![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 20 to 44 of 44. Go back in thread:
Posted by Oddzilla on June 13, 2000, at 14:53:21
In reply to Re: claire - alternative views, posted by KarenB on June 13, 2000, at 13:49:28
I'm reading a new book from the library-Your Miracle Brain by Jean Carper. It's about using food and supplements to make the brain function better. It's pretty mainstream and quotes a lot of research studies. A quote from the jacket:
Myth: You are born with a genetically determined brain of fixed size and potential, and there is nothing you can do to change it.
Reality: Your brain is a growing, changing organ and you can greatly improve the very structure, wiring, and functioning of your brain cells by what you eat and the supplements you take.
It isn't specifically for people with depression but I found it very encouraging.
I agree with the people who will try anything that helps. I sometimes wonder how much damage the medications were doing to my brain in addition to what was all ready there waiting to be corrected. I want to try to give my brain some general support in gratitude for all the adventures it's taken me on;). I know it's not easy to start some new diet and health program when you all ready feel bad (I had quit taking vitamins because I was just too tired to swallow them).Anyway I thought some of you might be interested. O.
Posted by Rockets on June 13, 2000, at 15:11:43
In reply to all relate? (SORRY, from Bbob the non-human), posted by Bbob on June 12, 2000, at 20:50:12
Heh.. Bbob. You're funny sometimes. Peace.
Posted by claire 7 on June 13, 2000, at 15:12:45
In reply to Re Book Recommendation, posted by Oddzilla on June 13, 2000, at 14:53:21
O.Z., if I may be so familiar....For some strange reason your sentence "I wanted to give my brain some general support in gratitude for all the adventures it's taken me on" made me cry!
I finished my 3-month taper-down (Effexor and Remeron) on Friday. Despite the lengthy weaning, (and I did them one at a time)I've had some very miserable weeks of withdrawal; but then I've been on one AD or another for 12 years, so my poor brain had some serious readjusting to do.You know, I think you made me cry because you made me think of my brain with affection and sympathy for perhaps the first time in my life.
I think this will be a useful symbol for me to keep in mind in the next months.THANK YOU! Claire
Posted by claire 7 on June 13, 2000, at 15:30:07
In reply to Re: Re Book Recommendation, posted by claire 7 on June 13, 2000, at 15:12:45
P.S. to O.Z.
Currently reading (re-reading, actually) PRODUCTIVE AND NONPRODUCTIVE DEPRESSION, Emmy Gut.
Posted by shar on June 13, 2000, at 22:44:33
In reply to Re: I'm sure you can all relate to this reply..., posted by CarolAnn on June 12, 2000, at 19:05:52
Carol Ann,
I can definitely relate to what you're talking about with other people ("normals" ?) giving advice or trying to "cheer you up."I find it extremely bothersome, and I will go so far as to include my doctors (not my pdoc) who say "that should be controllable with diet (or aerobics, or ...whatever?" Arrgghh.
I usually tell them if there was an effective dietary/aerobic/etc. change that would eliminate depression, I would definitely want to try it immediately. 'Til then, I'm staying with my antidepressants.
I liken it to diabetes and insulin. You make a good point. Thanks.
S
Posted by CarolAnn on June 14, 2000, at 9:11:13
In reply to Re: I'm sure you can all relate to this reply..., posted by shar on June 13, 2000, at 22:44:33
How absolutely CLUELESS is it for these Doctors(and others) to promote "exercise" as a depression remedy? I mean, I read all the literature, I know about endorphins, but how the hell am I supposed to start an exercise program, when my depression has me so fatigued that I'm lucky if I can even get off the couch!!! Geez, sometimes, I'm so tired I can't even get up and get something to eat when I'm starving!
Obviously, this is a huge pet peeve! :) CarolAnn
Posted by harry b. on June 14, 2000, at 11:17:00
In reply to Re: here's another one Shar..., posted by CarolAnn on June 14, 2000, at 9:11:13
> How absolutely CLUELESS is it for these Doctors(and others) to promote "exercise" as a depression remedy? I mean, I read all the literature, I know about endorphins, but how the hell am I supposed to start an exercise program, when my depression has me so fatigued that I'm lucky if I can even get off the couch!!! Geez, sometimes, I'm so tired I can't even get up and get something to eat when I'm starving!
> Obviously, this is a huge pet peeve! :) CarolAnnJust get off your butt, pull up those boot straps
and DO IT!(sorry, sorry, just my sick humor)
BTW my neighbor mowed his lawn, (again!) this morning.
I had been keeping up with mine but sadly it is now
more pasture than lawn. :(
hb
Posted by Johnturner77 on June 14, 2000, at 12:55:48
In reply to Re: I'm sure you can all relate to this reply..., posted by SLS on June 13, 2000, at 7:21:15
> > >
> > >> I suspect what CarolAnn really was asking was; is there a natural substance, that when taken over time, awakens the ability of the brain to experience pleasure and enhances the drive for reward?>>
> >
> > BINGO! Johnturner77!
> >
> Perhaps the best we can hope for is distraction.
>
> Awhile back I took some Valerian Root for awhile. Several times I had what was for me an eye opener. When I found something funny or pleasureable I felt a(for me) powerful alien surge of happiness. I said to myself, "self, this what it must mean to not be depressed". I don't want to be a zombie with a frozen on smile, just experience happiness appropriately. Unfortunately, whatever mechanism blocks normal pleasure managed to figure out how to circumvent this latest attempt to reprogram it.
Posted by brian on June 14, 2000, at 17:37:11
In reply to Re: The Best we can hope for is distraction, posted by Johnturner77 on June 14, 2000, at 12:55:48
> > > >
> > > >> I suspect what CarolAnn really was asking was; is there a natural substance, that when taken over time, awakens the ability of the brain to experience pleasure and enhances the drive for reward?>>
> > >
> > > BINGO! Johnturner77!
> > >
> > Perhaps the best we can hope for is distraction.
> >
> > Awhile back I took some Valerian Root for awhile. Several times I had what was for me an eye opener. When I found something funny or pleasureable I felt a(for me) powerful alien surge of happiness. I said to myself, "self, this what it must mean to not be depressed". I don't want to be a zombie with a frozen on smile, just experience happiness appropriately. Unfortunately, whatever mechanism blocks normal pleasure managed to figure out how to circumvent this latest attempt to reprogram it.
I'm with you there, JT77. As a veteran of SSRIs, I've many times experienced the fading of the flush: two days of simple happiness followed by a trip back down to what I have often considered my "normal" state. Perhaps all we can ask of medication is that it regulate, as sails regulate the course of a ship. The ropes pulling the sails keep us on course, but we must always be alert; pulling when necessary, switching ropes... ah, so much for that analogy.It's a great relief to me that others can share the frustrating experience of trying to relate our pain to "normals." It's like Louis Armstrong said to some reporter who asked him to define jazz: "Man if you have to ask, you'll never know." And I defy anyone not afflicted with serious depression to stand in my shoes for a day. The only thing a bubble bath will accomplish is the wrinkling of their fingertips. Perhaps all we can ask for is empathy and respect.
One observation: this room is not a microcosm of society, namely because everyone here is suffering from at least one psychological disorder (or brain malfunction, or mere participation in this awful society, etc.). I believe that 100 percent of the population on this board falls into the minority of the population affected by mental "distress." And whatever the cause, this level of distress cuts far deeper than it does for the majority of the population. Because of this, I don't take much stock in the Megadeth-like grand condemnations of capitalist-society-as-cause with any seriousness. If the machinery of capitalism or some dehumanizing aspect of modern society is the root cause of my mental illness, well, then I may as well check myself into the nearest Russian novel.
Posted by PeterC on June 14, 2000, at 19:47:45
In reply to Re: The Best we can hope for is distraction, posted by brian on June 14, 2000, at 17:37:11
Well, this seem like productive dialogue.
A clarification: boBB is not clair. boBB hints of tolerance or perhaps even approval for street drugs, but has never affirmed a personal need or interest in industrial psychopharmaceuticals. boBB is PeterC. for whatever reason, the software would not seem to accept the boBB handle and password, so I used the PeterC instead. Claire might (or might not) want to get well. boBB does not. boBB said he hopes his discomfort infects those around him. "boBB" (isn't the very use of the handle just irritating now?!,heh heh) owns his dour feelings and thinks whatever sickness he suffers is a likely reaction to circumstances, and prefers to challenge the circumstances. Whereas others consider "cutting" pathological, boBB considers it a crude sacred ceremony. Well, thats boBB for ya!. boBB owns his depression, anger and mania, prefering to sublimate these chemical "imbalances" into an artful life of mental gymnastics. RUDE!
Whatever heat erupted in this thread likely involved in part my confusion over how quickly a discussion about dopamine went to a discussion about personal preferences in approaches to symptomology, but I explained that in an earlier post.
The only thing i would like to add now, having contemplated these posts for a while, is that I am not so sure we would do well to start talking to God. I was thinking God might prefer that we cease the constant talking-talking, and listen for a while.
This goD really has said quite a lot that deserves consideration.
Posted by CarolAnn on June 15, 2000, at 8:51:20
In reply to Re: The Best we can hope for is distraction, posted by PeterC on June 14, 2000, at 19:47:45
>>I am not so sure we would do well to start talking to God. I was thinking God might prefer that we cease the constant talking-talking, and listen for a while.>>
>
PeterC, I find this to be a most incredibly profound statement. In fact, I have very often thought to myself that God is, probably, damn sick and tired of hearing all my whining about my problems. Even I'm tired of hearing it! "Why do I have to be depressed, why does everything have to be so hard for me, why can't I just have enough energy to take care of all my day to day stuff? whine, whine, whine!!!
So, I've decided to try very hard to take your advice and start listening to God, rather than bitching at him about the hand of cards I got dealt! Thanx for an enlightening post! CarolAnn
Posted by KarenB on June 15, 2000, at 11:45:32
In reply to Re: God » PeterC, posted by CarolAnn on June 15, 2000, at 8:51:20
PeterC & CarolAnn,
I think, if you want to truly know someone, a two way dialogue is essential. Would you agree? Of course, believing you are actually talking to SOMEONE would be a prerequisite and I don't know your beliefs on that one.
You have a good point, PeterC - listening is vital BUT I don't believe that God ever gets "fed up" with hearing from us, as you suggest, Carol Ann. I never get "fed up" with listening to my own children and I believe God to be perfect, the antithesis of impatience. You're right, though, Carol Ann - as I tell my two boys (ages 5 and 2 1/2), "Whining is not a useful form of communication." I get sick of hearing MYSELF when I am whining but God knows the intentions of my heart anyway, so I'm sure nothing I SAY to Him is any big surprise.
Sorry about the tangent but you did bring it up, PeterC:)
If you ever figure out how to boost Dopamine naturally and permanently, Carol Ann, please let me know.
Karen
P.S. BoBB, does the supposition that claire is not BoBB eliminate the possibility that they may occupy the same physical body?
Posted by brian on June 15, 2000, at 13:37:37
In reply to Re: The Best we can hope for is distraction, posted by PeterC on June 14, 2000, at 19:47:45
> Well, this seem like productive dialogue.
>
> A clarification: boBB is not clair. boBB hints of tolerance or perhaps even approval for street drugs, but has never affirmed a personal need or interest in industrial psychopharmaceuticals. boBB is PeterC. for whatever reason, the software would not seem to accept the boBB handle and password, so I used the PeterC instead. Claire might (or might not) want to get well. boBB does not. boBB said he hopes his discomfort infects those around him. "boBB" (isn't the very use of the handle just irritating now?!,heh heh) owns his dour feelings and thinks whatever sickness he suffers is a likely reaction to circumstances, and prefers to challenge the circumstances. Whereas others consider "cutting" pathological, boBB considers it a crude sacred ceremony. Well, thats boBB for ya!. boBB owns his depression, anger and mania, prefering to sublimate these chemical "imbalances" into an artful life of mental gymnastics. RUDE!
>
> Whatever heat erupted in this thread likely involved in part my confusion over how quickly a discussion about dopamine went to a discussion about personal preferences in approaches to symptomology, but I explained that in an earlier post.
>
> The only thing i would like to add now, having contemplated these posts for a while, is that I am not so sure we would do well to start talking to God. I was thinking God might prefer that we cease the constant talking-talking, and listen for a while.
>
> This goD really has said quite a lot that deserves consideration.
brian believes that brian's pathology is "cutting." brian does not interpret "cuts" as "stigmata."brian welcomes back BBob/boBB/PeterC/X. brian believes that any ongoing human discussion must inevitably include at least one voice of dissention. brian believes that this necessity is deeply woven into the sociological landscape.
brian believes that, if BBob/boBB/PeterC/X did not exist, it would be necessary to create him.
amen.
Posted by claire 7 on June 15, 2000, at 14:06:10
In reply to Re: The Best we can hope for is distraction, posted by brian on June 15, 2000, at 13:37:37
>
brian--Hope this isn't a kiss of death, but I really liked your post!
Posted by KarenB on June 15, 2000, at 17:33:23
In reply to Re: The Best we can hope for is distraction, posted by brian on June 15, 2000, at 13:37:37
> brian believes that, if BBob/boBB/PeterC/X did not exist, it would be necessary to create him.
I think Voltaire said that very thing about God. However, if Voltaire had not existed, it would NOT have been necessary to create HIM.Peace to ALL of you, brian.
Karen
Posted by brian on June 15, 2000, at 18:32:24
In reply to Re: The Best we can hope for is distraction » brian, posted by KarenB on June 15, 2000, at 17:33:23
> > brian believes that, if BBob/boBB/PeterC/X did not exist, it would be necessary to create him.
>
>
> I think Voltaire said that very thing about God. However, if Voltaire had not existed, it would NOT have been necessary to create HIM.
>
> Peace to ALL of you, brian.
>
> KarenOoh, Karen, I think you missed my point. Read my other posts (eg, various celexa whining) if you think I'm part of the legion.
Frankly, I find bobb's stuff entertaining. If he wasn't here, I think someone else would take up that role. It's the way we humans work.
PS
RE: Voltaire: How does the joke go? Doestyevski writes on a page: "God does not exist, signed Doestyevski." God writes on Doestyevski's tomb: "Doestyevski does not exist, signed God." I'm sure there's a better way to tell it, but you get the idea.
Posted by shar on June 16, 2000, at 0:08:54
In reply to Re: God - PeterC Carol Ann, posted by KarenB on June 15, 2000, at 11:45:32
>>> P.S. BoBB, does the supposition that claire is not BoBB eliminate the possibility that they may occupy the same physical body?
>You know, I've been wondering the very same thing. I don't know much about MPD or dissociative (sp?) disorders, but with all the personalities I'm thinking that may be it.
Or, thespian of the high-drama variety?
S
Posted by Johnturner77 on June 18, 2000, at 14:02:52
In reply to question about dopamine, posted by CarolAnn on June 10, 2000, at 10:08:27
> I just suddenly wondered if anyone had heard of any natural ways to supplement dopamine? I mean, we have 5htp and St. John's Wort for Serotonin, and I'm not sure about where Sam-e's effectiveness is. But, I don't think I've ever heard of any dopamine effectors that didn't need prescriptions. Any ideas? Or has this been covered and I missed it? Just curious, CarolAnn
All this digression from the original post seems to imply that there really isn't any viable effective natural dopamine enhancer."I have abandoned my search for truth and am now looking of a good fantasy"
Ashley Brilliant
Posted by Rebecca on June 18, 2000, at 16:32:36
In reply to You may be on to something » KarenB, posted by shar on June 16, 2000, at 0:08:54
> >>> P.S. BoBB, does the supposition that claire is not BoBB eliminate the possibility that they may occupy the same physical body?
> >
>
> You know, I've been wondering the very same thing. I don't know much about MPD or dissociative (sp?) disorders, but with all the personalities I'm thinking that may be it.
>
> Or, thespian of the high-drama variety?
>
> SI hate to get involved in this pettiness, but...
Is the idea that people other than boBB can agree with him such an anathema that you all have to constantly develop conspiracy theories?
before anyone accuses me, I'm not boBB, claire, or anyone else. I just hate to see how boBB's input is being treated. I don't agree with all of them or their presentation, but I think he has valuable contributions. it certainly makes me nervous about contributing any opinion that goes against the majority.
Posted by brian on June 18, 2000, at 17:08:53
In reply to Re: You may be on to something, posted by Rebecca on June 18, 2000, at 16:32:36
> > >>> P.S. BoBB, does the supposition that claire is not BoBB eliminate the possibility that they may occupy the same physical body?
> > >
> >
> > You know, I've been wondering the very same thing. I don't know much about MPD or dissociative (sp?) disorders, but with all the personalities I'm thinking that may be it.
> >
> > Or, thespian of the high-drama variety?
> >
> > S
>
> I hate to get involved in this pettiness, but...
>
> Is the idea that people other than boBB can agree with him such an anathema that you all have to constantly develop conspiracy theories?
>
> before anyone accuses me, I'm not boBB, claire, or anyone else. I just hate to see how boBB's input is being treated. I don't agree with all of them or their presentation, but I think he has valuable contributions. it certainly makes me nervous about contributing any opinion that goes against the majority.People believe what they want to believe and often use new information simply to support pre-held beliefs. There's nothing horrible about this; it's called being human.
Also, BBob has at times exhibited behaviour that might make people wonder about identities. Add that to a forum where it's very difficult to prove who is saying what and you have a recipe for suspicion. In the end, though, you can only be yourself. What else are you gonna do? This is a cool place, but it's only one place. Nobody should put his or her soul into a cyber bulletin board.
Every once in a while it's a good idea to get outside, or at least to look at your hands.
If you're real, you'll know it.
brian
Posted by BBob on June 18, 2000, at 19:39:14
In reply to Re: You may be on to something, posted by brian on June 18, 2000, at 17:08:53
Well said, brian (or are you really brain?) maybe MY BRAIN?
That's a joke. Put down the lighters and gas cans, pleeze, dear readers.
Re: John Turner's reply, my origninal response regarding dopamenergic upregulation reflects some of the most widely published discussion in popular periodicals (Time, Nature, 1997) which was in turn based on well considered study of recent research. Except for the fact that I, boBB aka Peter C and a few others, wrote the information it probably deserves consideration. Instead of enhancing dopamine, we might want to look at ways to down-regulate or refocus dopamenergic networks. I do know that stable cognition requires much more stability of dopamine levels than of serotonin, GABA, NorE and other neurotransmitters. More than about 20 percent fluctuation tends to trigger major cognitive breakdown.
Upregulation of dopaminergic networks, and the hazards of dopamine enhancement has been widely studied. What the addiction studies often fail to address is the impact of environmental factors that upregulate dopaminergic networks.
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
And to whoever wrote this:> > > >>> P.S. BoBB, does the supposition that claire is not BoBB eliminate the possibility that they may occupy the same physical body?
> > > >
> > >I would say that is a very personal matter that Claire and myself should work out between ourselves, if at all. (Sorry claire couldn't avoid the pun, but maybe "you 'n me, babe, how 'bout it?" I always wanted to be an organic farmer ... I'm living in a town, which is not the life I had planned. I could get over your belief in psychiatric science circa 2000, and you would be the only one here that knows my real identity, which you could use against me if we got in a quarrel!)
> > > You know, I've been wondering the very same thing. I don't know much about MPD or dissociative (sp?) disorders, but with all the personalities I'm thinking that may be it.
> > >
> > > Or, thespian of the high-drama variety?
> > >
> > > S
> >
> > I hate to get involved in this pettiness, but...
> >
> > Is the idea that people other than boBB can agree with him such an anathema that you all have to constantly develop conspiracy theories?
> >
> > before anyone accuses me, I'm not boBB, claire, or anyone else. I just hate to see how boBB's input is being treated. I don't agree with all of them or their presentation, but I think he has valuable contributions. it certainly makes me nervous about contributing any opinion that goes against the majority.
>
> People believe what they want to believe and often use new information simply to support pre-held beliefs. There's nothing horrible about this; it's called being human.
>
> Also, BBob has at times exhibited behaviour that might make people wonder about identities. Add that to a forum where it's very difficult to prove who is saying what and you have a recipe for suspicion. In the end, though, you can only be yourself. What else are you gonna do? This is a cool place, but it's only one place. Nobody should put his or her soul into a cyber bulletin board.
>
> Every once in a while it's a good idea to get outside, or at least to look at your hands.
>
> If you're real, you'll know it.
>
> brian
Posted by Peter C on June 18, 2000, at 19:55:46
In reply to Re: God » PeterC, posted by CarolAnn on June 15, 2000, at 8:51:20
Hmmm. Maybe we can all get along!
Thanks for letting me know when I am offering something usefull CarolAnn.
And KarenB, I sort of agree that God, whatever or whoever that might be, does want to know us. There is a whole library of philosophic, comsological, spiritaul questions that arises from this discussion. Whatever I contribute would reflect more what I have been exposed to than any universal truth. My comment was informed by me background in American Christianity of several forms, some dabbling in world religions, paganism, and some exposure to indigenous spiritual practices.
If God is all-powerful and omnicient, he, she, it or they alread know what we are thinking. On the other hand, the spiritual practice of prayer might be encouraged by groups worldwide because it tends to let us know we are talking to god - it serves to pay recognition to God, and lets us use our conscious linguistic brain/mind to humble ourselves.
My comment - especially the term "talking-talking" (which comes from some Canadian indigenous grouP, thank them) - was about how we tend to get all worked up and use our prayer life to reflect our own will rather than acceptance of whatever God has to offer. I suppose that resonated with CarolAnn, somewhat. In an era when human fabrications seem to dominate the earth, I feel it is important to hear that "still small voice" and to recognize the rules, order and functions he built in to this creation when he (she, it or they?) spoke it into existence. Actually, that is sort of the same thing I was saying about dopaminergic upregulation, if anyone can follow that logic.
Now here I go, talking-talking, heh?
I hope we all stopped to remember Juneteenth.
(Sorry about the dual identities in adjacent posts - I wanted to use the right name with the right subject, though, (BBob, PeterC)
> >>I am not so sure we would do well to start talking to God. I was thinking God might prefer that we cease the constant talking-talking, and listen for a while.>>
> >
> PeterC, I find this to be a most incredibly profound statement. In fact, I have very often thought to myself that God is, probably, damn sick and tired of hearing all my whining about my problems. Even I'm tired of hearing it! "Why do I have to be depressed, why does everything have to be so hard for me, why can't I just have enough energy to take care of all my day to day stuff? whine, whine, whine!!!
> So, I've decided to try very hard to take your advice and start listening to God, rather than bitching at him about the hand of cards I got dealt! Thanx for an enlightening post! CarolAnn
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2000, at 21:31:26
In reply to Re: question about dopamine, posted by claire 7 on June 12, 2000, at 21:29:12
> C R U D E Rockets. 6 T H G R A D E Rockets.
Comments like the above aren't civil. Please try to be either educational or supportive -- or both! Thanks,
Bob
Posted by claire 7 on June 18, 2000, at 22:29:57
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2000, at 21:31:26
Did you bother to read what I was responding to? Did you bother to read what Rockets was responding to? Do you think Rockets was civil? By your limited definition, I suppose he was. But I would have thought your sensitivity, in your line of work, would have to be a little more highly developed than that. I find your comment outrageous.
Posted by Johnturner77 on June 19, 2000, at 12:39:13
In reply to Re: question about dopamine, posted by BBob on June 10, 2000, at 11:50:46
> Anything fun.
If you suffer from anhedonia, anything short of cocaine isn't fun.
>
> Anything fun, or rewarding tends to promote the release of dopamine. Chemically, coffee, chocolate, and nicotine have all been connected with dopaminergic activity.None of these are primarily dopaminergic in effect which is one reason they are relatively unregulated.
Socially, things like sex, sports and power-brokerage are sometimes associated with dopamine.
All of these things are recognizably addictive when they become inappropriate.
>> When we discuss reinforcing properties of commonly abused drugs, we are talking about upregulation of dopaminergic synapses frontal-limbic networks associated with commonly abused drugs. When we talked about whether the President of the United States suffered from a sexual addiction, the presumption was that he had by practice upregulated dopamenergic receptor sites along the synapses of cognitive networks built around sexual habits.
>
I suppose this is related to all the great problems of human existence. When your pleasure becomes my pain I want to make sure you suffer equally(or better!)>
>
> Of course all of these answers fail to address the psycho-pharmaceutical question. Some diseases are associated with dopamine difficencies. Some activists say wider access to now-outlawed medications, such as cannibas or coca, would provide reliable, affordable treatments for diseases related to dopa deficits. But dopa-mobilizing substances, such as cannibas or coca, are outlawed for that very reason, and that is why we are unlikely to find substances that are very specific or efficacious for increasing dopamine among the legal pharmacopia - they tend to cause euphoria, and people tend to accept that chemically induces euphoria as an alternative to the pleasure that would otherwise be found in social activities.First the drug issue: Most of the the addictive dopamine enhancers don't provide useful effects as used. I don't know if there is a level of cocaine useage for example, that would only enhance the natural responsiveness of the dopaminergic systems. Just a little bit more and the drug becomes its own reward. Therefore, everyone crosses over the line and nearly everyone who tries it abuses it. If you chewed one coca leaf for breakfast and lunch would it be a useful treatment for ADD? Even the natural use tended to abuse in Bolvia and Peru.
Even a drug like GHB has gotten itself categorized as schedule 3(It should the no more than a 2 as its has definite medical uses) The only dopaminergic drug I cant think of that wouldn't get itself classified as abuseable would be one that is in some way self limiting. Amisulpride is in this category. More doesn't provide a better effect. In fact, more actually causes an opposite effect. St. John's Wort is supposed to effect serotonin, dopamine, and Epinephrine neurotransmitters. If it had a significant Dopiminergic effect it would have probably been classified as abuseable. In many people it actually suppresses dopamine through stimulation of H2 receptors.
>
Maybe what we reaaly need is for Amisulpride to become an OTC med! 8>)
>
> > I just suddenly wondered if anyone had heard of any natural ways to supplement dopamine? I mean, we have 5htp and St. John's Wort for Serotonin, and I'm not sure about where Sam-e's effectiveness is. But, I don't think I've ever heard of any dopamine effectors that didn't need prescriptions. Any ideas? Or has this been covered and I missed it? Just curious, CarolAnn
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.