81 replies to this topic

[Raptor87]

Wish I knew everything about the cause of my constant constipations and haemorrhoids.

[moleface]

I don't get why people consider SSRIs to be such mystery substances. It can easily be demonstrated that SSRIs exert their effects by boosting the same neurotransmitters as cocaine and other euphoric stimulants

SSRIs have cross action on either dopamine or norepinephrine, depending on the particular drug in question. Cocaine produces its euphoric effects by acting as an agonist of serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. It seems really obvious to me that reputake inhibition of these neurotransmitters is just a gentler way to achieve the same sort of effect on the same areas of the brain as euphoric stimulants, only without inducing a pronounced high. Depressed people are more likely to notice a subtle mood elevator, but that doesn't mean a disease is being treated.

By applying very basic reasoning, I can easily prove that SSRIs just artificially elevate the mood - if you're depressed ever since a loved one died, or you lost a job, etc., SSRIs will still produce their intended effects. People will reply that this is because there are chemical changes in the brain after traumatic events etc - but if these chemical changes can be induced externally by something bad happening to you, we aren't really talking about a brain disease are we?

That said, it also seems obvious that pregnant mothers shouldn't expose the developing brains of the infants to a profoundly mood altering drug. Knowing what we know about receptor downregulation from psych drugs in adults, it's safe to assume that skewing a developing brain's neurotransmitter levels with a constant supply of a drug has the potential to result in serious changes to their brain's structure.

Edited by moleface, 14 July 2011 - 05:57 PM.

[moleface]

To whoever downvoted me -

Psychiatry starts to look more and more like a religion when you can't even force its proponents to follow a consistent train of basic logic. This is basic reasoning. If SSRIs treat a disease, they shouldn't also work on people who are grieving the death of a loved one, a breakup, etc. If the chemical changes that occur during these periods do in fact constitute a brain disease, how exactly would external events in your life give you a disease? What about soldiers returning from overseas with PTSD - going to war gives you a brain disease? How does THAT work? All you've done is pathologize the chemical mechanism behind the unwanted mental problem in an attempt to make it sound like the drugs treat a specific disease.

It's completely normal to turn to artificially mood altering drugs during periods of unhappiness, and I believe that everyone should have the choice to take whatever they want if they feel that it helps them. In a society that wages a ridiculous War on Drugs, it's obviously necessary to differentiate the legal drugs in principle from the illegal drugs in the minds of consumers... hence the idea that these drugs treat illnesses. Obvious marketing. Real science can't be dissected just by applying rudimentary logic.

I'm not urging anyone not to take these drugs, and I never claimed that they don't help. All I'm pointing out is that the "chemical imbalance" marketing directly results in millions of people taking these drugs in an irresponsible fashion. There are precautions you should take while taking a synthetic psychotropic drug every day. But people are urged to view these drugs as the equivalent of brain nutrients - they're essentially treated like vitamins.

If psychiatrists admit that SSRIs just artificially elevate the mood, then that raises the obvious question - why is it ok to artificially boost your mood with prescription SSRIs but not illegal stimulants? As far as I can tell, SSRIs just stimulate the brain in a manner similar to many illegal drugs, but do so in a way that results in less of a pronounced high, thereby allowing the worker ants to numb themselves but remain productive wage slaves. But nobody wants to be told what they can and can't do with their own body, so it's framed as an illness.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with taking illegal stimulants. Personally, I'd take the comparison to cocaine as a COMPLIMENT to SSRIs. What I disagree with is people being blatantly deceived by psychiatrists "for their own good". It makes perfect sense that mainstream psychiatry and Scientology are always at each other throats - personally, I consider them to be rival cults.

Edited by moleface, 14 July 2011 - 08:31 PM.

[nezxon]

To whoever downvoted me -

Psychiatry starts to look more and more like a religion when you can't even force its proponents to follow a consistent train of basic logic. This is basic reasoning. If SSRIs treat a disease, they shouldn't also work on people who are grieving the death of a loved one, a breakup, etc. If the chemical changes that occur during these periods do in fact constitute a brain disease, how exactly would external events in your life give you a disease? What about soldiers returning from overseas with PTSD - going to war gives you a brain disease? How does THAT work? All you've done is pathologize the chemical mechanism behind the unwanted mental problem in an attempt to make it sound like the drugs treat a specific disease.

It's completely normal to turn to artificially mood altering drugs during periods of unhappiness, and I believe that everyone should have the choice to take whatever they want if they feel that it helps them. In a society that wages a ridiculous War on Drugs, it's obviously necessary to differentiate the legal drugs in principle from the illegal drugs in the minds of consumers... hence the idea that these drugs treat illnesses. Obvious marketing. Real science can't be dissected just by applying rudimentary logic.

I'm not urging anyone not to take these drugs, and I never claimed that they don't help. All I'm pointing out is that the "chemical imbalance" marketing directly results in millions of people taking these drugs in an irresponsible fashion. There are precautions you should take while taking a synthetic psychotropic drug every day. But people are urged to view these drugs as the equivalent of brain nutrients - they're essentially treated like vitamins.

If psychiatrists admit that SSRIs just artificially elevate the mood, then that raises the obvious question - why is it ok to artificially boost your mood with prescription SSRIs but not illegal stimulants? As far as I can tell, SSRIs just stimulate the brain in a manner similar to many illegal drugs, but do so in a way that results in less of a pronounced high, thereby allowing the worker ants to numb themselves but remain productive wage slaves. But nobody wants to be told what they can and can't do with their own body, so it's framed as an illness.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with taking illegal stimulants. Personally, I'd take the comparison to cocaine as a COMPLIMENT to SSRIs. What I disagree with is people being blatantly deceived by psychiatrists "for their own good". It makes perfect sense that mainstream psychiatry and Scientology are always at each other throats - personally, I consider them to be rival cults.

It appears to me that your repeatedly reference to your statements as "basic reasoning" and "rudimentary logic" is an obvious attempt to attack the reader's ego. I think it sends the message that if someone doesn't agree with you they lack basic reasoning faculties. The sum of your argument seems to be that you don't believe emotional trauma qualifies as disease.

One definition of "disease" is:
1. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.

SSRIs are used to treat a pathological condition in the brain and central nervous system as a result of environmental stress and sometimes genetic defect. It would seem to me, almost by definition, SSRIs are administered to treat disease. If I understand you correctly, you're asserting that emotional trauma is a natural part of life, not an illness. I think physical trauma is also a natural part of life, as is illness as a whole. How is an emotional trauma, such as a death, any different than physical trauma, such as infection? Both put the body into an undesirable state which a drug can be administered to restore the balance of.

You said that psychiatry starts to look more like a religion, but it appears to me that you have your own dogmatic thoughts about the mind, body, and health which have narrowed your view on what constitutes disease and illness.

[Insomniac]

I definitely feel that generic paroxetine i took for 9 months screwed me up BIG time! I am not saying ssri don't work, they do, but at what cost? If I knew that paroxetine would not only kill my pure O (which was due to caffeine overstimulation), but also my motivation, zest for life and normal anxiety which always made me challenge my fears, and made me grow from that, and left me unable to excite over things I used to and also left me with debilitating insomnia, which feels organic, i would NEVER EVER put this drug in my system! I would deal with pure O and anxiety by myself. That's why it is called flight or fight response, you either fight it or you run away. I was willing to fight, like I did my whole life, but was misled from my psych who told me that it is a light drug and I should be ok on it very soon. I don't even blame him, he was prob misled by big pharma too! I hope I'll recover in time from all the residual withdrawal symptoms i am left with and emotional trauma i had to go through because of paroxetine....

Edited by Insomniac, 14 July 2011 - 10:21 PM.

[aaron43]

...I think physical trauma is also a natural part of life, as is illness as a whole. How is an emotional trauma, such as a death, any different than physical trauma, such as infection? Both put the body into an undesirable state which a drug can be administered to restore the balance of...

I feel that the fundamental difference between mental trauma and physical trauma is that the brain is the only organ that has the premier capability to feel an experience and then then learn and change from it (there could be a scientific term for it); while the body is "dumber" in the sense that while it can still feel, it does not possess the ability to compare and contrast past experiences in order to apply in a current situation. I feel that the brain is much more grand in its composition and is not comparable to the body in terms of treatment/understanding.

Should we look at medicine for cognitive problems in the same light as we do bodily (viral, injury, ect.) medicine?

[niner]

Should we look at medicine for cognitive problems in the same light as we do bodily (viral, injury, ect.) medicine?

The more we learn about the brain, the more we see that it is a biochemical device. It's special in that it's programmable, but when the biochemistry is broken, things go wrong. As we come to understand the biochemistry, we can intervene more successfully. So I think the answer to your question is: Yes, with the caveat that we should not ignore the programming.

[moleface]

It appears to me that your repeatedly reference to your statements as "basic reasoning" and "rudimentary logic" is an obvious attempt to attack the reader's ego. I think it sends the message that if someone doesn't agree with you they lack basic reasoning faculties. The sum of your argument seems to be that you don't believe emotional trauma qualifies as disease.

I see what you're saying, but I know from experience that discussing this issue with people is an uphill battle and I'm just trying to illustrate that the stated premise behind psychiatric drugs can be easily debunked by applying very basic logic. Whenever I debate psychiatry with people, they inevitably resort to logical fallacies - usually appeals to authority. People shouldn't have to resort to the same tactics that are used to defend cults/religions to defend psychiatry if it were a valid science.

Dogmatic how? All I'm pointing out is that SSRIs artificially elevate the mood, which can easily be demonstrated.

Let's forget the word "disease" altogether.

Mainstream psychiatry claims that if altering your neurotransmitter levels results in alleviation of your mental problems, it's proof that the substance addresses a "chemical imbalance". I contend that ALL mood altering drugs work by changing neurotransmitter levels, and that the "chemical imbalance theory" is inherently unprovable marketing. The dead giveaway that the "theory" isn't based on sound science is the fact that you can apply the same exact line of reasoning to ANY mood altering drug and it's equally as true/provable.

Let's say that someone's anxiety or depression is helped by marijuana. Since marijuana produces its effects through cannabinoid receptor agonism, does a patient's response to the drug prove that there was a preexisting imbalance in the brain's cannabinoid receptors? Or is cannabinoid receptor agonism simply the mechanism through which the drug exerts its mood altering effects?

People who buy into psych drug marketing aren't taking into account everything that we know about mood altering drugs. It's quite easy to predict the specific effects of any drug if you know which neurotransmitters are involved, whether it's an agonist or antagonist, etc - depending on the specific properties of the drug, manipulating various neurotransmitters results in sedation, stimulation, or whatever. Psych drugs are the only drugs in existence that this supposedly doesn't apply to. People are told that it's the equivalent of taking insulin for diabetes. THAT is what I'm disagreeing with.

Edited by moleface, 15 July 2011 - 02:19 AM.

[moleface]

Should we look at medicine for cognitive problems in the same light as we do bodily (viral, injury, ect.) medicine?

The more we learn about the brain, the more we see that it is a biochemical device. It's special in that it's programmable, but when the biochemistry is broken, things go wrong. As we come to understand the biochemistry, we can intervene more successfully. So I think the answer to your question is: Yes, with the caveat that we should not ignore the programming.

Of course the brain's a biochemical device. All mainstream psychiatry does is pathologize the mechanisms through which the brain expressed negative emotions.

Let's say someone here gets angry at what I'm saying about psych drugs. A brain scan would show their brain chemistry change as they got angry. So which made them angry - my post, or the chemicals in their brain?

Saying that neurotransmitters are the cause of mental problems is like saying that arm muscles are the cause of fistfights, or legs are the cause of running. It's warped reasoning that's supposed to legitimize intervention with psychotropic drugs

I'm pro drug, btw. I guarantee that if our society wasn't waging this asinine War on Drugs, all this "chemical imbalance theory" marketing wouldn't exist - it wouldn't be necessary. In the meantime, the average person believes that it's "immoral" to turn to drugs during times of stress or unhappiness - hence the disease model being used to market the legal mood-altering drugs.

[aaron43]

Emotions Make the Memory Last

My main issue with SSRI's. Cutting to the chase: I anecdotally believe that SSRI's numb ones emotion's to a seratonin dominant level. Without this range of fluctuation in emotions, sad being just as strong an emotion as happy, could it be that one might actually be putting themselves in a detrimental situation as to not give themselves a chance to naturally learn (which is done from memory) from the situations that are causing the problem both past/present? Sadness is just as instrumental an emotion as happiness, and with respect to human nature, I feel, should not be ignored. How does this affect one's personality to ignore an emotion that is just as instrumental in learning/life as happiness is?

[niner]

Emotions Make the Memory Last

My main issue with SSRI's. Cutting to the chase: I anecdotally believe that SSRI's numb ones emotion's to a seratonin dominant level. Without this range of fluctuation in emotions, sad being just as strong an emotion as happy, could it be that one might actually be putting themselves in a detrimental situation as to not give themselves a chance to naturally learn (which is done from memory) from the situations that are causing the problem both past/present? Sadness is just as instrumental an emotion as happiness, and with respect to human nature, I feel, should not be ignored. How does this affect one's personality to ignore an emotion that is just as instrumental in learning/life as happiness is?

People who use SSRIs can still be sad. I don't think that most people who use them find that their emotions are 'numb', though I'm sure you could find someone for whom that might be the case. They aren't like anesthetics, though.

[niner]

Should we look at medicine for cognitive problems in the same light as we do bodily (viral, injury, ect.) medicine?

The more we learn about the brain, the more we see that it is a biochemical device. It's special in that it's programmable, but when the biochemistry is broken, things go wrong. As we come to understand the biochemistry, we can intervene more successfully. So I think the answer to your question is: Yes, with the caveat that we should not ignore the programming.

Of course the brain's a biochemical device. All mainstream psychiatry does is pathologize the mechanisms through which the brain expressed negative emotions.

Let's say someone here gets angry at what I'm saying about psych drugs. A brain scan would show their brain chemistry change as they got angry. So which made them angry - my post, or the chemicals in their brain?

Saying that neurotransmitters are the cause of mental problems is like saying that arm muscles are the cause of fistfights, or legs are the cause of running. It's warped reasoning that's supposed to legitimize intervention with psychotropic drugs

I'm pro drug, btw. I guarantee that if our society wasn't waging this asinine War on Drugs, all this "chemical imbalance theory" marketing wouldn't exist - it wouldn't be necessary. In the meantime, the average person believes that it's "immoral" to turn to drugs during times of stress or unhappiness - hence the disease model being used to market the legal mood-altering drugs.

I don't think you understand depression. It's not the same as being momentarily angry or sad; it's a long term change. It is a pathology which might have either biochemical or situational origins, but the outcome is biochemical, and long-term depression causes pathological changes in the brain. It's a disease, not an emotion.

I don't think the comparison to recreational drugs is valid. Most of the addictive recreational drugs involve a dopamine blast, while most antidepressants involve a slow change in serotonin level. (Yes, there are exceptions.) The dopamine hit is playing with the brain's reward circuitry; it's "cheating" in that it creates an abnormal situation. Tweaking serotonin levels isn't creating an abnormal situation, it's creating a normal one.

[moleface]

I don't think you understand depression. It's not the same as being momentarily angry or sad; it's a long term change. It is a pathology which might have either biochemical or situational origins, but the outcome is biochemical, and long-term depression causes pathological changes in the brain. It's a disease, not an emotion.

Let me ask you this - how can you discern the difference between the "disease" depression and long term unhappiness? Psychiatrists claim that if it lasts for more than two weeks, it's a disease. So there's no valid reason to be unhappy for more than two weeks unless your brain is diseased? It seems more likely to me that being consistently unhappy for two weeks is the established criteria under which psychiatrists deem it "ok" for you to turn to their synthetic uppers to help you with your problems. If you examine the checklist used to diagnose clinical depression, it's basically just a "Are you Sad Enough to Go On Uppers?" quiz.

OF COURSE there's a chemical change when someone's deeply unhappy. Why would deep unhappiness involve the activation of the same receptors as euphoria or elation? That wouldn't even make any sense - every emotion involves a different complex set of biochemical reactions. The "chemical imbalance" you're describing is just how the brain expresses severe unhappiness.

I don't think the comparison to recreational drugs is valid. Most of the addictive recreational drugs involve a dopamine blast, while most antidepressants involve a slow change in serotonin level. (Yes, there are exceptions.) The dopamine hit is playing with the brain's reward circuitry; it's "cheating" in that it creates an abnormal situation. Tweaking serotonin levels isn't creating an abnormal situation, it's creating a normal one.

I didn't say that psych drugs are exactly the same as illegal drugs- I'm simply pointing out that they produce their effects via the same mechanisms as "recreational" drugs and thus can be proven to artificially alter the mood, not treat an illness.

Address my example - why is my "theory" of marijuana not equally as valid as the psych drug "theories"? Do you find it a bit suspicious that the exact same reasoning can easily be applied to ANY drug in existence, recreational or otherwise? It doesn't bode well for the theory's validity.

If caffeine wakes you up in the morning, does that mean your brain was suffering from an imbalance of adenosine? Or does it seem more logical that caffeine's effect on adenosine is just the mechanism through which the drug produces stimulation?

Edited by moleface, 15 July 2011 - 03:20 AM.

[aaron43]

Why would deep unhappiness involve the activation of the same receptors as euphoria or elation? That wouldn't even make any sense - every emotion involves a different complex set of biochemical reactions. The "chemical imbalance" you're describing is just how the brain expresses severe unhappiness.

Yes exactly

Edited by aaron43, 15 July 2011 - 03:24 AM.

[niner]

I don't think you understand depression. It's not the same as being momentarily angry or sad; it's a long term change. It is a pathology which might have either biochemical or situational origins, but the outcome is biochemical, and long-term depression causes pathological changes in the brain. It's a disease, not an emotion.

Let me ask you this - how can you discern the difference between the "disease" depression and long term unhappiness? Psychiatrists claim that if it lasts for more than two weeks, it's a disease. So there's no valid reason to be unhappy for more than two weeks unless your brain is diseased? It seems more likely to me that being consistently unhappy for two weeks is the established criteria under which psychiatrists deem it "ok" for you to turn to their synthetic uppers to help you with your problems. If you examine the official checklist criteria used to diagnose clinical depression, it's basically just a "Are you Sad Enough to Go On Uppers?" quiz.

OF COURSE there's a chemical change when someone's deeply unhappy. Why would deep unhappiness involve the activation of the same receptors as euphoria or elation? That wouldn't even make any sense - every emotion involves a different complex set of neurochemical reactions. The "chemical imbalance" you're describing is just how the brain expresses severe unhappiness.

Depression has physical symptoms. You stop caring about things you used to like, you're sleepy all the time, all kinds of things happen that go beyond mere 'unhappiness'. Who said anything about 'the same receptors as euphoria'? When you call SSRIs "uppers", it's as though you are comparing them to amphetamines. That's wrong on several levels.

I don't think the comparison to recreational drugs is valid. Most of the addictive recreational drugs involve a dopamine blast, while most antidepressants involve a slow change in serotonin level. (Yes, there are exceptions.) The dopamine hit is playing with the brain's reward circuitry; it's "cheating" in that it creates an abnormal situation. Tweaking serotonin levels isn't creating an abnormal situation, it's creating a normal one.

I didn't say that psych drugs are exactly the same as illegal drugs- I'm simply pointing out that they produce their effects via the same mechanisms as "recreational" drugs and thus can be proven to artificially alter the mood, not address an illness.

Did you understand the text you just quoted? They aren't the same mechanisms. They are completely different mechanisms.
You sound like a doper who's angry that the drugs that you like are illegal while the drugs that other people use are also psychotropic, but are legal.

[moleface]

I don't think you understand depression. It's not the same as being momentarily angry or sad; it's a long term change. It is a pathology which might have either biochemical or situational origins, but the outcome is biochemical, and long-term depression causes pathological changes in the brain. It's a disease, not an emotion.

Let me ask you this - how can you discern the difference between the "disease" depression and long term unhappiness? Psychiatrists claim that if it lasts for more than two weeks, it's a disease. So there's no valid reason to be unhappy for more than two weeks unless your brain is diseased? It seems more likely to me that being consistently unhappy for two weeks is the established criteria under which psychiatrists deem it "ok" for you to turn to their synthetic uppers to help you with your problems. If you examine the official checklist criteria used to diagnose clinical depression, it's basically just a "Are you Sad Enough to Go On Uppers?" quiz.

OF COURSE there's a chemical change when someone's deeply unhappy. Why would deep unhappiness involve the activation of the same receptors as euphoria or elation? That wouldn't even make any sense - every emotion involves a different complex set of neurochemical reactions. The "chemical imbalance" you're describing is just how the brain expresses severe unhappiness.

Depression has physical symptoms. You stop caring about things you used to like, you're sleepy all the time, all kinds of things happen that go beyond mere 'unhappiness'. Who said anything about 'the same receptors as euphoria'? When you call SSRIs "uppers", it's as though you are comparing them to amphetamines. That's wrong on several levels.

I don't think the comparison to recreational drugs is valid. Most of the addictive recreational drugs involve a dopamine blast, while most antidepressants involve a slow change in serotonin level. (Yes, there are exceptions.) The dopamine hit is playing with the brain's reward circuitry; it's "cheating" in that it creates an abnormal situation. Tweaking serotonin levels isn't creating an abnormal situation, it's creating a normal one.

I didn't say that psych drugs are exactly the same as illegal drugs- I'm simply pointing out that they produce their effects via the same mechanisms as "recreational" drugs and thus can be proven to artificially alter the mood, not address an illness.

Did you understand the text you just quoted? They aren't the same mechanisms. They are completely different mechanisms.
You sound like a doper who's angry that the drugs that you like are illegal while the drugs that other people use are also psychotropic, but are legal.

I guess I have to take that because you're a mod. Once again, in the face of logic, proponents of psychiatry have to resort to ad hominem nonsense to defend their religion. Typical.

I don't think you understand my point. Reuptake inhibition of the same receptors results in the same sort of effects, only with a gentler come-up vs a straight agonist. That's the point I've been making, not that psych drugs get you "high". SSRIs act on the same parts of the brain as synthetic uppers, but stimulate those areas of the brain without inducing as much of a pronounced high. This illustrates that they're just inducing a low-level version of the effects produced by the illegal drugs.

And of course you couldn't address the marijuana or caffeine examples. Cognitive dissonance is a b_tch, eh?


Ok, let me just eliminate any of my own bias from this and just state a couple basic undisputable facts -

SSRI medications increase levels of serotonin and either a)dopamine or b) norepinephrine.

Cocaine is an agonist of serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine.


Even though reuptake inhibition is a gentler way to achieve elevated serotonin levels vs a straight agonist, in both cases the mood is being artificially boosted by an external substance via stimulation of the exact same receptors.

I guess this is where I get kicked, or called a Scientologist. The very fact that you have to resort to this sort of nonsense illustrates that deep down, you know you can't address any of my points.

Edited by moleface, 15 July 2011 - 03:55 AM.

[nezxon]

Let me ask you this - how can you discern the difference between the "disease" depression and long term unhappiness? Psychiatrists claim that if it lasts for more than two weeks, it's a disease. So there's no valid reason to be unhappy for more than two weeks unless your brain is diseased? It seems more likely to me that being consistently unhappy for two weeks is the established criteria under which psychiatrists deem it "ok" for you to turn to their synthetic uppers to help you with your problems. If you examine the checklist used to diagnose clinical depression, it's basically just a "Are you Sad Enough to Go On Uppers?" quiz.

You said you're interested in logical fallacies. I find your argument to be constructed mostly of the circular reasoning. It seems your entire argument rests on the assumption that we agree that mental illness and mood imbalance is not a disease. You're claiming that SSRIs don't treat a disease because you don't classify the thing they treat as a disease.

I don't think that's basic logic or reasoning at all. That's why I described your post as dogmatic, because I think you have a belief system constructed around mental illness, psychiatry, and drugs. It doesn't seem to me like you're discussing the matter or even arguing about it so much as just preaching. You don't even have any disagreements on the mechanisms, you only seem to disagree with the philosophy of why SSRIs are used.

[moleface]

Let me ask you this - how can you discern the difference between the "disease" depression and long term unhappiness? Psychiatrists claim that if it lasts for more than two weeks, it's a disease. So there's no valid reason to be unhappy for more than two weeks unless your brain is diseased? It seems more likely to me that being consistently unhappy for two weeks is the established criteria under which psychiatrists deem it "ok" for you to turn to their synthetic uppers to help you with your problems. If you examine the checklist used to diagnose clinical depression, it's basically just a "Are you Sad Enough to Go On Uppers?" quiz.

You said you're interested in logical fallacies. I find your argument to be constructed mostly of the circular reasoning. It seems your entire argument rests on the assumption that we agree that mental illness and mood imbalance is not a disease. You're claiming that SSRIs don't treat a disease because you don't classify the thing they treat as a disease.

I don't think that's basic logic or reasoning at all. That's why I described your post as dogmatic, because I think you have a belief system constructed around mental illness, psychiatry, and drugs. It doesn't seem to me like you're discussing the matter or even arguing about it so much as just preaching. You don't even have any disagreements on the mechanisms, you only seem to disagree with the philosophy of why SSRIs are used.

I never assumed that anyone here agreed that mental illness and mood imbalance is not a disease - I'm not sure what you mean. I didn't start with the premise that depression isn't a valid disease - I arrived at that point by pointing out the logical fallacies and blatant inconsistencies involved in the "chemical imbalance theory".

You're the one using circular logic, actually. If you honestly contemplate my marijuana or caffeine examples, you'll find that they follow precisely the same train of logic used in psych drug marketing and are just as inherently unprovable.

The problem with your definition of disease is that pretty much anything could be classified as a disease. It's similar to how the media has it both ways with the term "addiction" - the way it's used implies a physical dependence, but the actual definition can actually be applied to any socially unacceptable behavior.

Edited by moleface, 15 July 2011 - 04:03 AM.

[Logan]

I definitely feel that generic paroxetine i took for 9 months screwed me up BIG time! I am not saying ssri don't work, they do, but at what cost? If I knew that paroxetine would not only kill my pure O (which was due to caffeine overstimulation), but also my motivation, zest for life and normal anxiety which always made me challenge my fears, and made me grow from that, and left me unable to excite over things I used to and also left me with debilitating insomnia, which feels organic, i would NEVER EVER put this drug in my system! I would deal with pure O and anxiety by myself. That's why it is called flight or fight response, you either fight it or you run away. I was willing to fight, like I did my whole life, but was misled from my psych who told me that it is a light drug and I should be ok on it very soon. I don't even blame him, he was prob misled by big pharma too! I hope I'll recover in time from all the residual withdrawal symptoms i am left with and emotional trauma i had to go through because of paroxetine....

Paroxetine was the problem here, it's by far the worst SSRI. Your idosyncratic reaction was a factor here as well, everyone is different. I know plenty of people who have gotten on and off SSRIs without any issues.

Edited by MorganM, 15 July 2011 - 04:04 AM.

[Logan]

Emotions Make the Memory Last

My main issue with SSRI's. Cutting to the chase: I anecdotally believe that SSRI's numb ones emotion's to a seratonin dominant level. Without this range of fluctuation in emotions, sad being just as strong an emotion as happy, could it be that one might actually be putting themselves in a detrimental situation as to not give themselves a chance to naturally learn (which is done from memory) from the situations that are causing the problem both past/present? Sadness is just as instrumental an emotion as happiness, and with respect to human nature, I feel, should not be ignored. How does this affect one's personality to ignore an emotion that is just as instrumental in learning/life as happiness is?

People who use SSRIs can still be sad. I don't think that most people who use them find that their emotions are 'numb', though I'm sure you could find someone for whom that might be the case. They aren't like anesthetics, though.

During my 7 good years on Zoloft, I had all the empathy in the world, crying for others when it was appropriate. While SSRIs can blunt emotions some, they do not wipe out the ability to feel sad, cry, feel joy, and experience anger. I also had a fucking fantastic memory while doing well on SSRIs. Sheesh, SSRIs are so misunderstood. Don't base your beliefs on what the minority of the population on SSRIs reports on the internet. The rest of the population of people doing well on SSRIs are out there living life, the last thing they are thinking about is starting forums where they can constantly go on the internet and report how wonderful things are.

[Logan]

Should we look at medicine for cognitive problems in the same light as we do bodily (viral, injury, ect.) medicine?

The more we learn about the brain, the more we see that it is a biochemical device. It's special in that it's programmable, but when the biochemistry is broken, things go wrong. As we come to understand the biochemistry, we can intervene more successfully. So I think the answer to your question is: Yes, with the caveat that we should not ignore the programming.

I agree.. I also think we should not ignore the power of the human psyche, something I realize that will take us a much longer time to understand the complexity of, much longer than biochemicals and neurotransmitters. We do have a fairly good understanding of how the human psyche responds to things and how it affects biochemical reactions.

[moleface]

So if your spouse dies, the resulting depression constitutes a disease? If so, then clearly the issue here is an overly liberal use of the term "disease". If that's the case, then you people have been arguing with me over semantics. It's obvious that I was talking about diseases in the sense of tissue being affected by some sort of pathogen. Your definition of "disease" could apply to just about anything, so it's essentially meaningless. So yeah, depression is a disease... and under this definition of disease, just about anything could be classified as one.

So if a grieving person responds to an SSRI, it's evidence that they're suffering from a "chemical imbalance"? Even though it can be clearly demonstrated that all the other NON-psychiatric drugs that boost serotonin are euphoric stimulants that artificially elevate the mood? It's just a coincidence that the prescription drugs of choice to improve mood JUST SO HAPPEN to also act on two thirds of the same three neurotransmitters responsible for cocaine's euphoric effects? Right.

[niner]

I don't think you understand depression. It's not the same as being momentarily angry or sad; it's a long term change. It is a pathology which might have either biochemical or situational origins, but the outcome is biochemical, and long-term depression causes pathological changes in the brain. It's a disease, not an emotion.

Let me ask you this - how can you discern the difference between the "disease" depression and long term unhappiness? Psychiatrists claim that if it lasts for more than two weeks, it's a disease. So there's no valid reason to be unhappy for more than two weeks unless your brain is diseased? It seems more likely to me that being consistently unhappy for two weeks is the established criteria under which psychiatrists deem it "ok" for you to turn to their synthetic uppers to help you with your problems. If you examine the official checklist criteria used to diagnose clinical depression, it's basically just a "Are you Sad Enough to Go On Uppers?" quiz.

OF COURSE there's a chemical change when someone's deeply unhappy. Why would deep unhappiness involve the activation of the same receptors as euphoria or elation? That wouldn't even make any sense - every emotion involves a different complex set of neurochemical reactions. The "chemical imbalance" you're describing is just how the brain expresses severe unhappiness.

Depression has physical symptoms. You stop caring about things you used to like, you're sleepy all the time, all kinds of things happen that go beyond mere 'unhappiness'. Who said anything about 'the same receptors as euphoria'? When you call SSRIs "uppers", it's as though you are comparing them to amphetamines. That's wrong on several levels.

I don't think the comparison to recreational drugs is valid. Most of the addictive recreational drugs involve a dopamine blast, while most antidepressants involve a slow change in serotonin level. (Yes, there are exceptions.) The dopamine hit is playing with the brain's reward circuitry; it's "cheating" in that it creates an abnormal situation. Tweaking serotonin levels isn't creating an abnormal situation, it's creating a normal one.

I didn't say that psych drugs are exactly the same as illegal drugs- I'm simply pointing out that they produce their effects via the same mechanisms as "recreational" drugs and thus can be proven to artificially alter the mood, not address an illness.

Did you understand the text you just quoted? They aren't the same mechanisms. They are completely different mechanisms.
You sound like a doper who's angry that the drugs that you like are illegal while the drugs that other people use are also psychotropic, but are legal.

I guess I have to take that because you're a mod. Once again, in the face of logic, proponents of psychiatry have to resort to ad hominem nonsense to defend their religion. Typical.

I don't think you understand my point. Reuptake inhibition of the same receptors results in the same sort of effects, only with a gentler come-up vs a straight agonist. That's the point I've been making, not that psych drugs get you "high". SSRIs act on the same parts of the brain as synthetic uppers, but stimulate those areas of the brain without inducing as much of a pronounced high. This illustrates that they're just inducing a low-level version of the effects produced by the illegal drugs.

And of course you couldn't address the marijuana or caffeine examples. Cognitive dissonance is a b_tch, eh?

Ok, let me just eliminate any of my own bias from this and just state a couple basic undisputable facts -

SSRI medications increase levels of serotonin and either a)dopamine or b) norepinephrine.

Cocaine is an agonist of serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine.

Even though reuptake inhibition is a gentler way to achieve elevated serotonin levels vs a straight agonist, in both cases the mood is being artificially boosted by an external substance via stimulation of the exact same receptors.

I guess this is where I get kicked, or called a Scientologist. The very fact that you have to resort to this sort of nonsense illustrates that deep down, you know you can't address any of my points.

I can address your points, but you don't seem very receptive. SSRI is an acronym for Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor. The only commonly used antidepressant that significantly inhibits the dopamine transporter is bupropion, and it is a WEAK inhibitor. Cocaine is a much stronger inhibitor of the DAT. In this game, things aren't binary. Potency matters. A lot. I had no intention of discussing weed and coffee; they are irrelevant to this discussion. Cognitive dissonance has nothing to do with it.

[nezxon]

I guess this is where I get kicked, or called a Scientologist. The very fact that you have to resort to this sort of nonsense illustrates that deep down, you know you can't address any of my points.

At this point, I think it just sounds to me like you're whining. I'm not able to identify many clear points to address. I think your posts express a broad vocabulary, clearly you've read some material and picked up some key words relating to formal argument, psychiatry, and chemistry. It seems to me like you've only learned the concepts in order to find ways to attack them, you don't appear to have any interest in the topics of nootropics, mental illness, or SSRIs, only to the extent that you feel it's your duty to preach against them.

I think everyone in this thread has been nothing but calm, polite, fair, and objective. None of your posts show any acknowledgement that you even gave the most cursory thought to the responses you get. In each case that someone makes an attempt at debating or refuting what you say you gloss over it with a few "eraser" statements and ramp right back up to post exactly the same thing with slightly different verbiage.

[Insomniac]

I don't think ssri are that selective, they affect other compounds od brain as well, such as amygdala, pitutiary gland, HPA axis etc.....not to mention thyroid, adrenal glands etc....
And how is paroxetine shitty comparin to other ADs? It is known to be the most potent one, next to venlafaxine, and apparently the worst one to get off of due to short half life. And it is one of the most prescribed ADs. You might as well bw lucky, you aren't sensitive that much to medication, since it is working for you for years. But we all know that drugs are not forever. I am not trying to scare yoy or anything, but have you considered possibility of drug poop out? Have you tried to get off Zoloft for a while to see what happens? I think you will have a very hard time (unless you taper very slowly, like 10% every few weeks), because your brain and your body is so rewired and adjusted to drug, that if you take it away you'll have all the long lasting withdrawal effects... Why were you put on SSRI in the first place if I may know?
To me Paroxetine just makes you artificially happy, but I cannot call it happiness, it is rather blunting of emotion when you are going through a rough time so you can cope better. It certainly isn't for long term use. I miss my old self.

[aaron43]

Emotions Make the Memory Last

My main issue with SSRI's. Cutting to the chase: I anecdotally believe that SSRI's numb ones emotion's to a seratonin dominant level. Without this range of fluctuation in emotions, sad being just as strong an emotion as happy, could it be that one might actually be putting themselves in a detrimental situation as to not give themselves a chance to naturally learn (which is done from memory) from the situations that are causing the problem both past/present? Sadness is just as instrumental an emotion as happiness, and with respect to human nature, I feel, should not be ignored. How does this affect one's personality to ignore an emotion that is just as instrumental in learning/life as happiness is?

People who use SSRIs can still be sad. I don't think that most people who use them find that their emotions are 'numb', though I'm sure you could find someone for whom that might be the case. They aren't like anesthetics, though.

During my 7 good years on Zoloft, I had all the empathy in the world, crying for others when it was appropriate. While SSRIs can blunt emotions some, they do not wipe out the ability to feel sad, cry, feel joy, and experience anger. I also had a fucking fantastic memory while doing well on SSRIs. Sheesh, SSRIs are so misunderstood. Don't base your beliefs on what the minority of the population on SSRIs reports on the internet. The rest of the population of people doing well on SSRIs are out there living life, the last thing they are thinking about is starting forums where they can constantly go on the internet and report how wonderful things are.

So lets say you never took SSRI's, and were subject to some sort of brain chemical composition analysis. Are you saying that if the test printed out the results of how appropriate your levels of dopamine, serotonin, norepenephrine are, in contrast to what the average should be, you'd say that your serotonin production levels were below normal? That simply increasing serotonin is the answer?
I just think that SSRI's are not the complete answer, that yes they do artificially boost one's mood, and yes the depressed person may not have a lack in serotonin that is causing the depression, but an artifical boost will still increase one's mood enough to describe it as a positive result.
I believe that depression is a rather complex issue, and that the answer is not as simple as saying "increase seratonin". I feel that it is almost an ignorant treatment in the aspect that if some one is depressed the doctors basically prescribe "give them more of the drug that makes them feel happy."
I believe that for depression treatment to be effective, it must work on the most fundamental values, and that is adding value to one's self. For this to occur, one must have the ability to learn, and must also have the ability to be motivated to learn. I feel this is not as easy as increasing serotonin.
But then again, there are always cases as a spouse dying ect. that have proper needs to deal with grievences. And that, I have no room to talk on.

[Logan]

Arron, dude, I have no idea why you even care about this subject. Why does it really matter whether or not people take SSRIs to feel better? If someone takes magnesium or lithium to support the brain so they feel better, function better, and deal with stress better, are they artificially enhancing themselves? Nope, they are not. So, yeah, SSRIs are drugs that have been synthesized in a lab, but the end result is a reaction that naturally occurs in the brain to these drugs.

If you have not ever experienced significant impaired function and impaired ability to feel things-things as simple as a beautiful spring day- you really are in no position to judge whether or not taking SSRIs, or anything for that matter, in an attempt to reach a more "normal" state that gives on relief from pain and discomfort, is the right or wrong approach. This is why I never judge anyone anymore for smoking marijuana on a regular basis.

I do not believe that my issues with bipolar states, anxiety, and depression are solely rooted in brain chemistry dysfunction or deficit. I am fully aware of all the things that contribute to mental illness, and, I have a very good understanding of all the things that are necessary to reach a point where one can better manage depression and heal some from it's causes-i.e. therapy, group therapy, medication, diet, supplements(omega 3s, magnesium, lithium), positive relationships, etc. What you have to understand is that chronic depression, anxiety, and agitated mood states can alter brain chemistry to a point where it becomes very difficult to recover from and return to normal. I'm the first to admit that SSRIs are far from perfect, but considering the very short time that we have been developing drugs to help treat mental illness, SSRIs are pretty damn good.

Edited by MorganM, 16 July 2011 - 04:12 AM.

[aaron43]

Arron, dude, I have no idea why you even care about this subject.

Why do I care? Because this a nootropic/biochemistry forum. Not really a forum for judgments and anecdotal convincing. Its my right to question, not the reason for people taking it, but the product itself for progressive purposes. That, though these pharmaceuticals may make the person feel better, I feel that they are counter productive in how they treat depression. As in curing oneself from depression. They make the person feel better for the time being, but does not correct the issue.
Not being argumentative, not attacking, just trying to provoke points to generate progressive discussion. But like I was saying, to me it seems that SSRI's mask the symptoms very well, but I feel our current techniques in how we implement SSRI's and what we expect the results to be from just taking it are far-overlooking the aspects that lead to overcoming depression (motivation, happiness, sadness, learning, progress, self-worth, outward thinking ect,). My point is, that we hand people SSRI's, and in our current system people expect to instantly be better, but when the script runs out, their first thought is how should I get more. SSRI's can be helpful, but may actually be effective as a treatment and cure when used with Cognitive Behavioral training, and a consistent desire to change. I don't know how one can prescribe that. But since you can't, I feel that one must focus on the aspects such as motivation, learning, ect just as much as increasing serotonin to get out of a rut.

[Logan]

Arron, dude, I have no idea why you even care about this subject.

Why do I care? Because this a nootropic/biochemistry forum. Not really a forum for judgments and anecdotal convincing. Its my right to question, not the reason for people taking it, but the product itself for progressive purposes. That, though these pharmaceuticals may make the person feel better, I feel that they are counter productive in how they treat depression. As in curing oneself from depression. They make the person feel better for the time being, but does not correct the issue.
Not being argumentative, not attacking, just trying to provoke points to generate progressive discussion. But like I was saying, to me it seems that SSRI's mask the symptoms very well, but I feel our current techniques in how we implement SSRI's and what we expect the results to be from just taking it are far-overlooking the aspects that lead to overcoming depression (motivation, happiness, sadness, learning, progress, self-worth, outward thinking ect,). My point is, that we hand people SSRI's, and in our current system people expect to instantly be better, but when the script runs out, their first thought is how should I get more. SSRI's can be helpful, but may actually be effective as a treatment and cure when used with Cognitive Behavioral training, and a consistent desire to change. I don't know how one can prescribe that. But since you can't, I feel that one must focus on the aspects such as motivation, learning, ect just as much as increasing serotonin to get out of a rut.

You still don't get it. It's not about simply getting out of a rut for many people, it's about a constant life long struggle.

I agree that SSRIs are not the solution, but I don't think you fully understand what is going on with sufferers of mental illness. It's likely half internal psychological conflict and half biological. So how are you going to fix the biological? And how long do you expect people to suffer before they figure it all out? Reality check bro-life is short, and there isn't much time to waste feeling like you're the walking dead.

There is evidence that environmental factors alter the development of how certain systems in the brain function. How are you going to magically rewire these systems? Is it going to take ten years? Twenty years? Maybe never dude. Some things cannot be fully repaired. I believe very strongly in the value of psychodynamic therapy, CBT, and psychodynamic group therapy. I believe in the ability to heal from past wounds and am so passionate about it, I have concered pursuing a career as a therapist. But I do not believe it is possibly for many people that have genetic predispositions and far from ideal upbringings, to completely heal and function at a high level without some type of assistance from medication.

I also agree that SSRIs are unfortunately prescribed too often.

Yes, this is a nootropics forum. So??? SSRIs have brought my brain and many others' back from the dead, back to fairly high function. I could focus better, memorize things better, and read better when doing well on SSRIs. Like I said before, SSRIs are far from perfect, and some may have pretty awful experiences with them, but considering that we've only been doing the psychiatry thing for about 50 years or so, SSRIs are pretty amazing drugs IMO.

[nito]

Arron, dude, I have no idea why you even care about this subject.

Why do I care? Because this a nootropic/biochemistry forum. Not really a forum for judgments and anecdotal convincing. Its my right to question, not the reason for people taking it, but the product itself for progressive purposes. That, though these pharmaceuticals may make the person feel better, I feel that they are counter productive in how they treat depression. As in curing oneself from depression. They make the person feel better for the time being, but does not correct the issue.
Not being argumentative, not attacking, just trying to provoke points to generate progressive discussion. But like I was saying, to me it seems that SSRI's mask the symptoms very well, but I feel our current techniques in how we implement SSRI's and what we expect the results to be from just taking it are far-overlooking the aspects that lead to overcoming depression (motivation, happiness, sadness, learning, progress, self-worth, outward thinking ect,). My point is, that we hand people SSRI's, and in our current system people expect to instantly be better, but when the script runs out, their first thought is how should I get more. SSRI's can be helpful, but may actually be effective as a treatment and cure when used with Cognitive Behavioral training, and a consistent desire to change. I don't know how one can prescribe that. But since you can't, I feel that one must focus on the aspects such as motivation, learning, ect just as much as increasing serotonin to get out of a rut.

You still don't get it. It's not about simply getting out of a rut for many people, it's about a constant life long struggle.

I agree that SSRIs are not the solution, but I don't think you fully understand what is going on with sufferers of mental illness. It's likely half internal psychological conflict and half biological. So how are you going to fix the biological? And how long do you expect people to suffer before they figure it all out? Reality check bro-life is short, and there isn't much time to waste feeling like you're the walking dead.

There is evidence that environmental factors alter the development of how certain systems in the brain function. How are you going to magically rewire these systems? Is it going to take ten years? Twenty years? Maybe never dude. Some things cannot be fully repaired. I believe very strongly in the value of psychodynamic therapy, CBT, and psychodynamic group therapy. I believe in the ability to heal from past wounds and am so passionate about it, I have concered pursuing a career as a therapist. But I do not believe it is possibly for many people that have genetic predispositions and far from ideal upbringings, to completely heal and function at a high level without some type of assistance from medication.

I also agree that SSRIs are unfortunately prescribed too often.

Yes, this is a nootropics forum. So??? SSRIs have brought my brain and many others' back from the dead, back to fairly high function. I could focus better, memorize things better, and read better when doing well on SSRIs. Like I said before, SSRIs are far from perfect, and some may have pretty awful experiences with them, but considering that we've only been doing the psychiatry thing for about 50 years or so, SSRIs are pretty amazing drugs IMO.

Hey Morgan which SSRi r u on at the moment?
To add to the discussion a friend of mine was taken to a mental ward to be treated for severe depression. I have no clue what they gave him but someone visited him and when he returned 2 weeks after for a second visit the guy apparently had no re collection of it. I'm thinking it must have been a high dose of something crazy!