No, recent fMRI studies in Toronto demonstrated that the efficacy of the
SSRIs may well be mediated by their ability to reduce hippocampal activation
and stimulate neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus. Cortisol reduces
neurogenesis, probably via the mutual antagonism of GR occupation and nfkb
transcription; nfkb being essential not only for LTP but also neurogenesis
or probably just any any-cell-genesis. In short, the drugs, while having
their problems (I have bad reactions to SSRIs), can work remarkably well in
some people by encouraging hippocampal rehabilitation and facilitating
reactivation of the frontal cortices which tend to be quieter in depression.
It has been tested and you are wrong. Stop quoting your own ideas and have
the humility to appreciate that other people just might be right on
occasion. I am sick to death of seeing people take cheap shots. Don't insult
my intelligence with spurious ill founded propositions.
John H.
"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Td199.25634$Ke2.1944930 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Ian Goddard wrote in message <3d62f359.92179446 at news.erols.com>...
> >
> > The following reviews a new book by Douglas Bremner, an Emory
> > University psychiatrist who argues that many major psychiatric
> > conditions are the result of environmental stressors.
> >[...]
>> >"When patients are having flashbacks, as my veteran was, they are
> >unaware of what is going on in the present," said Dr. Bremner.
> >"Patients often describe flashbacks as if a movie were playing in
> >front of their eyes, complete with visual images, sounds and
> >smells." Dr. Bremner theorized that the flashbacks could involve the
> >same brain areas that are affected by seizures, most importantly the
> >hippocampus, which is affected in 80% of epilepsy cases. Subsequent
> >PET (positron emission tomography) studies with trauma victims
> >showed a significant and direct link between a reduction in the
> >volume of the hippocampus and PTSD.
>> The relatively-recent [~3 years ago] findings with respect to
> hippocampal stem-cell proliferation probably indicate that such
> hippocampal 'atrophy' is, at least to a degree, 'reversible'.
>> The 'atrophy' correlates strongly with the survival-necessity
> inherent in prolonged 'stressful' environmental circumstances, and
> is, itself, commensurate with TD E/I-minimization in that it would
> reduce information-processing options to a relatively-small subset
> that's dictated by the environmental stressors, thereby, augmenting
> the information-processing 'power' that can be 'poured-into' a
> relatively-narrow range of survival-pertinent behavioral
> manifestations.
>> 'Reversibility' of stress-induced hippocampal 'atrophy' would enable
> post-stress-reaction return to 'normal' information-processing.
>> The 'catch' is that, if 'modern' psychiatric practice 'intervenes'
> inappropriately, such might, itself, interfere with post-stress
> hippocampal stem-cell proliferation. The 'treatment', itself,
> interferes with, and 'blocks' return to 'normal'
> information-processing because the 'treatment' is, itself, a
> stressor - so the 'treatment' does just the opposite of it's intended
> purpose.
>> This's all testable.
>> I'm not familiar with the state of the art in animal-stress
> experiments, but a swim-tank design should work.
>> Use no blood relative subjects. All subjects same-sex.
>> Populate an enriched environment with 3-times the subjects that will
> be subjected to the stressor [1/3 will just remain in it]
>> Populate an impoverished environment with the same number of
> subjects.
>> Pre-stress, have subjects gain relatively-long-enduring familiarity
> within a generously-rich experiential environment. Minimal handling,
> plenty of food, lots of 'toys', exploration opportunities, exercise
> equipment, etc. 'Shoot the moon' on enriching their environment.
> Allow them relatively-long opportunity to become familiar with the
> environment. Do not introduce new subjects after a set of subjects is
> inserted into the environment [mid-test unfamiliar stuff confounds
> results].
>> Do the stressor. 2/3 of subjects from the enriched environment
>> Post-stress, allow half the subjects to return to the enriched
> environment with which they're familiar. [Since there're no blood
> relatives, the absent 1/3 enriches the environment further.]
>> Remove 1/3 of the animals in the impoverished environment, and place
> the other half of the stressed animals into it.
>> Get it? The pre- and post-experiment impoverished population has the
> same number of animals, but some were replaced by stressed animals.
>> Allow an aclimation period of the same length as the pre-experiment
> acclimation period.
>> Get-it? The impoverished environment is, itself, a stressor because
> 1. it's unfamiliar, and a large change from the familiar
> pre-experiment enriched environment, and 2. because there'll be
> 'conflict' between the animals long-familiar with the impoverished
> environment and the post-stress animals unfamiliar with the
> impoverished environment.
>> Prediction: there'll be an observable hippocampal-rebound
> differential between the subjects that're returned to the enriched
> environment with which they're familiar, and the subjects that're
> placed into the impoverished environment with which they're
> unfamiliar. Latter-group, less-rebound.
>> The experimental design needs to be precise in all it's facets.
> Freedom in the enriched environment. Limited opportunity, and
> 'obnoxious' strangers in the impoverished environment.
>> Tweak-it to enhance it from this "top-of-the-noggin'" description to
> conform with best-practice with respect to the experimental designs
> that demonstrate the hippocampal atrophy in animals.
>> What you've got here is an analogue for what a stressed-out human
> encounters when he's virtually incarcerated in a
> psychiatric-'helping' place.
>> Other trials might replace the impoverished environment with
> excessive handling, chemical intervention, etc.
>> The hippocampal-rebound differential will disclose the impact of not
> just enabling folks to be Free to find themselves, post-stress.
>> If you do this experiment, since I proposed it, you are
> Ethically-bound to allow me to review your experimental design and
> results [no self-fulfilling-prophecy-via-sloppy-design allowed :-]
>> Get in the spirit of it. Work to develop as close an analogue of a
> post-stress 'hospitalization' experience as is possible.
>> What I'm getting at is that what has become 'deemed to be helpful'
> with respect to recovery from 'stress', is actually deleterious with
> respect to such recovery.
>> There're =many= variations of this general experimental design, all
> of which will yield significant results with respect to 'helping'
> environments.
>> The thing that makes this possible is that, animal or Human, it's all
> 'just' TD E/I :-]
>> k. p. collins
>> >[...]
>>
