"Virtualoso" wrote in message:
> In article , Tom G. > wrote:
> What's mainly missing in any of this is any actual, conclusive
> scientific basis for really determining whether or not there is some
> biophysical "thing", such as "depression" or "bipolar". What makes them
> "a disorder" is merely descriptions of certain "symptoms" (i.e.
> subjective feelings and behaviors) and then guesses about what maybe
> might be some particular brain stuff that could possibly be involved
> with that and perhaps a "cause." If not just another effect. At least
> as purely semanticly and jargonally articulated. There still aren't any
> manifest, clear lab or medical tests with which to truly identify any
> certain brain malady otherwise, regarding these.


Any diagnosis is initially come to by an interpretation of given
"symptoms", whether they can be evidenced by lab tests or
not... It wouldn't surprise me to discover that most problems
were diagnosed without benefit of lab tests and the like. A few
months ago I went to the doctor complainin' of pain in my
neck and a peculiar crackin' noise when I turned my head too
quickly. The doctor informed me that it was likely a touch of
arthritis... He explained that as we get older this shit happens and
suggested I take a few Ibuprofen and learn to live with it. The
Ibuprofen worked. No lab tests were necessary; you can tell I'm
gettin' long of tooth by lookin' at me...

> Same deal with the drugs.
>
> So, if a drug "makes you feel better" in a way that's wanted, or act in
> ways that others prefer, and it's okay for it to also make you feel
> ways you don't want or like, too, then let's call that "helping" or
> "benefitting" -- however it might be producing that effect. And
> whatever else it might be doing, too, including potentially serious
> harm. Right?


In the case of the Bipolar it isn't acting in a way "others prefer",
it's acting in a manner that roughly conforms to societal norms...
If a Bipolar goes on an axe murderin' spree I don't give a shit
whether his bodily chemical levels are abnormal, I'm just a tad
concerned about bein' in his way... If Lithium will prevent this I
think we've found a cause and effect and should go with that...
The shrinks used to use shock treatments and discontinued the
practice. Apparently the side effects were so bad that they
didn't balance the possible good...

> That's the very definition of "medicine" as different from simply
> drugs? Or does "medicine" actually "correct" and/or "cure" real,
> manifest, known and demonstrable biological conditions, and not just
> how we feel, think and believe about imagined ones?


There's a difference...??


\\\|///
\\ - - //
( @ @ )
---oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------------
Tom Gosnell thegoz@cox.net
--------------Oooo-------------
oooO ( )
( ) ) /
\ ( (_/
\_)

> > > ; and they
> > > generally have no stimulating effect on people not experiencing
> > > depression.
> >
> > Gosh, do they have a "stimulating effect" on anyone?
>
> No, they are a treatment for anxiety.

How can a "powerful drug" that effects brain function distinctly enough
to "correct" severe "depression" have no effect in anyone else? If it's
the "serotonin reuptake" function that's faulty in "depressed persons"
and so specifically a brain function affecting the mechanisms of
"moods" then why aren't "normal" people made elated or some other
comparably altered mood effect by the same drug and it's biochemical
influence on those brain functions?

> Mostly, they're
> > effects, whether "side effects" (which may be their main or only
> > effects) are known to include things like "anxiety" (which must,
> then,
> > be something different from "stimulating") and even "depression".
> >
> > But, if they're really affecting brain "chemical balances," which is
> a
> > remarkable enough notion, then how could they possibly only do so
> just
> > in the brains of "depressed" people? Are they THAT "selective"
> somehow?
>
> In many people, yes. That is what they were designed to do.

Any actual biomedical conclusive proof of this, beyond mere theorizing
or guesswork?

"Tom G." wrote:

> A few months ago I went to the doctor complainin' of pain in my
> neck and a peculiar crackin' noise when I turned my head too
> quickly. The doctor informed me that it was likely a touch of
> arthritis... He explained that as we get older this shit happens and
> suggested I take a few Ibuprofen and learn to live with it.

Here's Dr. Frankie's prescription: Stop driving past the high school on
your way home from work. That'll be 25.00 please.

Dr. Frankie

In article <tDG8b.167848$xf.21900@lakeread04>, Tom G.
<thegoz@dipshit.com> wrote:

> "Virtualoso" wrote in message:
> > In article , Tom G. > wrote:
> > What's mainly missing in any of this is any actual, conclusive
> > scientific basis for really determining whether or not there is some
> > biophysical "thing", such as "depression" or "bipolar". What makes them
> > "a disorder" is merely descriptions of certain "symptoms" (i.e.
> > subjective feelings and behaviors) and then guesses about what maybe
> > might be some particular brain stuff that could possibly be involved
> > with that and perhaps a "cause." If not just another effect. At least
> > as purely semanticly and jargonally articulated. There still aren't any
> > manifest, clear lab or medical tests with which to truly identify any
> > certain brain malady otherwise, regarding these.
>
>
> Any diagnosis is initially come to by an interpretation of given
> "symptoms", whether they can be evidenced by lab tests or
> not... It wouldn't surprise me to discover that most problems
> were diagnosed without benefit of lab tests and the like. A few
> months ago I went to the doctor complainin' of pain in my
> neck and a peculiar crackin' noise when I turned my head too
> quickly. The doctor informed me that it was likely a touch of
> arthritis... He explained that as we get older this shit happens and
> suggested I take a few Ibuprofen and learn to live with it. The
> Ibuprofen worked. No lab tests were necessary; you can tell I'm
> gettin' long of tooth by lookin' at me...

"Mental illness" being brain arthritis? Of course, incurable conditions
often go "untreated" when there is no actual medical treatment of note.
I believe ibuprofrin is an over-the-counter, nominal thing, too, rather
than a "powerful brain drug" only available via prescription? Aren't
most pharmaceuticals so reserved limited in access like that because
they are potentially seriously harmful?

Since there is no medical test for "depression" what is the basis,
then, for widespread dispensing of potentially harmful brain drugs? Is
that sort of like introducing the general population to an enlarged
methodone program, in order to feel better and avoid discomforts?

> > Same deal with the drugs.
> >
> > So, if a drug "makes you feel better" in a way that's wanted, or act in
> > ways that others prefer, and it's okay for it to also make you feel
> > ways you don't want or like, too, then let's call that "helping" or
> > "benefitting" -- however it might be producing that effect. And
> > whatever else it might be doing, too, including potentially serious
> > harm. Right?
>
>
> In the case of the Bipolar it isn't acting in a way "others prefer",
> it's acting in a manner that roughly conforms to societal norms...
> If a Bipolar goes on an axe murderin' spree I don't give a shit
> whether his bodily chemical levels are abnormal, I'm just a tad
> concerned about bein' in his way... If Lithium will prevent this I
> think we've found a cause and effect and should go with that...
> The shrinks used to use shock treatments and discontinued the
> practice. Apparently the side effects were so bad that they
> didn't balance the possible good...

At the Annual U.S. Psychiatric & Mental Health Congress, Alan C. Swann,
M.D., discussed the difficulty inn definitively diagnosing bipolar
disorder (BD). Swann is the Pat R. Rutherford Jr. Professor annd vice
chair for research in the department of psychiatry and behavioral
sciences in the University of Texas' Health Science Center in Houston.
One of the difficulties with making this diagnosis, Swann said, is that
there are no objective tests for BD... and no two people experience the
disorder in the same way.

Hmmm. No actual objective, medical, or manifestly conclusive way to
tell if anyone has this "condition." And no one has the same "symptoms"
either. Yet, there's some, distinct "it"?

"`F.H" <disconnectu@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F63413A.F1F4CB64@earthlink.net...
> "Tom G." wrote:
>
> > A few months ago I went to the doctor complainin' of pain in my
> > neck and a peculiar crackin' noise when I turned my head too
> > quickly. The doctor informed me that it was likely a touch of
> > arthritis... He explained that as we get older this shit happens and
> > suggested I take a few Ibuprofen and learn to live with it.
>
> Here's Dr. Frankie's prescription: Stop driving past the high school on
> your way home from work. That'll be 25.00 please.
>
> Dr. Frankie


The voice of experience... Here's yer 25 cyberbucks...

\\\|///
\\ - - //
( @ @ )
---oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------------
Tom Gosnell thegoz@cox.net
--------------Oooo-------------
oooO ( )
( ) ) /
\ ( (_/
\_)

"Virtualoso" wrote in message:
> In article Tom G. wrote:
>
> > "Virtualoso" wrote in message:
> > > What's mainly missing in any of this is any actual, conclusive
> > > scientific basis for really determining whether or not there is some
> > > biophysical "thing", such as "depression" or "bipolar". What makes
them
> > > "a disorder" is merely descriptions of certain "symptoms" (i.e.
> > > subjective feelings and behaviors) and then guesses about what maybe
> > > might be some particular brain stuff that could possibly be involved
> > > with that and perhaps a "cause." If not just another effect. At least
> > > as purely semanticly and jargonally articulated. There still aren't
any
> > > manifest, clear lab or medical tests with which to truly identify any
> > > certain brain malady otherwise, regarding these.
> >
> >
> > Any diagnosis is initially come to by an interpretation of given
> > "symptoms", whether they can be evidenced by lab tests or
> > not... It wouldn't surprise me to discover that most problems
> > were diagnosed without benefit of lab tests and the like. A few
> > months ago I went to the doctor complainin' of pain in my
> > neck and a peculiar crackin' noise when I turned my head too
> > quickly. The doctor informed me that it was likely a touch of
> > arthritis... He explained that as we get older this shit happens and
> > suggested I take a few Ibuprofen and learn to live with it. The
> > Ibuprofen worked. No lab tests were necessary; you can tell I'm
> > gettin' long of tooth by lookin' at me...
>
> "Mental illness" being brain arthritis?

No, just an illustration that established chemical tests aren't
necessary for diagnosin' everything...

>Of course, incurable conditions
> often go "untreated" when there is no actual medical treatment of note.

Or there are no chemicals available to ease the suffering of
the afflicted...

> I believe ibuprofrin is an over-the-counter, nominal thing, too, rather
> than a "powerful brain drug" only available via prescription? Aren't
> most pharmaceuticals so reserved limited in access like that because
> they are potentially seriously harmful?

Even ibuprofen has potential to be seriously harmful if
taken in excess... I think most of the drugs you're referring
to, though, are extremely addictive and mood altering... I
don't see your point. Even asprin will kill you if you take too
many...

> Since there is no medical test for "depression" what is the basis,
> then, for widespread dispensing of potentially harmful brain drugs?


You mean there is no chemical laboratory test, don't you...?
The basis for the prescribing of these drugs has to be the
informed opinion of the doctor based on experience in these
matters... If my pickup smokes and uses an excessive amount
of oil, I think I can safely assume that it needs a set of rings...

> Is
> that sort of like introducing the general population to an enlarged
> methodone program, in order to feel better and avoid discomforts?


An exaggeration to the extreme, don't you think...?? Les is
the only person I know who takes that type of drug, and I
don't think Lithium even is "that type of drug"... I see no problem
in taking a drug, if prescribed by a competent phyician, that will
make life livable for some poor schlep... And, no, I don't think
it's a slip or relapse...


> At the Annual U.S. Psychiatric & Mental Health Congress, Alan C. Swann,
> M.D., discussed the difficulty inn definitively diagnosing bipolar
> disorder (BD). Swann is the Pat R. Rutherford Jr. Professor annd vice
> chair for research in the department of psychiatry and behavioral
> sciences in the University of Texas' Health Science Center in Houston.
> One of the difficulties with making this diagnosis, Swann said, is that
> there are no objective tests for BD... and no two people experience the
> disorder in the same way.
>
> Hmmm. No actual objective, medical, or manifestly conclusive way to
> tell if anyone has this "condition." And no one has the same "symptoms"
> either. Yet, there's some, distinct "it"?


Virt, you can do a google search and find some expert that
will agree with damn near everything you say or think... Why
should this guy be believed over thousands, or possibly millions
of competent doctors who think otherwise...?? There's also no
objective test for alcoholism, just certain symptoms... On top of
that, the alcoholic is usually the one saying he/she is one... How
many "alcoholics" are there in A.A. given the one's who are doing
the "diagnosing", the alcoholic him/herself...?? :O)


\\\|///
\\ - - //
( @ @ )
---oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------------
Tom Gosnell thegoz@cox.net
--------------Oooo-------------
oooO ( )
( ) ) /
\ ( (_/
\_)

In article <o4%8b.170975$xf.22662@lakeread04>, Tom G.
<thegoz@dipshit.com> wrote:

> > Since there is no medical test for "depression" what is the basis,
> > then, for widespread dispensing of potentially harmful brain drugs?
>
> You mean there is no chemical laboratory test, don't you...?

Along with no other actual, physical, medical test. That *is* what
"medical" essentially pertains to - biophysical.

> > Is
> > that sort of like introducing the general population to an enlarged
> > methodone program, in order to feel better and avoid discomforts?
>
> An exaggeration to the extreme, don't you think...??

No, I don't. There are millions and millions of persons now being given
brain drugs routinely, expressly for the purpose of feeling better.
There are no medical tests to determine anything. If you go to a
prescribing doctor, including those with no particular training or
expertise in the biophysiology of "mental illness" or "depression" and
simply tell them you're suffering from "depression" they're routinely
dispensing these drugs. Heck, people are watching the TV ads for the
stuff and *then* going to doctors and asking for it -- and getting it.

> .. I see no problem
> in taking a drug, if prescribed by a competent phyician...

That's something of a pivot point in all this. What and when is
"competent" in terms of which drugs are given to whom for what and why.

> ... that will
> make life livable for some poor schlep...

An exaggeration to the extreme, don't you think, when it comes to the
millions and millions of people (and more all the time) that are
routinely and summarily being "diagnosed" as mentally ill and being
drugged?

I've plainly acknowledged that I well understand how someone with
intense suffering would want to be drugged for relief, and how
compassionate people would tend to be inclined to help them do so,
regardless of all these hazy matters of "diagnosis"and whatnot.

Yet, the strident insistance on all the apparently purely conceptual
verbally descriptive terms is another matter. Or the widespread and
rapidly growing dispensing of brain drugs to millions of people,
including inducing known harms and suffering rather casually or even
exploitively and/or mistakenly, is something else.

> And, no, I don't think it's a slip or relapse...

I didn't say a word about such a thing, although if he was a drug
addict, there's an obvious similarity. Lacking any bona fide medical
basis, "medication" is just like "drugging" whether "self" or "doctor"
prescribed... with the main difference apparently being a matter of
"side effects."

> > At the Annual U.S. Psychiatric & Mental Health Congress, Alan C. Swann,
> > M.D., discussed the difficulty inn definitively diagnosing bipolar
> > disorder (BD). Swann is the Pat R. Rutherford Jr. Professor annd vice
> > chair for research in the department of psychiatry and behavioral
> > sciences in the University of Texas' Health Science Center in Houston.
> > One of the difficulties with making this diagnosis, Swann said, is that
> > there are no objective tests for BD... and no two people experience the
> > disorder in the same way.
> >
> > Hmmm. No actual objective, medical, or manifestly conclusive way to
> > tell if anyone has this "condition." And no one has the same "symptoms"
> > either. Yet, there's some, distinct "it"?
>
> Virt, you can do a google search and find some expert that
> will agree with damn near everything you say or think...

Or I've come to arrive at what I think, and therefore say, after having
noticed what quite some number of experts were, indeed, saying. And so
I could see no reason or basis for not agreeing with them.

> Why
> should this guy be believed over thousands, or possibly millions
> of competent doctors who think otherwise...??

Because he's a prominent acknowledged expert about that? Why would any
of us merely believe any of these guys, either way, especially if
there's a lot of contradictions and basic disagreement among them?

Of course, we still haven't come up with anyone that disagrees (if
anyone does) with the two salient points: there are no objective tests
for BD and the supposed "symptoms" of it aren't even the same among
people described as having "it."

> There's also no
> objective test for alcoholism, just certain symptoms...

At least there are certain especially distinct ones, which are the same.

> On top of
> that, the alcoholic is usually the one saying he/she is one...

I wouldn't necessarily assume that that is usually the case.

> How
> many "alcoholics" are there in A.A. given the one's who are doing
> the "diagnosing", the alcoholic him/herself...?? :O)

Do they then get to have strong drugs?

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:130920030859547882%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > > > ; and they
> > > > generally have no stimulating effect on people not
experiencing
> > > > depression.
> > >
> > > Gosh, do they have a "stimulating effect" on anyone?

No

> >
> > No, they are a treatment for anxiety.
>
> How can a "powerful drug" that effects brain function distinctly
enough
> to "correct" severe "depression" have no effect in anyone else? If
it's
> the "serotonin reuptake" function that's faulty in "depressed
persons"
> and so specifically a brain function affecting the mechanisms of
> "moods" then why aren't "normal" people made elated or some other
> comparably altered mood effect by the same drug and it's biochemical
> influence on those brain functions?
>
Never heard of biological feedback??