saoirse Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I have been on anti-psychotics for about four years now. I keep reading about how they cause brain damage! Has anyone read more extensively than I have on this? It is freaking me out, because they do a lot of good for my mood disorder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Assuming you experience psychosis, which DOES cause brain damage, I think the (IMO fallacious) claims are a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saoirse Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 Yes, I have experienced psychosis a few times. I don't know why I'm so worried, maybe it's just my typical anxiety kicking in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt07 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I had a long answer written out and I lost it so I will give my short answer: I agree with sylvan. You should get your information from peer-reviewed sources. There is a lot of crap put out by anti-psychiatry people that has little or no basis in reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpartanForce Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Seroquel maybe... the others I guess not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowan77 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Seroquel maybe... the others I guess not Okay where did you get the idea that Seroquel causes brain damage? Saying stuff like that just scares people away from taking medications that can be extremely effective for their MI. I have taken Seroquel on and off for several years. It has saved my life and most certainly did not cause me to have any brain damage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
confused Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I found an abstract. I don't know anything about this site, just googled http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/68/2/128 I would say maybe? Needs more study I'm not functional if I'm psychotic so it's worth a small risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpartanForce Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Seroquel maybe... the others I guess not Okay where did you get the idea that Seroquel causes brain damage? Saying stuff like that just scares people away from taking medications that can be extremely effective for their MI. I have taken Seroquel on and off for several years. It has saved my life and most certainly did not cause me to have any brain damage! Jezz. Chill out. I'm saying this of personal experience, no, I don't have any sources; but the time when I used Seroquel and Seroquel XR (about 7 months of use) was a day-to-day opioid feeling like Heroin. I get scared only to remember the time I used this medicine. I have fear that I may have brain damage, yes, from the Seroquel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koali777 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I have read that before, but I don't remember if it was an anti-psychiatry website or not, so the other posters saying be careful of reading things just to scare you are right. I mean think about it...if someone who hates psychiatry writes something like that, directing it at people with anxiety and paranoia, they know they're going to be convincing... Maybe it does, though, whenever I have gotten off them my brain seems to work just as quickly and intelligently as before. My memory loss and swiss cheese brain when it comes to words is because of psychosis. It was getting so bad, with all the voices and fear and hallucinations, that I wanted to kill myself. So even if it causes brain damage...better than being non-functioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManWitPlan Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I found an abstract. I don't know anything about this site, just googled http://archpsyc.ama-...stract/68/2/128 I would say maybe? Needs more study I'm not functional if I'm psychotic so it's worth a small risk. They say greater dose was equal to greater brain loss. But the problem with this is they don't control for the fact that someone with greater psychosis/mental problems need higher doses. So higher dose correlates with greater brain damage but so does worse psychosis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
confused Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I found an abstract. I don't know anything about this site, just googled http://archpsyc.ama-...stract/68/2/128 I would say maybe? Needs more study I'm not functional if I'm psychotic so it's worth a small risk. They say greater dose was equal to greater brain loss. But the problem with this is they don't control for the fact that someone with greater psychosis/mental problems need higher doses. So higher dose correlates with greater brain damage but so does worse psychosis. I get what you are saying and like I said I think it needs more study. You are right, there was some correlation between severity and volume reduction. "Illness severity had relatively modest correlations with tissue volume reduction, and alcohol/illicit drug misuse had no significant associations when effects of the other variables were adjusted." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enlightened_plutonian Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Personally I am eternally grateful for my Seroquel. To me, anything has to be a better option than 5 years of untreated psychosis. Since going on meds I have been able to get my life back. I don't think I would be going to uni in September if I wasn't on AP. That probably wouldn't even be possible. I'd agree with what the others have said that you need to stay away from antipsychiatry shit and read peer reviewed journals instead. I know for some of us a normal life wouldn't even be possible without AP's. And just my personal opinion but I would imagine that if AP's did cause some brain damage it would (a) be a side effect that like all other side effects only affects some people, and (b) it would be less than any possible brain damage from untreated MI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squid Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 saoirse, I've feared the same thing. I haven't found much substantial evidence that says anti-psychotics cause brain damage or volume reduction of the brain. Only correlative data. Maybe if they didn't give big doses of antipsychotics to people who are more apt to have brain volume reduction, it would matter to say that there's a correlation. I asked my pdoc. She's a renowned psychiatrist. She does lots of research on bipolar/schizo. She's done research on brain loss from anti psychotics. According to her, anti psychotics are neuro-protective when used properly. ( You see greater losses in untreated brains. ) So even if APs do cause such problems, they are better for your brain than nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LexFlex Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 My take of the topic is that AP's don't cause brain damage. However they do while medicated cause a person to not utilize his or her's full mind function. Social skills for example can be attributed to the decline in being able to socialize normally. Take a person off their AP and they might be more sociable but at the cost of symptoms coming back. The way I feel on Invega, I don't feel like it is doing my brain any damage. If I am off it however, then I feel like my brain is taking damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohmy Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I think it's pretty evident that they do: Results During longitudinal follow-up, antipsychotic treatment reflected national prescribing practices in 1991 through 2009. Longer follow-up correlated with smaller brain tissue volumes and larger cerebrospinal fluid volumes. Greater intensity of antipsychotic treatment was associated with indicators of generalized and specific brain tissue reduction after controlling for effects of the other 3 predictors. More antipsychotic treatment was associated with smaller gray matter volumes. Progressive decrement in white matter volume was most evident among patients who received more antipsychotic treatment. Illness severity had relatively modest correlations with tissue volume reduction, and alcohol/illicit drug misuse had no significant associations when effects of the other variables were adjusted. Conclusions Viewed together with data from animal studies, our study suggests that antipsychotics have a subtle but measurable influence on brain tissue loss over time, suggesting the importance of careful risk-benefit review of dosage and duration of treatment as well as their off-label use. http://archpsyc.ama-.../short/68/2/128 Sure would be easier to claim that all the studies are "antipsychiatry" etc., but I I highly doubt it (and what would be the point?). Though with antipsychotics it's obvious that if you need them, you need them; IMO it's up to the patient to decide whether one feels better on them than off them, and go with that. Ofcourse taking them isn't always voluntary, which raises some ethical questions. e: and now I see this study was already posted. Seems some people like to live in denial, though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohmy Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 My post wasn't anti-meds; I posted a study that answered the question the OP asked. I also stated that if one finds the meds helpful, one should keep taking them. FWIW, I myself am currently on seroquel, yet I still want to know the possible negative aspects of any meds I'm taking. Besides, there's plenty of discussion on the boards about TD, weight gain etc., which could be also be interpreted as "anti-medication", if you so choose to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I'm yet to see a study of any worth, this still seems to me like anti-med fear mongering. Syl's point is still valid, this is a pro med site, if you have something definitive to post feel free, but nonspecific studies with god knows how many possible variables aren't sufficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
confused Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I think it's pretty evident that they do: Results During longitudinal follow-up, antipsychotic treatment reflected national prescribing practices in 1991 through 2009. Longer follow-up correlated with smaller brain tissue volumes and larger cerebrospinal fluid volumes. Greater intensity of antipsychotic treatment was associated with indicators of generalized and specific brain tissue reduction after controlling for effects of the other 3 predictors. More antipsychotic treatment was associated with smaller gray matter volumes. Progressive decrement in white matter volume was most evident among patients who received more antipsychotic treatment. Illness severity had relatively modest correlations with tissue volume reduction, and alcohol/illicit drug misuse had no significant associations when effects of the other variables were adjusted. Conclusions Viewed together with data from animal studies, our study suggests that antipsychotics have a subtle but measurable influence on brain tissue loss over time, suggesting the importance of careful risk-benefit review of dosage and duration of treatment as well as their off-label use. http://archpsyc.ama-.../short/68/2/128 Sure would be easier to claim that all the studies are "antipsychiatry" etc., but I I highly doubt it (and what would be the point?). Though with antipsychotics it's obvious that if you need them, you need them; IMO it's up to the patient to decide whether one feels better on them than off them, and go with that. Ofcourse taking them isn't always voluntary, which raises some ethical questions. e: and now I see this study was already posted. Seems some people like to live in denial, though OT: but I have problems with forced medication. There is a push to implement assisted outpatient (involuntary outpatient treatment) in my county. I started a thread about it awhile ago if you would like to discuss there http://www.crazyboar...__fromsearch__1 I don't really see the problem with Ohmy's post. I posted the same study earlier on this thread and people argued with the validity of the study and made good points. I get that this is a pro-med site, but it's not an ignorance is bliss site, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I don't want to argue, but you yourself said it needs more study, the fact that the study was done on antipsychotics does not necessarily mean the antipsychotics were to blame for the lost brain matter, in fact there are studies showing that antipsychotics are not sufficient in stopping damage to the brain as a result of a psychotic disorder. It just bugs me that people are making assumptions without proper evidence and then belittling those of us who believe otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
confused Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I don't want to argue with you eden. I posted elsewhere about seroquel repairing meth damage. I didn't mean to belittle anyone. I just think arguments could have been made against the study rather than suggesting ohmy leave the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I wanted anyone to leave. Seems some people like to live in denial, though This just got to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
confused Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I think it's pretty evident that they do: Results During longitudinal follow-up, antipsychotic treatment reflected national prescribing practices in 1991 through 2009. Longer follow-up correlated with smaller brain tissue volumes and larger cerebrospinal fluid volumes. Greater intensity of antipsychotic treatment was associated with indicators of generalized and specific brain tissue reduction after controlling for effects of the other 3 predictors. More antipsychotic treatment was associated with smaller gray matter volumes. Progressive decrement in white matter volume was most evident among patients who received more antipsychotic treatment. Illness severity had relatively modest correlations with tissue volume reduction, and alcohol/illicit drug misuse had no significant associations when effects of the other variables were adjusted. Conclusions Viewed together with data from animal studies, our study suggests that antipsychotics have a subtle but measurable influence on brain tissue loss over time, suggesting the importance of careful risk-benefit review of dosage and duration of treatment as well as their off-label use. http://archpsyc.ama-.../short/68/2/128 Sure would be easier to claim that all the studies are "antipsychiatry" etc., but I I highly doubt it (and what would be the point?). Though with antipsychotics it's obvious that if you need them, you need them; IMO it's up to the patient to decide whether one feels better on them than off them, and go with that. Ofcourse taking them isn't always voluntary, which raises some ethical questions. e: and now I see this study was already posted. Seems some people like to live in denial, though We are a pro-medication site. If you are not comfortable with this stance then maybe you need to find somewhere else to be. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I wanted anyone to leave. Seems some people like to live in denial, though This just got to me. Gotcha- There really isn't conclusive evidence either way I was actually referring to sylvan's post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookieN Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Hello Saoirse: I don´t think psychiatric medications cause brain damage. Damage is a very strong word. However I have taken psychotropic meds for many years, and although they helped me lots in the short run, I feel that I am worse in the long run. I just read this book called "Anatomy of an Epidemic" wrote by Robert Whitaker. Very interesting book. It analyses long term results between medicated and non medicated people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Elvis Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 FWIW, psychosis itself is linked to brain damage. Google "psychosis" and "gray matter" and you'll see a ton of studies showing that there is a loss of brain tissue corresponding with manic and psychotic episodes. Here's what it boils down to, assuming we accept the data presented by everyone here as true. 1. Psychosis --> Brain damage = fact 2. Neuroleptics --> Brain damage = needs more study. So. If you're in the position of being liable to psychosis you've got to chose between the option that might cause brain damage (which it doesn't) and the option which almost definitely causes brain damage. Why is it even up for discussion which option is the logical course of action? I also want to restate that this is a pro-medication website. If you're not on board with taking your meds and doing everything you possibly can to get better, you're in the wrong place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saoirse Posted March 26, 2012 Author Share Posted March 26, 2012 I do take my medications. Where did I say that I didn't? Since being on Abilify and Wellbutrin I've had no depression, only a little anxiety, no psychosis, no mania. AAP's are the type of drug that really seem to work best for me. I've never been able to be on just a mood stabilizer or just an AD without an AAP. I was just concerned because of what I'd heard. I actually didn't know that psychosis itself causes brain damage. The studies I read were from websites that were anti-psych (though I didn't realize it at the time) and never mentioned that. Sorry for causing so much drama with this topic, everyone! And thank you for your responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookieN Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Saoirse: don´t apologize for causing drama. I think it is a logical question to ask, since we are taking these meds everyday of our lives. Velvet Elvis: Do you remember why exactly psychosis causes brain damage??? I am worried about side effects of medications. After taking psychotropic meds for many years, I have high sugar problems with no family history of diabetes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kittyloaf Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I don't have any studies to back my thoughts up, but my old pdoc said that the ilnesses themselves can cause brain damage. Psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar, etc. The meds we take treat the symptoms, they don't cure the illness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
confused Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 This is one link to a study on grey matter and psychosis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21628707 Grey matter and social functioning correlates of glutamatergic metabolite loss in schizophrenia. There is study going on about early intervention for psychosis (how to go about it, is early treatment with psychotropics neuroprotective.?) . Saoirse-you didn't start drama, just asked a question. CookieN- I don't want to hijack this thread but glucose and lipids can be effected. Sometimes if you switch medication the problem will go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookieN Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Kittyloaf: I agree, meds only treat symptoms, they don´t cure the illness. Confused: that is a very interesting question (early treatment being neuroprotective). However, if meds only treat the symptoms, I don´t see why they would protect the brain. I wonder which antipsychotic has less effect on sugar levels, or if there is something else (like an anti-epileptic drug) that could work as antipsychotic without sugar problems)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Cookie, my understanding of it is that the antipsychotics do not specifically target hallucinations, but the causes of the hallucinations, by treating the cause, which is also the proposed cause for brain damage, you lessen the possible damage. I could be totally wrong in this understanding, it's just in the back of my brain for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookieN Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Eden: As I understand antipsychotics block dopamine. Excess dopamine is supposedly the cause of hallucinations. I haven´t read anything saying that excess dopamine causes brain damage. Although it does show that something is not working right in the brain. In another post***, I was taking how I thought meds had worsened the course of my illness. Everybody disagreed saying that it was not the meds that worsened my condition, but it was the illness itself that tends to worsen as time goes by. But now I am confused, if meds treat the cause to prevent brain damage, why does the illness worsen with time? Isn´t it supposed to remain as it is at least?. At the end I don´t have the answer. I am just trying to connect the dots, with the information I have read. ***The post I mentioned in which I commented is called "Requiem for a Brain". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 There is evidence to suggest that inflammation in the brain causes the damage, that's all I've got on that subject, it's still an unknown. The fact of the matter is that there is a consistent correlation between time spent experiencing psychosis and quantity of grey matter lost. The implication is that taking APs and limiting the time in which you experience psychosis will save as much grey matter as possible, evidence also proves this to be true. On the matter of your condition worsening, we are not doctors, none of us should be expected to give you the answers you need on such a topic. The fact that your condition worsened does not = brain damage. I am experiencing severe depression and I just went on an antidepressant a month or so ago, this could mean any number of things. Maybe it's not the right med for me? Maybe my dosage is off? Maybe my depression has worsened despite the medication. Who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookieN Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Yes, I recently read something about inflammation too!. It was concerning depression as an inflammatory disease. I wonder how meds are related to this inflammation, as I have never read anything between meds and inflammation of brain. I have only read about neurotrasmitters and meds. Is there a way to measure grey matter??? like an MRI??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 There's a study going on that seems to suggest a low grade antibiotic lowers the inflammation in the brain and might save grey matter, but it's still in the works. The cause of APs saving brain matter is not understood, like so many things involving the brain it just is. My understanding of it is that an MRI is best for measuring brain volume, but I really can't say with any certainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
confused Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Confused: that is a very interesting question (early treatment being neuroprotective). However, if meds only treat the symptoms, I don´t see why they would protect the brain. I probably should have left that out. I may have stated it wrong. I just saw some mention of early intervention when I was searching for brain damage caused by psychosis. It might have meant that if you could catch it in the pro-dromal phase, before someone has had a psychotic episode, and treated them with anti-psychotics it wouldn't progress to a psychotic episode. This is one link http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-7893.2007.00021.x/full "if meds treat the cause to prevent brain damage, why does the illness worsen with time? Isn´t it supposed to remain as it is at least?." Untreated bipolar and sz are progressive chronic illnesses. There is also something called the "kindling effect" .http://bipolar.about.com/cs/brainchemistry/a/0009_kindling1.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookieN Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I guess there is so much to be learned on this topic.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somementill Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I'm curious about the whole deflation of the brain thing. From what I understand, Schizophrenia can be a disease that is caused by a high intelligence quotient. Look at this article, about scientists who recreated the delusions and disorganized speech symptoms in a computer model : http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/schizophrenic-computer-points-to-new-theory-of-disease. It might be that psychiatrists are confused about what the disease really is. They call it a chemical imbalance in the brain, but its really more than that. So possibly making the brain smaller and less intelligent is the real cure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
confused Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I'm curious about the whole deflation of the brain thing. From what I understand, Schizophrenia can be a disease that is caused by a high intelligence quotient. Look at this article, about scientists who recreated the delusions and disorganized speech symptoms in a computer model : http://spectrum.ieee...ory-of-disease. It might be that psychiatrists are confused about what the disease really is. They call it a chemical imbalance in the brain, but its really more than that. So possibly making the brain smaller and less intelligent is the real cure. Oh, I hope not. I need whatever I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I've met a number of Sz patients that were not exceptionally bright, though most that I know here are somewhat intelligent and/or talented, I don't believe that to be a requirement. Also, psychosis does not go away when your brain turns to jello. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vapourware Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I'm curious about the whole deflation of the brain thing. From what I understand, Schizophrenia can be a disease that is caused by a high intelligence quotient. Look at this article, about scientists who recreated the delusions and disorganized speech symptoms in a computer model : http://spectrum.ieee...ory-of-disease. It might be that psychiatrists are confused about what the disease really is. They call it a chemical imbalance in the brain, but its really more than that. So possibly making the brain smaller and less intelligent is the real cure. What in the blue fuck are you talking about? That article isn't talking about levels of intelligence. The scientists basically noted that the brain of schizophrenics are more inclined to make associations between objects and ideas, which then potentially feeds into their delusions. I apologise for the strong language, but as a person on the schizophrenic spectrum [having schizoaffective], I take umbrage at the idea that psychiatrists are trying to "shrink" my brain. Without antipsychotics, I cannot function for longer than six months before going batshit. I've found psychosis to have burnt my brain a lot more than any meds I've taken [and I've taken a lot]. It took me over a year to recover from my last major psychotic break. I also think it is dangerous to spread such misinformation, considering the difficulty a lot of us have in taking medication in the first place. Misplaced scaremongering like this has no place on CB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somementill Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 What in the blue fuck are you talking about? That article isn't talking about levels of intelligence. The scientists basically noted that the brain of schizophrenics are more inclined to make associations between objects and ideas, which then potentially feeds into their delusions. I apologise for the strong language, but as a person on the schizophrenic spectrum [having schizoaffective], I take umbrage at the idea that psychiatrists are trying to "shrink" my brain. Without antipsychotics, I cannot function for longer than six months before going batshit. I've found psychosis to have burnt my brain a lot more than any meds I've taken [and I've taken a lot]. It took me over a year to recover from my last major psychotic break. I also think it is dangerous to spread such misinformation, considering the difficulty a lot of us have in taking medication in the first place. Misplaced scaremongering like this has no place on CB. Well I am schizophrenic also. First, I am not 'scaremongering', I just had a thought and posted it. Second did you not read the entire article? While setting out to prove one theory, Hoffman had stumbled upon a completely new one that he calls the "hyperlearning hypothesis." The theory proposes that a period of intense learning, during which the brain assigns an unwarranted importance to new information, can set off delusions and scattered language. The fact that the schizophrneic mind is capable of intense speeds of learning and memory processing is what is causing the misplaced associations known as delusions, because the mind is going too fast and cannot contain and process relevant information before it is tossed aside and new irrelevant information comes in. The mind is stuck in a state of hyperawareness. I've met a number of Sz patients that were not exceptionally bright, though most that I know here are somewhat intelligent and/or talented, I don't believe that to be a requirement. Also, psychosis does not go away when your brain turns to jello. It depends though. Alot of them were bright before the onset of the disease. But once the disase takes hold they start to lose their faculties, so you can't tell if they are bright anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
confused Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 What in the blue fuck are you talking about? That article isn't talking about levels of intelligence. The scientists basically noted that the brain of schizophrenics are more inclined to make associations between objects and ideas, which then potentially feeds into their delusions. I apologise for the strong language, but as a person on the schizophrenic spectrum [having schizoaffective], I take umbrage at the idea that psychiatrists are trying to "shrink" my brain. Without antipsychotics, I cannot function for longer than six months before going batshit. I've found psychosis to have burnt my brain a lot more than any meds I've taken [and I've taken a lot]. It took me over a year to recover from my last major psychotic break. I also think it is dangerous to spread such misinformation, considering the difficulty a lot of us have in taking medication in the first place. Misplaced scaremongering like this has no place on CB. Well I am schizophrenic also. First, I am not 'scaremongering', I just had a thought and posted it. Second did you not read the entire article? While setting out to prove one theory, Hoffman had stumbled upon a completely new one that he calls the "hyperlearning hypothesis." The theory proposes that a period of intense learning, during which the brain assigns an unwarranted importance to new information, can set off delusions and scattered language. The fact that the schizophrneic mind is capable of intense speeds of learning and memory processing is what is causing the misplaced associations known as delusions, because the mind is going too fast and cannot contain and process relevant information before it is tossed aside and new irrelevant information comes in. The mind is stuck in a state of hyperawareness. I've met a number of Sz patients that were not exceptionally bright, though most that I know here are somewhat intelligent and/or talented, I don't believe that to be a requirement. Also, psychosis does not go away when your brain turns to jello. It depends though. Alot of them were bright before the onset of the disease. But once the disase takes hold they start to lose their faculties, so you can't tell if they are bright anymore. I don't know that you can call this theory a fact. I think the medications calm down the "hyperawareness" without affecting the brain as much as the illness, itself. Like you stated the disease causes some deterioration on it's own (and people get worse). I think that goes against your theory that decreasing brain volume is the key to treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somementill Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I don't know that you can call this theory a fact. I think the medications calm down the "hyperawareness" without affecting the brain as much as the illness, itself. Like you stated the disease causes some deterioration on it's own (and people get worse). I think that goes against your theory that decreasing brain volume is the key to treatment. Yeah it does. My theory is stupid and makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vapourware Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I read the entire article, hence my willingness to call bullshit on your theory. "Intense learning" does not correlate to "high intelligence". It simply refers to a strong focus on certain subjects. It's like the concept of "hyperfocus" - someone focuses intently on a subject, which means nothing more than they look at <x> subject more than others. It's not a comment on a person's actual level of intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentium Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 FWIW, psychosis itself is linked to brain damage. Google "psychosis" and "gray matter" and you'll see a ton of studies showing that there is a loss of brain tissue corresponding with manic and psychotic episodes. Here's what it boils down to, assuming we accept the data presented by everyone here as true. 1. Psychosis --> Brain damage = fact 2. Neuroleptics --> Brain damage = needs more study. So. If you're in the position of being liable to psychosis you've got to chose between the option that might cause brain damage (which it doesn't) and the option which almost definitely causes brain damage. Why is it even up for discussion which option is the logical course of action? I also want to restate that this is a pro-medication website. If you're not on board with taking your meds and doing everything you possibly can to get better, you're in the wrong place. I agree with your last line so sorry for saying this in advance but, I just think it's important not to bullshit people when it comes to making decisions like this. The link you posted as "fact", just from the sentence explaining the method.... " 17 patients with schizophrenia before medication and 10 and 80 months after diagnosis. " Sounds to me like all they found was that the drugs cause apparent "damage". Diagnosis > drugs > time > "damage" Sorry if I'm wrong it's just that the method description doesn't seem to mention anything about ruling out drugs or can be interpreted in two ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Elvis Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 I'm curious about the whole deflation of the brain thing. From what I understand, Schizophrenia can be a disease that is caused by a high intelligence quotient. Look at this article, about scientists who recreated the delusions and disorganized speech symptoms in a computer model : http://spectrum.ieee...ory-of-disease. It might be that psychiatrists are confused about what the disease really is. They call it a chemical imbalance in the brain, but its really more than that. So possibly making the brain smaller and less intelligent is the real cure. That's a plain and simple crock of shit. FWIW, psychosis itself is linked to brain damage. Google "psychosis" and "gray matter" and you'll see a ton of studies showing that there is a loss of brain tissue corresponding with manic and psychotic episodes. Here's what it boils down to, assuming we accept the data presented by everyone here as true. 1. Psychosis --> Brain damage = fact 2. Neuroleptics --> Brain damage = needs more study. So. If you're in the position of being liable to psychosis you've got to chose between the option that might cause brain damage (which it doesn't) and the option which almost definitely causes brain damage. Why is it even up for discussion which option is the logical course of action? I also want to restate that this is a pro-medication website. If you're not on board with taking your meds and doing everything you possibly can to get better, you're in the wrong place. I agree with your last line so sorry for saying this in advance but, I just think it's important not to bullshit people when it comes to making decisions like this. The link you posted as "fact", just from the sentence explaining the method.... " 17 patients with schizophrenia before medication and 10 and 80 months after diagnosis. " Sounds to me like all they found was that the drugs cause apparent "damage". Diagnosis > drugs > time > "damage" Sorry if I'm wrong it's just that the method description doesn't seem to mention anything about ruling out drugs or can be interpreted in two ways. I'm so tempted to lock this thread because everyone posting on it is a fucking idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Honestly, I wish you would. I'd unsubscribe but it's like a car crash I just can't look away from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerberus Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 From what I understand, Schizophrenia can be a disease that is caused by a high intelligence quotient. [...] So possibly making the brain smaller and less intelligent is the real cure. Your theory suffers from a logical fallacy as its premise. High intelligence is not a causality for any pathology. And even if it were, your proposed cure, which amounts to us all regressing to early hominids, is absurd. The entire question of whether psychoactive medications damage the brain has to be approached with the understanding that many of our MI conditions damage the brain either directly or indirectly. Chronic depression, for instance, has been demonstrated to cause worsening abnormalities in specific areas of the brain, including the hippocampus, anterior cingulate, and prefrontal cortex. Some damage may be related to the long-term exposure to stress brought on by the condition. The possibility that a psychoactive med might cause an undesirable result has to be weighed against the damage that is certainly being caused by the disease. What's the point in arguing against treatment when the alternative is to simply suffer? One cannot treat one's illness by simply becoming more stupid, as you would suggest. Look, it sucks to be us - we have to choose the lesser of the evils. Someday, we hope, science's understanding of the brain will lift us past these devil's bargains, but right now, it's the best we've got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Cheers Cerberus. What bothers me the most about these studies is that they make no mention of a control group. If there were in fact a control group it would be apparent that brain damage is lessened and most likely the result of MI itself, not the treatment. It pisses me off that half baked studies get funded and published with the intent to imply something untrue. I'm not saying that these studies are (necessarily) intentionally wrong, but they are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
confused Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Cheers Cerberus. What bothers me the most about these studies is that they make no mention of a control group. If there were in fact a control group it would be apparent that brain damage is lessened and most likely the result of MI itself, not the treatment. It pisses me off that half baked studies get funded and published with the intent to imply something untrue. I'm not saying that these studies are (necessarily) intentionally wrong, but they are wrong. what kind of control group? I don't think it would be ethical to withhold anti-psychotics when someone is symptomatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Cheers Cerberus. What bothers me the most about these studies is that they make no mention of a control group. If there were in fact a control group it would be apparent that brain damage is lessened and most likely the result of MI itself, not the treatment. It pisses me off that half baked studies get funded and published with the intent to imply something untrue. I'm not saying that these studies are (necessarily) intentionally wrong, but they are wrong. what kind of control group? I don't think it would be ethical to withhold anti-psychotics when someone is symptomatic. If it's unethical to do the study correctly it's pointless to expect someone to give it merit and pretend your study is hard science. I agree, it is unethical, not to mention there are varying degrees of psychosis, to do this properly it would take a huge number of actively psychotic individuals. That said, barring the attempt at a correct study, there shouldn't be arbitrary statements made with pseudo-science to back them up. That, IMO, is unethical. Edit: F you caps lock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crtclms Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 If they're concerned about brain damage from APs, with informed consent, I don't see why it is unethical for them to withhold anti-psychotics: The study is examining whether APs are harmful, so it might not be considered unethical, because in theory stopping the APs might be helpful. But I don't know how you would do double blind studies, given that a lot of people with schizophrenia are paranoid, and many of them are psychotic, and can't give consent. It would probably be pretty difficult to recruit subjects who are capable of giving informed consent. In my dad's medication studies, they also had a "normal" control group that wasn't given any meds (because they weren't sick), to compare the norm (in this case, brain volume) to the schizophrenic subjects. And I also read the article, and there are so many caveats it is pretty useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 If there were to be a control group it wouldn't make sense to involve the mentally well, if you're comparing brain volume you need to see how much damage the illness does untreated as your control. You could also give psych meds to the mentally well, see if there is in fact a loss in brain volume, with a control group of untreated joe schmoes. Though that also seems somewhat unethical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookieN Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 I see that most people have focused this topic on brain size/shrinkage. Chinese medicine says illness not always is related to the organ structure (in this case brain size) but is sometimes caused by the way the organ works, examples blockages in energy flow. I have gotten MRI of my brain before and after treatment and it seems it is the same size. What I am really interested about is how my brain is working, if the electric messages within the brain are really working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Elvis Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 I see that most people have focused this topic on brain size/shrinkage. Chinese medicine says illness not always is related to the organ structure (in this case brain size) but is sometimes caused by the way the organ works, examples blockages in energy flow. I have gotten MRI of my brain before and after treatment and it seems it is the same size. What I am really interested about is how my brain is working, if the electric messages within the brain are really working. Chinese medicine is a crock of shit too. Even in China, evidence based medicine is what you get when you go to any hospital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookieN Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 This may be true. But my point is that brain damage doesn´t have to be only measured by brain size, but also about how the brain functions. I have heard so many times about neurotrasmitters malfunction being the cause of mental illness (western theory). So what I am really interested is how to improve these signals between neurons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 This may be true. But my point is that brain damage doesn´t have to be only measured by brain size, but also about how the brain functions. I have heard so many times about neurotrasmitters malfunction being the cause of mental illness (western theory). So what I am really interested is how to improve these signals between neurons. How is this at all relevant. Start a thread if you have a question, this thread really needs to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Elvis Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 This may be true. But my point is that brain damage doesn´t have to be only measured by brain size, but also about how the brain functions. I have heard so many times about neurotrasmitters malfunction being the cause of mental illness (western theory). So what I am really interested is how to improve these signals between neurons. Dude. If you're questioning the very validity of modern medical science you really are nuts. MDs lean the same basic things all around the world. There is no longer any such thing as "eastern medicine" and "western medicine." There's just "medical science" and "superstition." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
confused Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 We're going ot, but there are plenty of tests of cognitive functioning. I'm sure that all the things that are healthy for the rest of your body would be good for your brain (eating healthy, exercise etc). Fish oil can help with mood, I don't know about cognitive skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notfred Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 I have heard so many times about neurotrasmitters malfunction being the cause of mental illness (western theory). "Chemical Imbalance" is a simplistic analogy used to help everyday people have a little understanding of the complexities of neurology. To give it a cause so patients can better accept MI is a real illness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prada Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Neuroleptics, or "antipsychotics", do indeed cause brain damage if used in moderate to high doses over a substantial period of time, the effects of which may or may not be reversible. When used in the short term, the brain's neurological functions will normalize some time after cessation, however the neurological effects of neuroleptics when used over a long period of time (years vs months) can lead to neurological deficiciencies that can only be described as pathological. Personally I believe that antipsychotics should only be used to treat acute episodes of psychosis. Long term maintenance therapy should only be considered for severe cases of schizophrenia. I urge all people using these drugs to do their own research, and not to simply stop at the line drawn by the immensely profitable pharmaceutical industry and the information they deem viewable by the public. If you do decide to come off a neuroleptic, do so gradually- the dopamine supersensitivity created by the neuroleptic-induced dopamine deficiency will make you extremely prone to mania if you come off too quickly. I believe many people who are diagnosed bipolar due to multiple manic relapses may never have had those relapses were it not for drug-induced neurological supersensitivities. It's easy to mistake emerging effects of neuroleptics as a worsening of mental illness. I suggest doing as much research as possible, particularly where neurology is concerned. Seroquel, for example, works by inducing dopaminergic, serotonergic, histaminergic and cholinergic deficiencies. This is simply a matter of fact. These drugs work by creating a chemical imbalance. While this is fact, the concept that mental illness is a product of an inherent chemical imbalance has not been proven, in fact it has been disproven on many occasions. Studies linking schizophrenia to dopaminergic dysfunction were almost all the product of observations on patients who were treated with neuroleptics. Do the research and decide for yourself. I believe there are safer, more effective ways of healing. One last thing- if you think the pharmaceutical companies have your best interests at heart, and that information disseminated by that industry is trustworthy, look up "Seroquel Trial 15" (or see the link below, which contains numerous legal exhibits related to Seroquel). http://psychrights.o...roquelExhibits/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertolobat Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Do please enlighten us of these "safer, more effective ways of healing". I am genuinely interested in it, even thought I do not agree 100% with the rest of your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 You're quoting information from a law firm. Ambulance chasers. I'd comment but we've pretty much been over this time and time again. I'm locking this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.