[Happy Camper]

I don't know what to say. This is just incredible.

__
Summary:

-talks about how psychiatry is a guessing game, SPECT scans have proven very useful
-how two people with the same exact issues have very different brains
-how mild brain trauma can go undiagnosed and present as any cluster of symptoms, how most pdocs respond with meds
-how brain activity can be restored to healthy levels.

would recommend giving his site a look, too:

http://www.amenclinics.com/index.php...spect-gallery/

I agree that there's promise in using imaging techniques to analyze and treat psychological and psychiatric disorders. Like Amen, I am often surprised and disappointed by the amount of sheer "black box" guesswork that goes into psychiatric diagnoses and treatment -- especially when compared to conventional medical disciplines.

This said, there's some (fair) criticism that we shouldn't put too much faith in medical imaging techniques just yet:

Brain Scans as Mind Readers? Don't Believe the Hype

Anyway, I wouldn't mind if SPECT imaging were more widely available, or at least covered by most insurance plans (because right now, it's way too expensive for me to even consider pursuing :P). Currently, I think neuromedical imaging is covered by insurance only when it's necessary to distinguish between Alzheimer's and rare cases of dementia.

I couldn't watch too much partly because I am about to go to sleep and partly because I found myself in a heavy sigh. NIMH has an article on this which you may find useful. If I am right this guy and his team did a study of MI patients and said they could tell who was MI vs those that didn't. The problem is the MI patients had already been taking drugs for sometime and we know drugs cause changes to your brain activity. To me they is an invalid study, well not just to me. In order to do a complete study you really need to track people from childhood because brains are completely unique and change for all sorts of reasons. I understand you might be able to tell if somebody is MI but not without other evidence. Usually they use it to eliminate things like tumors. I read about. Doctor using it to reassure his patients by confirming their MI. I feel this approach is completely unethical.

I think our brains and bodies work together anyway. Anything that isolates one part is missing the whole picture. That goes for doctors too.

Good night.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Happy Camper]

The thing I don't like about this is the amount of radiation exposure. They mention somewhere on the site that it's well below the levels that show a clear cancer risk, but I've seen at least one study where the incidence rate of cancer goes up slightly in populations who've had CT scans (similar amount of ionizing radiation). Basically, it's close to being x-rayed several hundred or even over a thousand times in a row. Here's a neat chart that shows how things compare: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ion_(xkcd).png

I'm hoping to get an MRI after my neuropsych test. I've bumped my head to the point of confusion, altered smell, and fatigue (pretty sure I've had undiagnosed concussions). I was also put under general anesthesia before age 2 for surgery, which is also correlated with ADHD, developmental problems, and auditory processing issues (things I've had to some degree).

At the very least, I think it's important to look at the brain when meds and therapy have failed miserably. I think Amen means well (I don't think he's a snake), but he doesn't even have a baseline picture for personality types. I doubt an INTJ personality will have the same activity patterns as an ESFP

"I'm hoping to get an MRI after my neuropsych test. I've bumped my head to the point of confusion, altered smell, and fatigue (pretty sure I've had undiagnosed concussions). I was also put under general anesthesia before age 2 for surgery, which is also correlated with ADHD, developmental problems, and auditory processing issues (things I've had to some degree). "

This makes sense as a reason to get an MRI. I had a concussion so it would find that and somebody did with an EEG. It doesn't make sense to get more scans because it would change my treatment.

I don't know that I would spend thousands because medicines don't work. They don't work in half the patients. You could take that money and live in a therapeutic spa for a while which there is more evidence for than ADs. (Who can take that much time of?)

If it is a concern I would probably look further into how they did that study and if it has been repeated. We encounter radiation every day with all the new technology around us. How does it compare to a cell phone?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Dr Amen is becoming more well known, certainly. Not only because of his fairly unique way of addressing ADD, etc but also because brain scans to determine how to treat MI or to help diagnose is very much in line with the RDoC initiative which could [or could not be] be revolutionary.

[Happy Camper]

Originally Posted by Michanne

We encounter radiation every day with all the new technology around us. How does it compare to a cell phone?

Even before technology, we've been absorbing natural background radiation every second of the day. Nuclear testing also insured no one on earth doesn't have those particles in their body.

Cell phones don't emit the kind of radiation associated with cancer. Look at a light bulb--your eyes see some radiation as light. Sadly, we cannot see bad radiation. I'm on a horse.

Originally Posted by Happy Camper

Even before technology, we've been absorbing natural background radiation every second of the day. Nuclear testing also insured no one on earth doesn't have those particles in their body.

Cell phones don't emit the kind of radiation associated with cancer. Look at a light bulb--your eyes see some radiation as light. Sadly, we cannot see bad radiation. I'm on a horse.

I'm sure you're right. I haven't looked into different types. Happy trails?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk