The Medical Thread

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

When I say "argue", I mean this...

I probably should say "discuss" as the appropriate terminology... What we are trying to do is persuade each other of our concepts to learn what is really going on here. We are not yet in debate...

@bolded: With these comments, I agree with you, most people fail to get adequate mental health care, if at all.

The profits from Big Pharma probably overshadowing appropriate care of these patients. What I am saying is that there has been a shift in mental health care from talk therapy to that of the concrete, biological, evidence based neurochemical provable... The two should be working together because in mental illnesses 1) quite a few people are born with imbalances; and 2) learning, environment and nurturing as well as personality development play a huge role into someone's behavior.

The drug treatment and efficacy should be used on someone who cannot sift through a difficulty, BUT more importantly, that person should undergo somekind of talk treatment to validate and confirm societal standards on civil behavior...

Long time ago, a child acting out in a public setting was unheard of and a parent could physically discipline their child, publicly, if they wanted to.

Today, a child can act out in a public setting, no one will say anything, and clients are disturbed. It has caused some places of business not to allow children into the establishments. The parent usually takes the child to the restroom and resolves the issue, what some would say placating...

No one questions how it might damage the psyche on one identifying boundaries on this growing child. If a child has a predisposition to ADHD, will adderall, ritalin or whatever treatment really enable child to be functional in behavior?

But without treatment, that child would be lost to the system of violent outbursts and uneducated due to behavioral problems.

What to do...

Then we haven't gotten to appropriate diagnosis...

o.k. you just made me feel like a total idiot. So this is a discussion not an argument. lol o.k.

AKA_Monet, I'm not trying to persuade you to change your opinion. You've made some very valid points. I just want you see my side just a little.

What grabbed my attention from your last post, was the fact that you were talking about how things were with children years ago, and how things are different now. Yes, it is. My point precisely! Going back to the DSM manuals, the prevailing term to describe specific psychiatric conditions in the 1st DSM manual was kind of odd. The term reaction is what was used back then. Like Schizophrenia for example was described as a schizophrenic "reaction". Depression was considered a depressive "reaction". The concept of "reaction" derived from psychoanalytic thinking, and as such, mental torment was thought to come about as a result of a reaction to "environmental", pschological and biological problems, as you stated above. By the time the 2nd DSM manual was published, the term "reaction" had been tossed aside. It described depression in more psychological terms such as depressive neurosis and depressive psychosis. Now, by the time the 3rd DSM manual was published, it was an attempt to strike somewhat of a middle ground between the psychoanalytic parts, which had no interesest in biology, nor the scientists who were starting to gain more knowledge as psychiatric drugs were becoming more prevalant and often successfully treating people with severe mental illness.

From the 1st DSM manual to the 3rd one, there a was a significant change. That being somewhere around the 50s to the 60s. Things have changed again and it will continue. I'm just trying to reiterate what you stated about how things were with children years ago and how things are now. I'm just using a different approach. Now, you tell me. Why is that "years" ago you NEVER, EVER, EVER, saw prescription drugs being advertised on televison? Now it's like every day. I can't watch t.v. without some random commercial about some prescription drug being shown to the public for all to see. Oh, and lets not talk about all the side effects. The advertising is about what I've been trying to get you to see, if I haven't already, that it's more about the profits than it is about the actual health care of the patient, and this is what it has CHANGED into. Period.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by darling1

your discussion has been wonderful. the dialogue has been on point. from personal experience, the benefit of proper medication and talk therapy does help in the treatment of mental illness. there are many people who do not have the benefit of both whether it's accessibility or cost, OR even culture, which plays a huge role in proper treatment.

i hope this type of discussion continues.

But that's my point. Many people are not getting the proper treatment.

[Koios]

Wow. This is too much information to take in.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

However, many of these drugs used to treat depression (Major Clinical, and/or biopolar I or II, with psychotic episodes) according to the exact definitions of the DSM, MD Consult and Online consult schedules with full case conference review, are legit for the treatment of this illness... That is why psychiatrists are scheduled to prescribe these medications, rather than a GP or Family Doctor...

I know a Family Doc, Internal Med doc or a GP is not going to want the DEA asking questions as to why they prescribed one too many antidepressants without a mental eval referral...

Family Practice and Internal Medicine doctors are "scheduled" to prescribe these medications, and the DEA does not track how many prescriptions non- psychiatrists give for depression.
If only psychiatrists and psychologists (in states that give prescribing rights to pyschologists) were the only people able to treat mental illness, then there would be a lot of people with no access to mental health care. There are many areas with few psychiatrist. These practitioners stay full for appointments. Any physician who is willing to follow the outcome of a disease can appropriately prescribe these medications. The side effects are very rare for this class of medications, and I'm sure a board certified physician can assess for those effects as well as a psychiatrist. As for whether every person with depression should get "talk therapy," that's the ideal but not the practical solution to a very common disease.

[cheerfulgreek]

While we're on the subject of medication, How much is too much? In some cases is it even necessary? Like autism for example. I think some of the vaccines are the problem with this epidemic. I don't know much about it, but I do believe that deliberating symptoms of autism typically become apparent at a very early age, like age 2 or 3, not long after infants have received vaccinations for a host of diseases. Many parents claim that their children developed autism shortly after inoculations(tests) either following a vaccine series of mumps, or measles, or vaccines that contain mercury.

I'm not sure if anyone heard of this, but has anyone heard of the MMR vaccine? There's a disease called "rumbella" which is often referred to as the German Measles. MMR means mumps, measles, and rumbella. I remember reading about a study regarding this vaccine. The study showed that symptoms of autism emerged shortly after children received the MMR vaccine. How much research is being done with the medications that are being prescribed to patients? How much research is being done on some of the vaccines we're taking into our bodies? I know there's lot a lot of research being done, but how much is a lot?

[BigRedBeta]

There is no credible study that has linked vaccines to autism.

It's rubella.

The rise in autism diagnoses is at least in part to expanding the diagnosis and increasing awareness of parents. A shocking number of parents asked me if their child was autistic when I was on my peds rotation when their kids were right on track or even developmentally advanced.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Family Practice and Internal Medicine doctors are "scheduled" to prescribe these medications, and the DEA does not track how many prescriptions non- psychiatrists give for depression.
If only psychiatrists and psychologists (in states that give prescribing rights to pyschologists) were the only people able to treat mental illness, then there would be a lot of people with no access to mental health care. There are many areas with few psychiatrist. These practitioners stay full for appointments. Any physician who is willing to follow the outcome of a disease can appropriately prescribe these medications. The side effects are very rare for this class of medications, and I'm sure a board certified physician can assess for those effects as well as a psychiatrist. As for whether every person with depression should get "talk therapy," that's the ideal but not the practical solution to a very common disease.

This is a new development for me, I did not know this... Maybe they take an extra duty or CME course to prescribe these drugs... Because in my opinion, there must be some "telltale" signs to "stave off symptoms" or "satisfy" until there is full diagnosis??? I don't know?

The FDA may need to track these drugs now because these days, with kids committing suicide on these medications...

Actually, the blood tests to monitor the effectiveness of these drugs is a different issue but also plays a role on the side effects. Some side effects are not a rare as one would think: such as buproprion, lamotragine, amitryptaline or olanzapine. SOME Family physicians do not pick up these symptoms or care... This comes with experience in the field.

And "talk therapy" may be impractical for many, but when the patient is an adult, the nature of these illnesses and why the behave the way they do, at this time and the only course of research that has been shown effective. Drugs cannot do this alone. And none of these classes of illnesses have been show to be directly caused by infection, yet...

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

While we're on the subject of medication, How much is too much? In some cases is it even necessary? Like autism for example. I think some of the vaccines are the problem with this epidemic. I don't know much about it, but I do believe that deliberating symptoms of autism typically become apparent at a very early age, like age 2 or 3, not long after infants have received vaccinations for a host of diseases. Many parents claim that their children developed autism shortly after inoculations(tests) either following a vaccine series of mumps, or measles, or vaccines that contain mercury.

I'm not sure if anyone heard of this, but has anyone heard of the MMR vaccine? There's a disease called "rumbella" which is often referred to as the German Measles. MMR means mumps, measles, and rumbella. I remember reading about a study regarding this vaccine. The study showed that symptoms of autism emerged shortly after children received the MMR vaccine. How much research is being done with the medications that are being prescribed to patients? How much research is being done on some of the vaccines we're taking into our bodies? I know there's lot a lot of research being done, but how much is a lot?

Sweetheart is RUBELLA!!! Like BigRed said... According to Robbins "Pathologic Basis of Disease" 5th Ed. rubella disease is not good because it causes so many birth defects... I think there are animal models that can get this...

Most vaccines nowadays are DNA vaccines. Very few are still heat-killed live virus to boost ones immunity.

What is vaccination biologically? Injection of nucleic acids into the body? By microbes and viruses alone do this. Does that change who we are? Depends. Humans generally care several different viruses that does not cause them to get sick, all the time. Adenovirus and AAV, cytomegalovirus (until one has HIV), etc.

Generally, there are standard curves with LC50 based on the nonhuman primate studies and/or cell biology studies. That is how they decide the concentrations for these things.

[cheerfulgreek]

Oh dear GOD!!!!! I am so embarrassed!! Rubella, Rubella, Rubella!! I seriously thought it was "rumbella". (giggling) Thanks? Well, you guys knew what I meant. Right?

o.k. you guys may be right, there is little evidence that vaccines cause autism, but it is possible that vaccines trigger autism in a small subset of children, but if so, that subset has yet to be identified. A study really was done in the 90s that investigated 12 children, and the study did reveal that symptoms of autism did emerge shortly after the MMR vaccine was given to them.

If it can't be proven that vaccines play a role in the increase of autism, can someone explain why the rates of autism continue to rise? Do you think genetic factors play a role? I honestly don't believe that genetic influences alone can account for such an astronomical rise in a disorder's prevalence over a matter of just a few years. Could environmental factors be a potential explanation? AKA_Monet mentioned something about environmental factors in an earlier post. We were discussing a different topic, but could this also fall under environmental factors?

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

If it can't be proven that vaccines play a role in the increase of autism, can someone explain why the rates of autism continue to rise? Do you think genetic factors play a role? I honestly don't believe that genetic influences alone can account for such an astronomical rise in a disorder's prevalence over a matter of just a few years. Could environmental factors be a potential explanation? AKA_Monet mentioned something about environmental factors in an earlier post. We were discussing a different topic, but could this also fall under environmental factors?

I do not think in an of itself, the actual "piece" or construct DNA that is truly the "vaccinating part" has ANYTHING to do with autism. But there IS precedence that an "outside" piece of the construct could cause a severely lethal allergic reaction. It has to do with the one of the first gene therapy using the Adenoviral construct to cure Cystic Fibrosis by Dr. James Wilson. He risked ALOT to do this therapy that goes against UN human clinical trials. And the 15 year old boy he did the gene therapy in died a horrid death. Fortunately, the boy's father was a lawyer...

Autism's symptoms has been shown to be EXACERBATED by environment. As far as what is causing it, it could be too much lead or other minute items that we regularly do now and consume -- hayle, it could be that we have too much tech chit abound that fries our brains and gets transmitted to a developing fetus... Who knows?

[AKA_Monet]

Cheerful-

Are you asking all these questions because you saw the Charlie Bartlett trailer?

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

hayle, it could be that we have too much tech chit abound that fries our brains and gets transmitted to a developing fetus... Who knows?

lol lol

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Cheerful-

Are you asking all these questions because you saw the Charlie Bartlett trailer?

lol lol lol lol

No, I just wanna read other opinions. I do wanna see that movie though. Does anyone know when it starts?

I just want to mention one more thing. Back to the DSM manual....o.k. I promise I won't bring up the the DSM anymore...lol.

I just wanted to mention something about the vaccines. There may be an overlooked alternative explanantion for this epidemic. Over time the the criteria for a diagnosis of autism have loosened, resulting in the labeling of substantially more mildly afflicted individuals as autistic. The 1980 version of the DSM required individuals to meet six of six criteria for an autism diagnosis, In contrast to that, the 1994 version, which is the version we're currently using requires individuals to meet any 8 of 16 criteria. The 1980 version contained only two diagnosis relevant to autism, DSM IV contains five including Asperger's syndrome which most researchers regard as a high functioning variant of autism.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Adenovirus and AAV, cytomegalovirus (until one has HIV), etc.

I want to elaborate on this too. Since we're on the subject of vaccines, is there one for AIDS? I remember when Bill Clinton set a national goal to develop an AIDS vaccine within a decade. Kennedy said he wanted to put a man on the moon to counter Russia's Sputnik launch from 1957. Kennedy's program worked, but we still have yet to see an AIDS vaccine.

Clinton did establish a research center at the National Institutes of Health, at the same time involving other nations in the effort.

There was an HIV vaccine back in the 80s, "VaxSyn" which is based on some kind of viral protein. I can't remember the name exactly, but I do know it was based on a viral protein. Anyway, it was unsuccessful, but then again, back in the 80s it was also thought that AIDS was gay related.

So what do you think? Do you think a successful vaccine can be created soon? Bill Clinton started this program some 10 years ago. Well, we're still waiting.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I want to elaborate on this too. Since we're on the subject of vaccines, is there one for AIDS? I remember when Bill Clinton set a national goal to develop an AIDS vaccine within a decade. Kennedy said he wanted to put a man on the moon to counter Russia's Sputnik launch from 1957. Kennedy's program worked, but we still have yet to see an AIDS vaccine.

Clinton did establish a research center at the National Institutes of Health, at the same time involving other nations in the effort.

There was an HIV vaccine back in the 80s, "VaxSyn" which is based on some kind of viral protein. I can't remember the name exactly, but I do know it was based on a viral protein. Anyway, it was unsuccessful, but then again, back in the 80s it was also thought that AIDS was gay related.

So what do you think? Do you think a successful vaccine can be created soon? Bill Clinton started this program some 10 years ago. Well, we're still waiting.

One of the HIV vaccine centers was at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. It has just come out unfortunately that the HIV vaccine failed. It did not protect anyone from becoming infected with HIV...

There is the issue that MAYBE HSV-2 infection has some protection against HIV, BUT I just read in JAMA that may not be all the accurate...

I do not understand why a vaccine cannot be made against HIV... It does not make sense? And what bakes my noodle even more is how come folks with advance HIV disease do not get "polio" or "MMR"?