoy99 (Sep 7, 2010)

A Sense of Purpose said:


> I was going to reply with some effort and try and inform you of the processes that are put in place with regards to phase trials, animal studies, toxicology trials, healthy and affected individuals but clearly there is no point. You are obviously set in your ways and pure negativity. I like to think that i have provided a balanced argument, *and i never said i supported or disputed the chemical imalance theory*.
> 
> I'd like to bring to your attention that blog posts and net forums are not a valid reference form to argue a point. Peer reviewed is a good place to start
> Tylenol is behind the highest % of phonecalls to the american posion hotline for oversdose. By your logic, we should stop selling pain relief too.
> ...


It's obvious that you haven't been reading my post or your just not understanding. Young children are being drugged up as young as 4 and your ok with that. You didn't disputed the Cymbalta study where 5 participants committed suicide that says a lot. Your just ignoring all the facts that I've presented and did not refute a single one which tells me you agree with them. I was presenting to you an article from the suicides during the Cymbalta study not citing anything from peer review and such because that is not needed. Not only that but Eli Lily also tried to cover it up. Just because someone doesn't agree to your point of view that means their negative? If that is your way of thinking than I feel bad for you.

http://www.babysnark.com/health/eli-lilly-suicide.asp

It's not just me who has suffered it is many more like me who has. You need to open eyes and realize that but I don't think you ever will. You mentioned overdose on Tylenol? That person would have to do it intentionally therefore anyone can overdose on any meds so that is not a valid point. Have you ever saw someone with tardive dyskinesia? A permanent brain damage condition caused by these drugs. You are obviously living in a dream world and I hope you wake up someday and realize it. :blank


----------

