"I have a disease, not a description."

Here syndrome is used much more. In certain "illnesses" I think it is an eminent choice. Like we don't say Asperger's disorder, we say Asperger's syndrome, which means it is a set of symptoms that sort of go together. The same way we say Post traumatic stress syndrome, because it is a set of things that also go together, something with multiple parts.

Also that way you don't have to design "blame" or disease. Sure PTSD is a problem just like you will not be well if a car runs you over, but will you be ill if a car runs you over... I don't think so but you won't be healthy either. So in that way, I would like it be called PTSS like it is here.

I would also want to put ADHD in the syndrome bucket, because it has several parts that go together, and it totally depends if it is a blessing or a curse or both.

So I would suggest two reasons for calling something a syndrome (part from the needed part being a collection of signs and symptoms), either where it can be debated if something is just bad and diseased, or whether there are positive aspects as well (AS and ADHD), and a fairly normal reaction to an event (PTSD).

I also feel there is some bad in that they stopped talking about endogenous and exogenous depression, because the latter clearly had its roots in life (like bullying, child abuse, neglect). When I went to psych classes there was a really good reasoning for not separating the two and it was seen as what they did in the old days.

Now I wonder if it really would not benefit us to have that separation even if there is a huge overlap.

Instead they want what was called endogenous depression on the bipolar spectrum. I disagree. It might be related, but it is still not bipolar.

One reason for scratching exogenous depression might be that even if it also have a genetic component (40 % of the population cannot develop depression) I feel was introducing the then new SSRIs to them.

To end on a funner note... I'm glad bipolar is called bipolar. I never liked manic depression. Sure some mixed episodes are manic depressed, but shouldn't the illness have been called mania and depression?

I hate the term bipolar. It's so... Cold war and makes me think like I am about to kill myself and everybody else at smallest trigger.

in czech we just call it post-traumatic stress. Then again MI is "soul disorder/illness" which I am not sure I like. I like the soul part though, somewhat. Sure many would disagree.

do you like its proper name better ,manic depression

yeah, manic depression seems quite *descriptive*.

bipolar was never a name used in England, always manic depression, BIPOLAR believe it or not was a the term they started using to soften the impact of people being told they were a MANIC DEPRESSIVE which sounds to the normal,s like your an axe murder .

Actually bipolar is a DSM 4 invention. The term "manic depressive" goes back at least 100-150 years, probably longer. The illness has been recorded much longer then that. Bipolar then expanded into spectrum of 1,2 then "nos". Now we have unipolar. Pretty much anybody can be *polar. I still buy into the syllable theory... Manic depressive = 5 syllables. Bipolar disorder NOS = 10!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I didn't understand a thing you said, but the word MANIC strikes a chill in many people , my usual forum name is MANIC 666 that's my laugh in the face at religion , it can freak people out and they often ask why such a chilling name ,

yeah that makes lot of sense.

I openly call myself crazy, eventhough many people protest the word as "offensive". I am not gonna describe my experience with some desenitized and politically correct word. It would be lessening MY experience.

(and I am not gonna judge how others feel. Just because one is not officially diagnosed doesn't mean they aren't emotionally problematic)

Depends on your generation. I grew up reading "the Bell Jar" and "Girl Interrupted" as a young adult. Both books are about escaping oppression and labels (Plath was actually depressed). Sylvia Plath spent time at McClain Hospital around 1960 give or take. Susan Kaysen was at McClain in 67-68. A LOT changed in how MI changed between 60-70 although Kaysen's story felt more like what peers went through in the 80's. (Things kind of went backwards when Reagan entered office.) These are not "regional" books. They are very famous. Your children most likely read them or saw the movies.

You may have been influenced (whether you know it or not) by the movie Snake Pit (and others) from 48 just about the time Thorazine was beginning to be used in hospitals and was thought ... err... Marketed as a "magic bullet". I realize 48 may be too early to remember but then 67 is too early for me to remember and it was very influential

Criticism shifted from the patient to the hospital and then medication over those years therefore the term "manic depressive" changed connotation as well. Advertising of Thorazine is a perfect illustration of how it changed. In the 50's Time Magazine asked if Thorazine is a "wonder drug" as represented by NIMH. By the end of the 60's they developed a liquid form because they now needed to force people to take it. Here is a typical representation of mental illness. Advertising changes but the representation of MI people is pretty similar whether it is manic depression or schizophrenia. In Europe doctors actually became more concerned about side effects than in the US.

Prior to the advertising of Thorazine and WWII Virginia Woolf and Robert Lowell (for example), both diagnosed with manic depression, had successful marriages despite their illness which eventually ended Woolf's life.

Yes, I'm sure it's more than you wanted but others might find it as interesting as I do. Public forum and all.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I use the word "madness" sometimes, kind of tongue in cheek. But am careful with people that refuse to take it as anything but "serious". It's just not worth the debate. You know what I just realized... The ads I just mentioned in my last post go into great detail over the symptoms they claim to "fix".

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

sorry but I haven't a clue what you taking about and my kids no nothing of the films you quote now if you said the WARRIORS , or STARSHIP TROPPER 1 you may be on a winner.

The Thorazine ad is scary.

"AGAINST THEM"? I just had a flashvision of the **** being put into Kyiv watersources, let's end Maidan once and for all, no more protests against "them".

I actually have an idea for dystopic novel about society, where going against those in power is considered a mental illness (not that new, it was illness in the Eastern bloc during commie times). When people realize that they ARE actually watched, they are prescribed some drugs for their "paranoia" and "psychosis" till they are too unable to think straight and see effed upness of all. Not sure how I would end it, probably broke up rebellion, where majority decides freedom is too much work, and go back to their zonked up "all is good" reality.

these are books. Ya know really really thick magazines with hardcover.

I have a disorder (or two) I am not my disorders. I do have PTSD and it is definitely a disorder.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Challenge you to ask them. What about "Catcher in the Rye"? Or "On the Road". I didn't think UK really got into book burning.

I think all of them are now movies too. I know they still read them in school because the kid at my local pet store was reading "On the Road" during his breaks. And loving it.

Sure none of that makes sense to you either.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

why you feel so, if I may ask?

I call my troubles "trauma issues". PTSD is such desanitized abreviation... and as I said, I don't like to feel myself as "disordered" for reacting badly to bad ****. That is being... human. Not that it's not painful... but it's like saying "your broken leg hurts! You are so disordered! You should be able to shrug it off".

Imho, often pain, whenever physical or emotional is signal that something is wrong. And it's part of human life. Some things are supposed to hurt.

Why do I feel so? I know I have PTSD, it's not a feeling, I've been living with it for years. It has affected my ability to work.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reacting badly to something is not the same thing as developing PTSD...of course people are going to be upset when bad things happen, especially if its traumatic...but PTSD isn't just the 'normal' reaction. It physically effects how ones brain/neurology works and much of the time is a lifelong disorder that people who have have to learn to cope with and treat some of the unbearable symptoms as there isn't really a known 'cure'.

I really wish people would quit trying to downplay PTSD and pretend its the normal trauma reaction when its actually a specific trauma related disorder. Its not the same as being upset and distraught over something...grieving and then essentially moving on.

But even if it wasn't classified as a disorder I'd still make efforts to reduce the pain it causes. I personally don't feel like just being in pain and doing nothing to alleviate symptoms or to avoid stressors that increase symptoms just because 'some things are supposed to hurt.'

It is very possible for people to have trauma issues that aren't PTSD...doesn't mean PTSD=any trama issue one might have.

Thank you! I have PTSD and I take it seriously. I live with it. It's not going away.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just because I don't like to call it disorder doesn't mean, mine **** is not real. Freezing up. Paranoia. Inability to discuss or even think straight of some issues. Nightmares...

it doesn't have to be "disorder" for it to be "real".

I am not downplaying anything. On contrary. I just don't think being affected even in bad way makes you "disordered". That is all. I can take this stuff seriously without insisting it!s a "disorder".

But nice for you "knowing". I wish I knew. I would probably make so much easier to put "feelings" in words and not let them... mess up with me.

But I believe one can get over trauma. Many in history did and lived great lifes and done great things. If they did, I can overcome my much lesser issues, for sure.

Lots of people do get over trauma just fine and don't develop PTSD the problem with PTSD is it doesn't allow for 'getting over the trauma' instead more or less makes the person relive it in various ways, causes one to have an overactive stress response which is actually physically damaging in the long run making people with it more prone to physical illnesses stress can contribute to yes it litterlly can kill more or less...not just by suicide. So I don't see how PTSD is not a disorder simply because some people get over trauma.

Also if you have PTSD I am not saying yours isn't real...I'd just disagree about it not being a disorder. It seemed you're implying PTSD isn't real and shouldn't be recognized as a condition anymore, sorry if I misunderstood.

Hellion, I just think some trauma is not easy to "get over". Maybe impossible. The person is changed. Just because in some it's not so obvious, doesn't mean it doesn't affect them in bad ways.

And I think only psychopaths get over trauma "just fine". That was my point.

I never implied it's "real", I just said I would leave out the "disorder" part out of the label, because it seems stigmatizing, tainting... I just don't like it. Likewise, I don't think you need to call depression "illness" for it to be real. Problems of mind and soul are very real.

I think you can get healed from PTSD to a degree. Not saying it will not change you, trauma does change person (and it's NORMAL nor disordered). Not saying it will never hurt again (healed bones tent to hurt with weather changes).

I see PTSD as broken bone. Rather injury then disorder. You are not disordered for breaking your bone when you fall. SO why see it as disorder that your *soul* is hurt after bad ****. That imho implies weakness of character.

Hope this make sense.

You both might be right.

There is a theory that almost all people with a mental illness had some sort of trauma in their life. I think is likely true.

This post describes how trauma effects the brain and body:

http://beyondmeds.com/2013/12/17/the...ma-changes-us/

I says to me that the trauma is like if you have a wound and you don't cover it it can get infected leading to a blood disorder. But many uncovered wounds heal on their own too. Depends on many factors. I am not sure how that fits in with PTSD if that is the only diagnosis. It makes sense when talking about other disorders.

What I would like to see more information about is if the patient/therapist work on healing the trauma would symptoms of say, bipolar, go into a sort of remission? Qualifier... I am not sure I buy the idea that bipolar, MDD can't ever be healed. (Healed being different from cured)

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sometimes I think they should just start over with naming illnesses the media has doing such a number on some of the labels that the public reacts to the label in a visceral way.

Cancer invokes concern & pity, bipolar/manic depression invokes fear. Depression has been so overused that people are starting to think any depression is a bad thing and grief needs to be medicated away. I agree with the poster who said there needs to be a distraction between depressed and MDD. At least in the USA. Mental illness in a misnomer anyway as they are learning it's not just in the brain but the whole body. Nobody walks around saying I'm cancer, I'm hypertension they say I have ....._______. I have trouble with the whole AA philosophy, I think it would be easier to say I struggle with alcoholism, and not internalize it so much. How are you supposed to recover if you carry it internally? It's like a set up to fail. I am not my illness I was not born this way. Just my take on this whole issue, I'm just tired of the labeling.

Never read any sorry, plenty of car mags does that count ,