malakaix
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 3,054
Thanks for the poem Herbivore, love it.
-
The Dark Side 💕 Welcome Guest 💕
Posting Rules Bluelight Rules Notable Threads Urgent Hotlines Bereavement Mindfulness Suicide Support Anger Management -
TDS Moderators: AlphaMethylPhenyl | paranoid android
Mental Health Lived with Depression for most of my twenties.
- Thread starter coolhandluke
- Start date
Thanks for the poem Herbivore, love it.
Meh just wait till you hit 30. Then you won't give a fuck about anything anymore
Seattle_Stranger
Bluelighter
Troof.
Rio Fantastic
Bluelighter
I try to live my life adhering to a similar but distinct principle, I try to live as hedonisitcally as possible while trying to ensure that the lifestyle I'm living is sustainable, so I judge all my actions on a cost/benefit analysis in terms of pain vs pleasure while taking into account my long term happiness. Crucial to that is that I don't destroy the organ that brings me joy in the first place.
I'm doing the exact same trip beginning in January until April..any chance we could talk and get to know one another?
jammin83
Bluelighter
Hopelight, first off, welcome to BL. 
Just be careful about where you are going and do your research. Lots of people get scammed and some of the 'shamans' make their brew with toe which is similar to datura and can be deadly. People have gotten taken advantage of and worse. Aya is big business nowadays. Be careful and be safe. Much love and best of luck.
Just be careful about where you are going and do your research. Lots of people get scammed and some of the 'shamans' make their brew with toe which is similar to datura and can be deadly. People have gotten taken advantage of and worse. Aya is big business nowadays. Be careful and be safe. Much love and best of luck.
embryo923
Bluelighter
Personally i found that seroquel is pretty good. I have used it for a short time and it definitely made my brain seem to run smoother, less racing thoughts, less preventing me from doing little things like the dishes and going outside, cleaning, etc...but I would be afraid to be dependent on it for a lifetime. I think (in my non-professional opinion, I don't think it's necessary or healthy/beneficial to take the massive doses of like 200-400mg your doc will likely Rx you if it's for anti-psychotic purposes ...it's very powerful even at lower doses like 50-100mg and I think the dose they give people is definitely too high. I know several people on it and have taken it many times myself for periods of over a few weeks and felt an improvement early on. I just am always weary of those very dangerous side effects from anti-psychotics.
Last edited:
Overall, antipsychotics aren't the brain-destroying, totally-numbing, side effect-ridden medications that many people make them out to be. They're generally difficult medications to tolerate, but they truly can repair lives, just as other medications can. As I understand them, antipsychotics can take much longer than other medications to work fully (up to six months I've heard), which is much longer than how long a standard antidepressant is usually tried (four-eight weeks).
I think many times people don't fully commit themselves to treatment, especially treatments which involve antipsychotics. They want noticeable results fast. There's nothing inherently wrong with this expectation, but it's usually unrealistic. Recovery from any mental illness, whether from psychosis or depression, takes a long time, and if someone is really committed to getting better, a lot of hard work to develop habits in line with their higher goals. The good news is that if someone makes the right decisions (i.e. is truly committed to getting better) then the process doesn't have to ever end.
embryo923, I believe one should take into account the wonderful variability of the human species. In my opinion, no dose is categorically "high" or "low" unless applied to a specific person's biochemistry. Some people find 400mg to not alleviate their symptoms enough to be out in public. In this instance, their dose may be too low. Others finds that 100mg makes them extremely groggy and zombie-like throughout the day, which may mean their dose is too high.
I think many times people don't fully commit themselves to treatment, especially treatments which involve antipsychotics. They want noticeable results fast. There's nothing inherently wrong with this expectation, but it's usually unrealistic. Recovery from any mental illness, whether from psychosis or depression, takes a long time, and if someone is really committed to getting better, a lot of hard work to develop habits in line with their higher goals. The good news is that if someone makes the right decisions (i.e. is truly committed to getting better) then the process doesn't have to ever end.
embryo923, I believe one should take into account the wonderful variability of the human species. In my opinion, no dose is categorically "high" or "low" unless applied to a specific person's biochemistry. Some people find 400mg to not alleviate their symptoms enough to be out in public. In this instance, their dose may be too low. Others finds that 100mg makes them extremely groggy and zombie-like throughout the day, which may mean their dose is too high.
Nom de Plume
Bluelighter
1.) Yes, I am aware how long my comment is—I am its author, after all.
2.)The probability of my ostensibly sounding daft is high with this response. Many of my comments end up resulting in that awkward moment whereby my argument is so advanced people think I'm stupid. This effect has the unintended result of bolstering my own sense of intelligence and diminishing my impression of that of the the deluded soi-disant "smarter" people.
Rather than merely regard your comment as inappurtenant marginalia and hence unworthy of a reply, I'll ignore the fact that antipsychotics (neuroleptics) are an irrelevant topic to broach in a discussion about depression and refute your comment anyway.
1.) What is meant by "overall", here? "Overall" in the sense that most neuroleptics are exceptions to the accusations, or "overall" in the sense that some neuroleptics are exceptions to the accusations?
2.) Are the accusations of "many people" (like whom?) applicable or accurate to any degree about any neuroleptics? That is, do these accusations apply truthfully to antipsychotics when not regarded in the overall case, but in the particular case? If the accusations apply truthfully to only one antipsychotic drug, they logically apply truthfully to antipsychotics as a whole, since one antipsychotic is just as valid to use as a representative of all antipsychotics in the same way as most antipsychotics can be validly used as a representative of any antipsychotics. The logic in this point may be hard to grasp; I don't have a specific and precise word for this kind of logical issue, so it would be of no surprise if the difficulty of apprehending it is as great as the difficulty of explicating it.
But that is to say, if it can be said to be the case for a part of a whole, it can be said to be that case for the whole of which it is a part. For without the part for which that does apply, there is no whole for which that does not apply, as the whole is merely the sum of its addends. The accusation is only invalid insofar as it is intended to apply to all or every neuroleptic drug, which, to my knowledge, nobody has ever had such an intention with their accusations.
3.) While I'm not implying you said it so, a thing can still be pernicious and bad even if it is not pernicious and bad in the same way or to the same degree as it is thought to be pernicious and bad. For example, Jeffrey Dahmer is not an unscrupulous, crooked, and fraudulent businessman. But he is a serial-killing, alcoholic cannibal.
In the same manner, antipsychotics may not cause one to become a brain-dead, avolitional, anhedonic vegetable or some galumphing and brainless blundering blob of protoplasm and excess adipose tissue. But they are inappropriately prescribed, relatively inefficient (compared to, say, the efficacy of some novel or less frequently implemented research chemicals), scientifically-uncorroborated and hypothesis-based, ad hoc pharmacotherapies which are over-prescribed for 30,001 fictitious off-label and FDA-unapproved applications, which causes them to percolate and pervade through society like infectious pathogens—for the sake of lucrative kickbacks for clinicians and large profits for corporations.
The presentation of psychotic disorders
is usually divided into two subsets of symptoms: negative symptoms and positive symptoms. According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH),
Whereas,
Antipsychotics and most contemporary therapies are almost entirely ineffective at treating or relieving the negative symptoms, while having moderate efficacy at treating the positive symptoms.
But the negative symptoms are the ones that make schizophrenia such an awfully debilitating illness; they are the set of symptoms which cause schizophrenics to have a much greater lifetime probability of attempted and successful suicides, abuse drugs and develop substance dependencies with much higher rates than observed in other mental illness, and generally make life unimaginably more difficult and of much poorer quality than compared to the lives of non-schizophrenics.
Therefore, the notion that antipsychotics are such that "they truly can repair lives, just as other medications can" is erroneous and mistaken, if by "repair" one means to a appreciable or adequate degree. Even whilst heavily medicated, the schizophrenic is still patently schizophrenic.
I recall one time being so overwrought with anxiety I thought I'd lost my mind, and so I immediately checked myself in for hospitalization. I can remember how painfullyiI regretted that decision upon my arrival to the "psych ward". It wasn't a ward as such, but more like a war waged between staff and psychotics. It was insufferable and maddening. The schizophrenics were indefatigable in their superhuman powers of disruptive psychotic episodes. The only time I got to sleep after my three day sojourn inside the bin was after all 18 unruly schizophrenics were sedated and comatose from forcefully administered copious quantities of intravenous antipsychotic drugs. I realised something disturbing that night: is it really so that the schizophrenic must be forced unconscious with strong medicine for them to even approach normalcy? If so, why treat them at all if treatment consists of mimicking death for them?
Moreover, while every drug has its applications, that does not mean a given drug cannot have its misapplications. Given the abysmal results and dearth of success, it's more likely that the term antipsychotic is a misnomer rather than an indication of psychiatric suitability.
Just as a proverbial rose by any other name smells just as sweet, so to does a drug by any other name work just as great. If I begin to call amphetamines opioids, do they no longer function as stimulants? Antipsychotics are the victims of misleading names, and the name does not imbue the quality or je ne c'est quoi of that thing for which it is an appellation. In other words, the nature of things inspire names, but names do not inspire the nature of things—this is more than case for purposefully misnamed pharmaceuticals (for the sake of profiting from a meretricious medicament of one of psychiatry's most difficult-to-treat disorders. Any elixir effective for schizophrenics is going to out-sale any other, because of the disorder's unparalleled difficultly to treat) than of anything else.
I've always found this claim to be incredible. Take an antipsychotic, you'll feel the [nasty and stultifying] effects on day one. Why must I not be incredulous when I am told of the unrealistically peculiar properties of antipsychotics, which supposedly allow them to reach maximal effect only after months of daily use (just enough time to get an addiction and physical withdrawals—oh, pardon me! I mean to say a dependence and "discontinuation syndrome")? This stinks of the fetid smell of lies and bullshit. It sounded like a ruse to allow profiteers longer time to earn profits (and no drugs are as profitable in the pharmaceutical industry as antidepressants and antipsychotics—the profiteers of which have seen more litigation and legal settlements than positive clinical evidence for the tabulated ordure they unscrupulously market with almost as much zeal and ubiquity as misinformation and doctored evidence).
I thought you had the right idea until I read the word "fast". Einstein apparently defined insanity as doing the same thing over and expecting different results. While I'll be the first to publicly pronounce most people are unnecessarily stupid, they are definitely not insane.
People become disillusioned with bullshit and exaggerated expectations after too much exposure. They buy the bullshit initially, but quickly become nauseatingly surfeit by it—like a kid eating too many saccharine confections.
Besides, anything taking months to only begin to work for something as exigent and serious as psychotic disorders is not a sufficient treatment, and should be replaced forthwith. If there is any psychiatric disorder needing immediate results the worst, it would be schizophrenia and cognate disorders. Yet, that need is not addressed. So no wonder the schizophrenic lets his desperation get the better of his patience—he has none of the latter and too much of the former after a short time.
Envisage a man with a broken femur. He goes to the hospital to get treatment for the pain, only to be informed his analgesics won't start to work until he uses them regularly for several months. How might we imagine such a man in such desperation to respond? I don't think he'd be too enthusiastic about that treatment, to put it mildly
The expectations are only unrealistic because that's how they were marketed and sold. Forgive me for having unrealistic expectations that someone else gave me.
There is no recovery for psychotic disorders. Schizophrenia is not tantamount to arachnophobia or abandonment issues.
Speaking of unrealistic expectations, that's got to be one of the most extreme. Holy shit!
You don't know anything about schizophrenia, do you? Almost all psychotics have what is called poor 'insight' (assuming they've even got any). In other words, they are either absolutely convinced nothing is wrong with them and that they don't require treatment, or they're absolutely convinced that the treatments are a hoax or some conspiracy even if they are persuaded to begrudgingly concede something is indeed wrong with them.
Many disorders are like this, but schizophrenia is probably the worst with insight.
I've had very intricate and lengthy discussions with my own psychiatrist about this very issue. We were simply chewing the cud, trying to brainstorm and come up with a therapeutic work-around for patients presenting with little or no insight into their mental pathology. With his professional expertise and my unusual gift for critical thinking, we still have not made any real progress on circumventing the issue in any ethical way (for example, one could surreptitiously administer medications to psychotics by disguising them as something else or by planting them in their meals, but that would constitute medical malpractice and would be unethical).
2.)The probability of my ostensibly sounding daft is high with this response. Many of my comments end up resulting in that awkward moment whereby my argument is so advanced people think I'm stupid. This effect has the unintended result of bolstering my own sense of intelligence and diminishing my impression of that of the the deluded soi-disant "smarter" people.
Rather than merely regard your comment as inappurtenant marginalia and hence unworthy of a reply, I'll ignore the fact that antipsychotics (neuroleptics) are an irrelevant topic to broach in a discussion about depression and refute your comment anyway.
1.) What is meant by "overall", here? "Overall" in the sense that most neuroleptics are exceptions to the accusations, or "overall" in the sense that some neuroleptics are exceptions to the accusations?
2.) Are the accusations of "many people" (like whom?) applicable or accurate to any degree about any neuroleptics? That is, do these accusations apply truthfully to antipsychotics when not regarded in the overall case, but in the particular case? If the accusations apply truthfully to only one antipsychotic drug, they logically apply truthfully to antipsychotics as a whole, since one antipsychotic is just as valid to use as a representative of all antipsychotics in the same way as most antipsychotics can be validly used as a representative of any antipsychotics. The logic in this point may be hard to grasp; I don't have a specific and precise word for this kind of logical issue, so it would be of no surprise if the difficulty of apprehending it is as great as the difficulty of explicating it.
But that is to say, if it can be said to be the case for a part of a whole, it can be said to be that case for the whole of which it is a part. For without the part for which that does apply, there is no whole for which that does not apply, as the whole is merely the sum of its addends. The accusation is only invalid insofar as it is intended to apply to all or every neuroleptic drug, which, to my knowledge, nobody has ever had such an intention with their accusations.
3.) While I'm not implying you said it so, a thing can still be pernicious and bad even if it is not pernicious and bad in the same way or to the same degree as it is thought to be pernicious and bad. For example, Jeffrey Dahmer is not an unscrupulous, crooked, and fraudulent businessman. But he is a serial-killing, alcoholic cannibal.
In the same manner, antipsychotics may not cause one to become a brain-dead, avolitional, anhedonic vegetable or some galumphing and brainless blundering blob of protoplasm and excess adipose tissue. But they are inappropriately prescribed, relatively inefficient (compared to, say, the efficacy of some novel or less frequently implemented research chemicals), scientifically-uncorroborated and hypothesis-based, ad hoc pharmacotherapies which are over-prescribed for 30,001 fictitious off-label and FDA-unapproved applications, which causes them to percolate and pervade through society like infectious pathogens—for the sake of lucrative kickbacks for clinicians and large profits for corporations.
The presentation of psychotic disorders
(which I personally like to term as 'psychosis spectrum disorders', and on which I include bipolar disorders, depression, schizophrenia-like disorders, various forms of acute and chronic psychoses and primary and secondary psychoses, an array of thought disorders, amongst several hundreds of others—if only I could figure out how these things fit on the spectrum for neat transitions, like with physicists' electromagnetic wavelength spectrum, I could shorten the DSM-V by 1/3rd its current size. But that's the plot of another book, so I digress.)
Positive symptoms are psychotic behaviors not seen in healthy people. People with positive symptoms often "lose touch" with reality. These symptoms can come and go. Sometimes they are severe and at other times hardly noticeable, depending on whether the individual is receiving treatment. They include the following:
Hallucinations — things a person sees, hears, smells, or feels that no one else can see, hear, smell, or feel.
Delusions — false beliefs that are not part of the person's culture and do not change. The person believes delusions even after other people prove that the beliefs are not true or logical. People with schizophrenia can have delusions that seem bizarre, such as believing that neighbors can control their behavior with magnetic waves. They may also believe that people on television are directing special messages to them, or that radio stations are broadcasting their thoughts aloud to others. Sometimes they believe they are someone else, such as a famous historical figure. They may have paranoid delusions and believe that others are trying to harm them, such as by cheating, harassing, poisoning, spying on, or plotting against them or the people they care about. These beliefs are called "delusions of persecution."
Thought disorders — unusual or dysfunctional ways of thinking. One form of thought disorder is called "disorganized thinking." This is when a person has trouble organizing his or her thoughts or connecting them logically. They may talk in a garbled way that is hard to understand. Another form is called "thought blocking." This is when a person stops speaking abruptly in the middle of a thought. When asked why he or she stopped talking, the person may say that it felt as if the thought had been taken out of his or her head. Finally, a person with a thought disorder might make up meaningless words, or "neologisms."
Movement disorders — may appear as agitated body movements. A person with a movement disorder may repeat certain motions over and over. In the other extreme, a person may become catatonic. Catatonia is a state in which a person does not move and does not respond to others. Catatonia is rare today, but it was more common when treatment for schizophrenia was not available.
Hallucinations — things a person sees, hears, smells, or feels that no one else can see, hear, smell, or feel.
Delusions — false beliefs that are not part of the person's culture and do not change. The person believes delusions even after other people prove that the beliefs are not true or logical. People with schizophrenia can have delusions that seem bizarre, such as believing that neighbors can control their behavior with magnetic waves. They may also believe that people on television are directing special messages to them, or that radio stations are broadcasting their thoughts aloud to others. Sometimes they believe they are someone else, such as a famous historical figure. They may have paranoid delusions and believe that others are trying to harm them, such as by cheating, harassing, poisoning, spying on, or plotting against them or the people they care about. These beliefs are called "delusions of persecution."
Thought disorders — unusual or dysfunctional ways of thinking. One form of thought disorder is called "disorganized thinking." This is when a person has trouble organizing his or her thoughts or connecting them logically. They may talk in a garbled way that is hard to understand. Another form is called "thought blocking." This is when a person stops speaking abruptly in the middle of a thought. When asked why he or she stopped talking, the person may say that it felt as if the thought had been taken out of his or her head. Finally, a person with a thought disorder might make up meaningless words, or "neologisms."
Movement disorders — may appear as agitated body movements. A person with a movement disorder may repeat certain motions over and over. In the other extreme, a person may become catatonic. Catatonia is a state in which a person does not move and does not respond to others. Catatonia is rare today, but it was more common when treatment for schizophrenia was not available.
Whereas,
Negative symptoms are associated with disruptions to normal emotions and behaviors. These symptoms are harder to recognize as part of the disorder and can be mistaken for depression or other conditions. These symptoms include the following:
"Flat affect" (a person's face does not move or he or she talks in a dull or monotonous voice);
Lack of pleasure in everyday life;
Lack of ability to begin and sustain planned activities;
Speaking little, even when forced to interact.
People with negative symptoms need help with everyday tasks. They often neglect basic personal hygiene. This may make them seem lazy or unwilling to help themselves, but the problems are symptoms caused by the schizophrenia.
"Flat affect" (a person's face does not move or he or she talks in a dull or monotonous voice);
Lack of pleasure in everyday life;
Lack of ability to begin and sustain planned activities;
Speaking little, even when forced to interact.
People with negative symptoms need help with everyday tasks. They often neglect basic personal hygiene. This may make them seem lazy or unwilling to help themselves, but the problems are symptoms caused by the schizophrenia.
Antipsychotics and most contemporary therapies are almost entirely ineffective at treating or relieving the negative symptoms, while having moderate efficacy at treating the positive symptoms.
But the negative symptoms are the ones that make schizophrenia such an awfully debilitating illness; they are the set of symptoms which cause schizophrenics to have a much greater lifetime probability of attempted and successful suicides, abuse drugs and develop substance dependencies with much higher rates than observed in other mental illness, and generally make life unimaginably more difficult and of much poorer quality than compared to the lives of non-schizophrenics.
Therefore, the notion that antipsychotics are such that "they truly can repair lives, just as other medications can" is erroneous and mistaken, if by "repair" one means to a appreciable or adequate degree. Even whilst heavily medicated, the schizophrenic is still patently schizophrenic.
I recall one time being so overwrought with anxiety I thought I'd lost my mind, and so I immediately checked myself in for hospitalization. I can remember how painfullyiI regretted that decision upon my arrival to the "psych ward". It wasn't a ward as such, but more like a war waged between staff and psychotics. It was insufferable and maddening. The schizophrenics were indefatigable in their superhuman powers of disruptive psychotic episodes. The only time I got to sleep after my three day sojourn inside the bin was after all 18 unruly schizophrenics were sedated and comatose from forcefully administered copious quantities of intravenous antipsychotic drugs. I realised something disturbing that night: is it really so that the schizophrenic must be forced unconscious with strong medicine for them to even approach normalcy? If so, why treat them at all if treatment consists of mimicking death for them?
Moreover, while every drug has its applications, that does not mean a given drug cannot have its misapplications. Given the abysmal results and dearth of success, it's more likely that the term antipsychotic is a misnomer rather than an indication of psychiatric suitability.
Just as a proverbial rose by any other name smells just as sweet, so to does a drug by any other name work just as great. If I begin to call amphetamines opioids, do they no longer function as stimulants? Antipsychotics are the victims of misleading names, and the name does not imbue the quality or je ne c'est quoi of that thing for which it is an appellation. In other words, the nature of things inspire names, but names do not inspire the nature of things—this is more than case for purposefully misnamed pharmaceuticals (for the sake of profiting from a meretricious medicament of one of psychiatry's most difficult-to-treat disorders. Any elixir effective for schizophrenics is going to out-sale any other, because of the disorder's unparalleled difficultly to treat) than of anything else.
I've always found this claim to be incredible. Take an antipsychotic, you'll feel the [nasty and stultifying] effects on day one. Why must I not be incredulous when I am told of the unrealistically peculiar properties of antipsychotics, which supposedly allow them to reach maximal effect only after months of daily use (just enough time to get an addiction and physical withdrawals—oh, pardon me! I mean to say a dependence and "discontinuation syndrome")? This stinks of the fetid smell of lies and bullshit. It sounded like a ruse to allow profiteers longer time to earn profits (and no drugs are as profitable in the pharmaceutical industry as antidepressants and antipsychotics—the profiteers of which have seen more litigation and legal settlements than positive clinical evidence for the tabulated ordure they unscrupulously market with almost as much zeal and ubiquity as misinformation and doctored evidence).
I thought you had the right idea until I read the word "fast". Einstein apparently defined insanity as doing the same thing over and expecting different results. While I'll be the first to publicly pronounce most people are unnecessarily stupid, they are definitely not insane.
People become disillusioned with bullshit and exaggerated expectations after too much exposure. They buy the bullshit initially, but quickly become nauseatingly surfeit by it—like a kid eating too many saccharine confections.
Besides, anything taking months to only begin to work for something as exigent and serious as psychotic disorders is not a sufficient treatment, and should be replaced forthwith. If there is any psychiatric disorder needing immediate results the worst, it would be schizophrenia and cognate disorders. Yet, that need is not addressed. So no wonder the schizophrenic lets his desperation get the better of his patience—he has none of the latter and too much of the former after a short time.
Envisage a man with a broken femur. He goes to the hospital to get treatment for the pain, only to be informed his analgesics won't start to work until he uses them regularly for several months. How might we imagine such a man in such desperation to respond? I don't think he'd be too enthusiastic about that treatment, to put it mildly
The expectations are only unrealistic because that's how they were marketed and sold. Forgive me for having unrealistic expectations that someone else gave me.
There is no recovery for psychotic disorders. Schizophrenia is not tantamount to arachnophobia or abandonment issues.
Speaking of unrealistic expectations, that's got to be one of the most extreme. Holy shit!
You don't know anything about schizophrenia, do you? Almost all psychotics have what is called poor 'insight' (assuming they've even got any). In other words, they are either absolutely convinced nothing is wrong with them and that they don't require treatment, or they're absolutely convinced that the treatments are a hoax or some conspiracy even if they are persuaded to begrudgingly concede something is indeed wrong with them.
Many disorders are like this, but schizophrenia is probably the worst with insight.
I've had very intricate and lengthy discussions with my own psychiatrist about this very issue. We were simply chewing the cud, trying to brainstorm and come up with a therapeutic work-around for patients presenting with little or no insight into their mental pathology. With his professional expertise and my unusual gift for critical thinking, we still have not made any real progress on circumventing the issue in any ethical way (for example, one could surreptitiously administer medications to psychotics by disguising them as something else or by planting them in their meals, but that would constitute medical malpractice and would be unethical).
Last edited:
jammin83
Bluelighter
Well NDP your verbiage is a bit cumbersome as usual but I like this post.
Nom de Plume
Bluelighter
Why do you like my post? Is it for its substance or for its style?
One shouldn't get too caught up in other people's words, if not simply to apprehend them. It is the content, not the composition, of what is expressed that is of import outside the bailiwick of discourse analysis and related or derivative areas of inquiry. The verbiage, so to say, is simply the instrumentality through which a thought is conveyed.
Consider the similitude of the body of an organism and a body of text. An impartation's lexicon and phraseology are merely the anatomy of linguistic expression whilst the morphology, syntax, and typology are its physiology; but, following through with the analogy to its conclusion, to what then does the information or linguistic signification encapsulated within the chassis of the textual anatomy and life-imbuing function of the morphosyntactic physiology or supralinguistic histology correspond? I'll leave the question open for your own ratiocination.
It is true, yes—my mode of communicative expression is turgid, prolix, convoluted, and difficult to parse. But that's irrelevant. While I do not dare to group myself amongst the greatest intellectual luminaries, though it was not through an abecedarian vocabulary and a clichéd troglodyte's solecistic syntax that we have with us in history the most profound ideas ever proffered or put onto paper.
Language is a mirror into thought (which is why, say, thought disorders are evinced only in one's use of language—verbosity and stilted speech, at their extremity, are two examples of thought disorders); thought informs language such that the limits of one's language is the limits of one's thought. That for which we have no mental conception, is that for which we have no verbal expression.
And it is in this manner the complexity of one's cognition is commensurate to the complexity of one's communication. Of course, complex ideas may be refined and simplified so to readily facilitate clear and concise speech. But still, the complexity of thoughts and ideas is equal to the complexity of the language within which they're couched.
I truly love languages and linguistics and words and writing—those things married with a penchant for debate and argumentation, an intricate knowledge of rhetoric and literary devices, a love of learning, the eccentricities of high functioning autism, a proficiency in autodidactic learning and an exceptional working memory, and a proclivity to bloviate endlessly about anything and you've got the precursors for the synthesis of someone like myself.
But I digress.
Some, such as haldol, may be more toxic than others. It's not really so simple as you make it out to be. Changes in brain function/structure can be caused by taking a neuroleptic, which some would label damage. Others, such as myself, even if we were to concede that this in fact is "damage", note that the increased ability to participate with others, develop productive habits, and regulate thoughts, more than makes up for this.
Again, it's not just about taking the medication, but taking it in the right dose. It's not "all or nothing"
Seeing as you have almost 800 posts, I'm surprised you aren't aware of the predominate beliefs circulating around bluelight. Since this site is mostly frequented by drug users, it would follow that anything that doesn't lead to immediate happiness would be looked down upon. This is not everyone, by any means, but more hold this view (on bluelight) than not.
You'll find all kinds of opinions on how antipsychotics affect the brain.
I think you're getting caught up in semantics. No offense, but did I come off as being a doctor? I encourage you to do your own research and not split hairs just for the sake of it. I have my opinion, and encourage you to develop your own.
I'm kind of surprised to here that strong of an opinion without so much as a source. My opinion is ratified by several years of trials and millions of dollars involving countless health professionals testing each and every substance.
I would argue that positive symptoms can be just as, if not more, painful than negative symptoms. Society accepts depression. There are people around who have also gone through it. Psychosis, not so much. Negative symptoms don't have the potential to alienate people as positive symptoms do.
I don't doubt that the medicated schizophrenic is still schizophrenic. I didn't say anything about antipsychotics curing schizophrenia. However, they facilitate a more moderate mental state by which the schizophrenic can start to develop social connections.
I would agree that negative symptoms are less of a treatment target than positive symptoms. But there are studies of medications concurring that they're at least modestly effective for negative symptoms. None are officially approved for such, but again I'd recommend doing your own research. There are some promising medications for negative symptoms in trials.
My first thought about your story regarding the psych ward is that people don't live just for themselves. They bear the burden of life because they know that people love them. You're also grossly over-estimating the effect of antipsychotics, just as I related in my first post. Also, people are generally at their worst in a hospital. That doesn't mean they'll act the same way on the outside (once they're treated). Millions of people every night are "forced unconscious" by sleeping pills. Does that mean death is being mimicked?
At once time you're saying the medicated schizophrenic is still schizophrenic, and that antipsychotic medicines essentially murder people inside?
What results do you speak of? As I said earlier, they are no doubt hard medications to tolerate.
I'm not quite clear of the name problem. I get the sense that you may have been treated with an antipsychotic in the past, and that it didn't work. Feel free to correct me. Given the variety of our brains, it's not always the case (arguably not usually the case) that the first medication given to a psychiatric patient is enough to send them into remission.
About the time it can take for them to work, I believe you're missing the point. However, I personally don't believe in "discontinuation syndrome" or whatever also, I believe in different levels of addiction. Also, it's true that antipyschotics on the market today treat positive symptoms more than negative symptoms. But what I was predominately referring to is the resolution, to varying degrees depending on how well one responds to the medication, of negative symptoms. Importantly, this also has to involve therapy. Medication creates a baseline by which intensive therapy can help reconstruct a healthy life.
What I'm hearing from you is a lot of pathos, and not a paper to back it up.
Not sure what you mean with the Einstein thing, but I'll guess. If someone took an antipsychotic for six months without it working, then took the same one again for six months without it working, your argument would hold.
The "bullshit" needs a fair shot: six months. Also, I don't know this for a fact, but I sure as hell didn't buy the"bullshit" until it became necessary for me to lead a productive life. The brain doesn't finish mostly developing until age 25-26, whereas schizophrenia makes it's appearance before age 20 as I remember, so I would doubt that people generally accept it at the start and then throw it away. Maybe I'm wrong.
For the thing about the femur: It doesn't matter, that's the best that science currently has. Yes, it sucks, but it's better than nothing. Also, I don't recall saying that it doesn't work at all until after six months. Resolution of positive symptoms occurs fairly fast.
If you've discovered a chemical that works for schizophrenia faster and that is furthermore more effective than any other treatment, feel free to share.
No I'm sorry but you're wrong: people can recover from schizophrenia. They need medication, therapy, and friends. They can recover.
No again, I think it's clear that I know quite a bit more about it than you do.
I see no "gift" for critical thinking. What I see is someone with a strange mix of grandiosity, naivete, and poor social skills who wants to be noticed so much that they need to substantiate themselves by swinging around their paltry ego. Using complicated words here doesn't make you right. We don't care if you're the smartest kid in the room.
Again, it's not just about taking the medication, but taking it in the right dose. It's not "all or nothing"
Seeing as you have almost 800 posts, I'm surprised you aren't aware of the predominate beliefs circulating around bluelight. Since this site is mostly frequented by drug users, it would follow that anything that doesn't lead to immediate happiness would be looked down upon. This is not everyone, by any means, but more hold this view (on bluelight) than not.
You'll find all kinds of opinions on how antipsychotics affect the brain.
I think you're getting caught up in semantics. No offense, but did I come off as being a doctor? I encourage you to do your own research and not split hairs just for the sake of it. I have my opinion, and encourage you to develop your own.
I'm kind of surprised to here that strong of an opinion without so much as a source. My opinion is ratified by several years of trials and millions of dollars involving countless health professionals testing each and every substance.
I would argue that positive symptoms can be just as, if not more, painful than negative symptoms. Society accepts depression. There are people around who have also gone through it. Psychosis, not so much. Negative symptoms don't have the potential to alienate people as positive symptoms do.
I don't doubt that the medicated schizophrenic is still schizophrenic. I didn't say anything about antipsychotics curing schizophrenia. However, they facilitate a more moderate mental state by which the schizophrenic can start to develop social connections.
I would agree that negative symptoms are less of a treatment target than positive symptoms. But there are studies of medications concurring that they're at least modestly effective for negative symptoms. None are officially approved for such, but again I'd recommend doing your own research. There are some promising medications for negative symptoms in trials.
My first thought about your story regarding the psych ward is that people don't live just for themselves. They bear the burden of life because they know that people love them. You're also grossly over-estimating the effect of antipsychotics, just as I related in my first post. Also, people are generally at their worst in a hospital. That doesn't mean they'll act the same way on the outside (once they're treated). Millions of people every night are "forced unconscious" by sleeping pills. Does that mean death is being mimicked?
At once time you're saying the medicated schizophrenic is still schizophrenic, and that antipsychotic medicines essentially murder people inside?
What results do you speak of? As I said earlier, they are no doubt hard medications to tolerate.
I'm not quite clear of the name problem. I get the sense that you may have been treated with an antipsychotic in the past, and that it didn't work. Feel free to correct me. Given the variety of our brains, it's not always the case (arguably not usually the case) that the first medication given to a psychiatric patient is enough to send them into remission.
About the time it can take for them to work, I believe you're missing the point. However, I personally don't believe in "discontinuation syndrome" or whatever also, I believe in different levels of addiction. Also, it's true that antipyschotics on the market today treat positive symptoms more than negative symptoms. But what I was predominately referring to is the resolution, to varying degrees depending on how well one responds to the medication, of negative symptoms. Importantly, this also has to involve therapy. Medication creates a baseline by which intensive therapy can help reconstruct a healthy life.
What I'm hearing from you is a lot of pathos, and not a paper to back it up.
Not sure what you mean with the Einstein thing, but I'll guess. If someone took an antipsychotic for six months without it working, then took the same one again for six months without it working, your argument would hold.
The "bullshit" needs a fair shot: six months. Also, I don't know this for a fact, but I sure as hell didn't buy the"bullshit" until it became necessary for me to lead a productive life. The brain doesn't finish mostly developing until age 25-26, whereas schizophrenia makes it's appearance before age 20 as I remember, so I would doubt that people generally accept it at the start and then throw it away. Maybe I'm wrong.
For the thing about the femur: It doesn't matter, that's the best that science currently has. Yes, it sucks, but it's better than nothing. Also, I don't recall saying that it doesn't work at all until after six months. Resolution of positive symptoms occurs fairly fast.
If you've discovered a chemical that works for schizophrenia faster and that is furthermore more effective than any other treatment, feel free to share.
No I'm sorry but you're wrong: people can recover from schizophrenia. They need medication, therapy, and friends. They can recover.
No again, I think it's clear that I know quite a bit more about it than you do.
I see no "gift" for critical thinking. What I see is someone with a strange mix of grandiosity, naivete, and poor social skills who wants to be noticed so much that they need to substantiate themselves by swinging around their paltry ego. Using complicated words here doesn't make you right. We don't care if you're the smartest kid in the room.
princessmelancholy
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2015
- Messages
- 5
Birc0014,
Seroquel is very effective but it does make u feel like a heavy zombie I totally get what you mean.. it also can make you gain weight ,may not be an issue for you , I used to be a ballet dancer so gaining loads of weight has made it difficult to continue. .. You can only try things to really kno, and trust your instincts over doctors opinion even if they are urging .. nobody knows what you are feeling as well as you do . It also good idea to do a little daily diary of moods .. I find my mood swings are so erratic sometimes , I'm about 10 different personalities in one week! so writing down mood, side effects just briefly each day means I have physical evidence to establish a pattern of how effective meds are .
Good luck!
Seroquel is very effective but it does make u feel like a heavy zombie I totally get what you mean.. it also can make you gain weight ,may not be an issue for you , I used to be a ballet dancer so gaining loads of weight has made it difficult to continue. .. You can only try things to really kno, and trust your instincts over doctors opinion even if they are urging .. nobody knows what you are feeling as well as you do . It also good idea to do a little daily diary of moods .. I find my mood swings are so erratic sometimes , I'm about 10 different personalities in one week! so writing down mood, side effects just briefly each day means I have physical evidence to establish a pattern of how effective meds are .
Good luck!
dopamimetic
Bluelighter
People can and do recover from psychosis. (I somewhat dislike the term schizophrenia at all because it implicates a chronic illness which is part of the misery in psychiatry.) There is so much exciting science these days and we still only know the tip of the iceberg (and unfortunately the practice doesn't keep up at all with current science..)
Glutamate / NMDA receptors are a very promising target for future treatments (see ketamine for treatment resistant depression, but also antipsychotic medication.. adenosine has been suggested (see my blog), and so on..)
Seroquel for mood swings is kind of a mallet..
Glutamate / NMDA receptors are a very promising target for future treatments (see ketamine for treatment resistant depression, but also antipsychotic medication.. adenosine has been suggested (see my blog), and so on..)
Seroquel for mood swings is kind of a mallet..
Phenpsycho
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2015
- Messages
- 122
Damn buddy I'm 26 and dealing with this same type of depression. Cut ties with my ex who babied me because I started feeling like I should be growing up and feel so lost and nothing sparkles the same way and there's no novelty to anything even recreational drugs which have been my way of dealing with these feelings that blossomed into full blown depression/ agoraphobia anyway.
Self-medication isn't something I seem to be able to figure out so I've tried going sober and trying prescribed stuff .first was put on clonazepam for anxiety but never took them as prescribed everyday and think extreme anxiety led to the depression but got a re-diagnosis of mdd with psychotic symptoms so got tried on two anti-deps (lexapro and remeron) and serequel. Idk why they had me on 2 different ads at the same time but one of them made me emotionally blunted and anhedonic even worse then before and suicidal unfortunately :/ serequel helps with the insomnia I also have but does nothing but depress me more when I'm awake and make me groggy as he'll all day.
I wish I had more helpful advice but wanted to relate anyway. It's a struggle juggling growing into an adult while feeling depressed and anxious at the outset, grim really
Self-medication isn't something I seem to be able to figure out so I've tried going sober and trying prescribed stuff .first was put on clonazepam for anxiety but never took them as prescribed everyday and think extreme anxiety led to the depression but got a re-diagnosis of mdd with psychotic symptoms so got tried on two anti-deps (lexapro and remeron) and serequel. Idk why they had me on 2 different ads at the same time but one of them made me emotionally blunted and anhedonic even worse then before and suicidal unfortunately :/ serequel helps with the insomnia I also have but does nothing but depress me more when I'm awake and make me groggy as he'll all day.
I wish I had more helpful advice but wanted to relate anyway. It's a struggle juggling growing into an adult while feeling depressed and anxious at the outset, grim really