111–120 of 131 posts
So I've tried half a dozen antipsychotics, here are my 2 cents: The only things those drugs did to me were making me comatose, poop my pants, sleepy, dumb and hungry. You can't be declared psychotic or paranoid, when the only thing you can do is sleep, drool, poop yourself, and make 3 words sentences, so lazy doctors think these drugs work. But they don't, there was zero change in my beliefs, fears, anxieties, I was…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But SSRIs don't work like stimulants do; they take a lot more than half an hour to take effect. Sorry, need to be an anecdote for you. Prozac makes me manic in about 5 hours. We know how SSRIs work, the problem is they are treating a symptom not the cause of depression which is immune dysfunction. If SSRIs did not increase serotonin there would be no risk of them causing serotonin syndrome, and they do.
> the problem is they are treating a symptom not the cause of depression which is immune dysfunction. Yeaaaaa that's gonna be a serious "citations (plural and trustworthy) needed" from me there
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-023-02445-y
Here are the plurals….
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=immune+syst...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pardon my ignorance and prejudice, but how are you not a danger to the people that surround you? Or is schizophrenia a spectrum very much alike as autism?
"Or is schizophrenia a spectrum very much alike as autism?" It is exactly that. There are a lot of people with pcychosis-related symptoms who go about their lives without treatment. They experience attacks once in a blue moon, but that is just about it. A few calming words or moments alone help.
Even during my first episode, which was by far my worst while having the least experience, I was aware that what I was experiencing (hearing voices/feeling watched) was likely me experiencing psychosis. While I still 'went along' with the episode, I was doing everything in a way that minimised harm to myself and others. I eventually called an ambulance, thinking that either I'm going through psychosis (and need an ambulance), or what I was hearing was real (and having ambulance/police on scene would help).
Once the ambulance arrived I had 'confirmation' that I was going through psychosis, and could then 'ignore' the voices to the point that I wouldn't act on whatever I was hearing. My symptoms continued for a couple weeks, but at no point did I even consider these to be real (despite them feeling very, very real).
Going forward, I've had a couple other episodes, all of which I've noticed early on and been able to act accordingly (reaching out to friends or professionals). While some of these episodes were equivalent in intensity to my first episode, none of them had me acting on the symptoms (beyond calling my psych and saying I'm having an episode).
I was briefly on anti-psychotics, but as I'm yet undiagnosed, my psych wasn't comfortable with me being on them long term. Instead I've been able to manage it through exercise, sleep management, mindfulness, and better management of my anxiety.
That said, I'm only discussing my own experiences with psychosis/potential of having another episode. I'm not medicated but don't worry about it (potential harm to myself or others) in my day to day, though I make sure to mention it to those that could be affected (flatmates or friends/family).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how your link establishes that what I said is notably untrue.
It has serious, observed, side effects for a sizable fraction of the population? Yet your comment said "and has no observed side-effects in general."
Maybe it's my fault for not being specific but in context, I was talking about long-term, possibly irreversible complications. While what you point out exists (every psychoactive drug has undesirable side-effects in general, even coffee can be dangerous), it is incomparable to the rate of occurences of side-effects such as tardive dyskinesia for neuroleptics for instance.
That's why I also added "in general" ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Normal might be a strong word. It messes with the brain which is the core. Goes to show a lot of clinical medecine is about short-term relief and not necessarily about real health. If you really look at it with unbiased eyes, between elective surgeries and what not, it's not really about curing any true dysfunction sometimes. Perhaps too many times. We just go with the flow but, heck, MDs are not even necessarily hea…
You've gone off on an unrelated tangent here. "Situation normal" in this case means that, as with lots of drugs, we only poorly understand the mechanism by which they actually work, and that new discoveries can completely change our understanding of how to use and improve on them.
What I said is still exactly on point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you might miss the point slightly, moving too far the discussion on the other side. It's perfectly normal to wonder how can one administrate something when one doesn't understand it. Especially when there can be such debilitating effects. In clinical settings, things are way less clear than you make it seem. All psychosis are not equal and even all diagnostic of a same patient are not equal. There is a lot mo…
The goal is to maximize the life outcomes and quality of life of people with schizophrenia. I think in the conversation here there are two questions: What should the public conversation on schizophrenia be like? And, how should the medical system use antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia? I think, on the first question, the public conversation about schizophrenia is not ideal for improving outcomes. In par…
That's a very important distinction in the latter part. They are somewhat understood in their action mechanisms, whether VMAT1, VMAT2, D1, D2 receptors etc. But not really in their effectiveness (which is slightly more important, especially to determine administration protocols).
Which is also the point of the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has serious, observed, side effects for a sizable fraction of the population? Yet your comment said "and has no observed side-effects in general."
It's a well-known post-operation side effect that affects a few people transiently. Maybe it's my fault for not being specific but in context, I was talking about long-term, possibly irreversible complications. While what you point out exists (every psychoactive drug has undesirable side-effects in general, even coffee can be dangerous), it is incomparable to the rate of occurences of side-effects such as tardive dys…
How is significantly increased rate of dementia among the affected population not long-term? It seems irreversible too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a well-known post-operation side effect that affects a few people transiently. Maybe it's my fault for not being specific but in context, I was talking about long-term, possibly irreversible complications. While what you point out exists (every psychoactive drug has undesirable side-effects in general, even coffee can be dangerous), it is incomparable to the rate of occurences of side-effects such as tardive dys…
> Maybe it's my fault for not being specific but in context, I was talking about long-term, possibly irreversible complications. How is significantly increased rate of dementia among the affected population not long-term? It seems irreversible too?
There is no formal causality link here.
Unless you can find other studies. And even then, methodology matters.
There is a realm of difference between that and the type of side-effects that were the subject of the initial conversation, to the point that I'd be tempted to say it is a red-herring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the problem is they are treating a symptom not the cause of depression which is immune dysfunction. Yeaaaaa that's gonna be a serious "citations (plural and trustworthy) needed" from me there
Seriously? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-023-02445-y Here are the plurals…. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=immune+syst...
If this is your best citation, then I don't know why you expect everyone to know about and be confident in this theory. And that's without even questioning whether bipolar and depression are the same thing.
Your search results are all over the place and don't show anything coherent.