Started the celexa for real...

Sorry for the rant. I very much enjoy our debates and I learn a lot from them.

It's this damn hypo mania. I can't shut my mind off and when that gets going I can't stop typing. It not racing thoughts, or intrusive thoughts, its just I can't stop thinking and relas my mind. Is that a symptom of mania? I suspect it is. It is definitely the Fetzima........

So that brings us back to where we started. Can the Fetzima cause me long term symptoms of mania if I stay on it long enough? If in a year I went off of it and had symptoms of hypo mania still would that be due to the drug? I really don't know. My feeling is it would be my predilection to hypo mania.

You really should use this tool. It was totally blocking all ads from that site. Not a one, not based on any history or tracking. It stops the bots from tracking you. It doesn't seem like it stops them all though. Maybe that is by design since a guy from google invented it.

Right now it shows like 40 bots monitoring this site.

https://disconnect.me/

Vicoden/hydrocodone speeds me up. I believe everyone is different. I can drink a pot of coffee and fall asleep while others can't sleep.

I'm on an iPad.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

NIH doesn't cover anywhere what you need for research project. They get funds from multiple sources. NIMH funds even less and they have been criticized for getting funding from pharma. They did a couple of huge projects a few years ago and were praised for resisting pharma influence despite the fact they provide all the drugs. That, however, was after much adverse criticism.

There are several good studies for lavendula. They just don't happen to be US funded. The result has been approved as a drug treatment in Germany. The only way we can get it is via amazon.de. Hyperion and kava kava do have benes, btw. The problem is they weren't taken seriously as a drug and it was left to consumers to figure out quantities and quality. The one study they did do used doses that were different than the foreign study that was successful. If you think pharma didn't have a part in this then use common sense. People researching these sort of things don't have the marketing arm that pharma has. You aren't going to see content based ads following you around or TV ads or coupons.

My cat is tired of me typing so see is literally sitting in front of the iPad. Bye for now.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ahhh I have an Iphone but no Ipad I use my laptop. Not sure if that app is available for iPad or not.

The vast majority of NIH funding comes from congress to the tune of 31 billion. That is not chump change. Congress has steadily increased its budget over the years. In 2010 I think they even doubled it. Congress can also tell them where to focus their research like in cancer or aids. Hopefully Congress will earmark more of it for mental health. Other funding sources I am not sure about but I am sure it is small in comparison to 31 billion that the tax payers fund.

Most of that money goes to small grant applications for small projects that NIH thinks holds promise for a possible break through, or to just increase the knowledge in the field, or maybe to stumble on to something by accident as happens so many times in science. Very often in fact. I think the theory is that it is better to spread it out to many small projects than to fund big projects. The chances are better of coming up with something that will really advance the field. If you are making good progress in you research you will get funding year after year. They have to keep applying depending on the number of years the grant was for. It is very basic research and some times very new. Some projects may yield big results but chances are those results will take years to become used by medical consumers. The idea is to advance the field. Most of them will probably fizzle out and come up with nothing but the idea is for at least some of those small projects to come up with something and maybe even a break through. That's 80% of it.

I think the vast majority of those researchers have high ethical standards and want to advance their field. They are subject to peer review and their experiments have to be repeatable in other labs. That is how science polices itself. Researchers may be married to their pet hypothesis but it has to withstand much scrutiny and peer review and repeatable results before it is taken seriously at all.

The other 20% goes to research in NIH's own labs and campuses. Hard to argue that much good research has come out of those labs.

I know there is a lot of controversy over advisory committees and who sits on them and are they exempt from ethics rules and conflicts of interest. And these advisory committees decide which research to fund. I am sure there is influence and conflicts of interest in some cases. I don't know how much but Congress does mandate that a certain portion go to certain fields.

I think the overall model has worked well and served us well over the years. Grants are small and hard to do big research on but that is the idea. And they have to argue their case to get more funding. That is the whole model. One of those projects is going to lead to a game changer.

Take the CDC as another example. They are a big government agency with lots of problems and bureaucracy but they have worked very well with the world health organization to pinpoint virus and infectious disease out breaks and contain them and come up with vaccines for them. They have prevented many epidemics. I am amazed at how well they have done together.

The Dept. of energy works much the same way. They have the national labs like Lawrence Livermore that do the most basic of research and they fund projects. Huge advances in physics and other fields have come out of these labs and projects. Look at Bell Labs. The national labs spent alot of time on nuclear research which you could argue was not a good idea. But WWII created a huge need for it and they were successful. Nuclear Medicine came out of this basic research. Huge advances in physics. Or look at the history of how the internet was invented.

I am no big government guy at all. I have a very strong libertarian streak in me. But I have always been very impressed by the NIH and the CDC and the national labs. They are government success stories. They always have extremely bright scientist that run them. Not some political appointee.

The FDA is a whole other issue and I will not defend them at all. Corrupted by the drug companies to the core. But they have not gotten the funding and backing from Congress they deserve. Hard to carry out your mission the way congress has set it up for them.

NIH and NIMH is just one part of the puzzle. An integral and successful part in my view. We are headed toward huge break thoughs in the medical sciences and even in mental health. Trust me on this.

It is chump change. It covers all research projects not just MH. Bipolar isn't even on the list. Clinical trials is only a small part. Nobody gets more than 800k if I remember correctly and that's rare. Certainly not a million. That really doesn't go far. It's all published.

If we are headed towards huge breakthroughs it isn't chemical (medicine) based IMO. It's mindset. We've debated that before and as I recall you don't agree. That's fine. I'm not changing my position though .

Also read what head of nimh has to say. He is going to completely change the focus if he has his way. Already the goals have changed. He doesn't support the current direction of med research either. I don't agree with all he has to say but it is better than before.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well this is all very intresting discussion, shall have to read through it at some point, just too much information as of now my brain is being kind of difficult lately. But yes I've been on this a few days more and I do feel less stimulated than I did...but its certainly still there and still grinding teeth I also haven't been able to sleep a whole lot but there are likely other factors, its not uncommon for me to have trouble sleeping. I am also getting nausea and headaches. But yeah pretty much just keeping track of how it effects me so I can talk to my psychiatrist about it when I am able to meet with her.

At least if this med doesn't work out, the psychiatrist won't try me on anymore SSRIs I already reacted bad to prozac she had me try this one because supposedly it is less likely to contribute to anxiety than Prozac and zoloft(I think).

WOW .

I don't think 31 billion is chump change. I know very little of it goes to NIMH and I don't like that fact. It is because Congress has not seen it as a priority. I hope that changes. They don't do clinical trials because that is not their mission. Their mission is to do and fund basic research that others can develop and turn into clinical use. I have a lot of respect for NIH and NIMH and think they do good work. If they don't get enough funding that is not their fault it is the fault of Congress. And Congress has given them huge funding increases, just not in the area of mental health. Congress does however believe in the work of NIH and they have supported and backed them. NIH is only one part of the puzzle but a valuable part.

I don't think I ever said the only breakthroughs would come just in chemical medicine. I am all for changes in mindset. I think the biggest break throughs will come in brain science, genetics, personalized medicine, and yes even alternative approaches to medicine. Attitudes are slowly changing. Why does UCLA medical center have a whole dept. dedicated to the study and practice of meditation? Because they found enough evidence to think it was worthwhile to study. And the results are very promising. Why do they study neuroplascitity and therapies for stroke victims that have nothing to do with meds? Because it is very promising and it works. Many doctors are incorporating meditation, massage, and relaxation techniques into their practice, at least for stress management and pain management. I am for absolutely anything that can benefit patients no matter what it is. I haven't practiced meditation for 20 years or studied course in miracles for two years on the belief that meds were going to fix me. That is just two examples I have used among many that have nothing to do with western medicine. If kava kava works I am all for it. I am not married to western medicine or western scientific method. I do have a very high respect for them though and think they have done tons of good. If it wasn't for all the latest and greatest technologies in treating cardiac patients my Dad would have been dead a long time ago. Instead we both just carried 400 lbs. of potatoes for a charity food give away. That is due to western medicine and I am grateful to it. Do I wish he would change his diet and meditate and take herbs and work on his personal growth? of course I do. Ain't gonna happen though.

I do think there needs to be a change in mindset for those who are totally married to western medicine and chemical solutions. Probably most of those who sit on those committees who hand out grants have that mind set. It is a cultural thing but it is slowly changing.

And maybe that 800k small research project will lead to a game changer even a chemical one. Are you going to say that all those grants to all those universities and all that research hasn't advanced the body of knowledge in the medical sciences. Huge advances over many years added up. Unfortunately not in mental health because society does not seem to make it a priority.

Has anyone ever wrote a grant proposal to study Lavendula? Could they come up with enough hard data or even anecdotal data to convince someone to fund them? I don't know. Probably it has been tried and NIH turned it down. I would say that these types of things don't get funded either for purely scientific reasons and not enough evidence or more likely because the people who sit on those committees and make those decisions are to married to western medicine and western scientific method. It is how they were trained and it is their culture. I think we would both agree that is a crying shame and they should be more open minded and willing to look at other things.

Yes big pharma has big power and influence but not as much as you suggest. I don't think they are blocking universities form studying such things. Big Pharma can fund what ever types of studies they want it is their money. Others can study what they want. I think, as you say, it has more to do with mindset and culture and not big corporate financial interests pulling all the strings. We could argue about oil companies and all their power and how they put the kabosh on the car that ran on water. There was never such a car. Lots of technologies have just not been feasible. Is big oil buying up all the hydrogen fuel cell companies idk they are not that feasible yet because you need a source of hydrogen. Big oil is not stopping Tesla.

And I don't think Lavendula is not studied because it grows in fields and there is no money in it. There might be big money in it. Who is gonna grow their own lavender and process and refine it into lavendula. They won't. They will buy it and if enough people think it is beneficial they will make money. So there is a financial incentive to study it.

Look at pot. Anyone can easily grow it and you don't even have to process it just smoke it. And if you don't want to smoke it you can pretty easily make it into and edible. People don't grow their own pot though, they just buy it. They don't want the hassle of growing it even though it is a common weed anyone can grow. They just buy it, it is easier. So pot has a huge legal and illegal market worth billions. Many people believe in the beneficial properties of it and will pay good money for it. No one will study it for political reasons not because big pharma is blocking it because they can't control it.

And its not because people are afraid to grow a couple of plants for personal use because it is illegal. They are not. The chances of getting busted for growing a couple of plants is very remote. I know a ton of people who have grown in their backyards and the biggest risk is your neighbor is gonna steal it. Its to much hassle so people just buy it even though it is pretty expensive.

So there are huge financial incentives to study pots beneficial properties. The reason it is not studied in the main stream is political and cultural. But the politics and culture are changing and it will be studied in the main stream. Nothing to do with big pharma and ads being served up.

ZINCO that was brilliant buddy, my brain would never process that much in a year never mind a day. Very impressive buddy I am dizzy reading it so you must be planet surfing.

I am friggin hypo mania and it won't shut off.....I need some thorazine or a good ole barby

There's a website called statistical brain or something like that. It publishes the entire budget in pretty form. You can compare how much is going to nih vs other depts. Sorry, not in a place where I can look up links right now.

I don't know if anybody has applied for a grant for lavendula. NIH has a paper covering various research. Some of it is be US based; I am pretty sure. They also have one for chamomile. Immensely useful in a variety of forms for different purposes.

Never said pharma >blocks< research. They choose where their money goes just as any business does. If nobody is going to fund the research it is unlikely to happen. And there are independently funded projects but you don't hear that much about them because they don't get the same marketing treatment. Big pharma can get their papers into the "right" journals. They can send people to conferences. This entire paragraph is just standard business practice.

I had a group T that used to get uncomfortable about the herb thing. Would talk over me which is rude. Even something as benign as chamomile tea (research shows this). It's because he would only rely on the journals that appeared in front of him. Finally he told me he didn't trust them because there are no double blind studies. Guess what? There are quite a few double blind studies. He doesn't hear about them because they don't get covered in his journals. Why? They don't get the same pr coverage. Again standard business practice. But that T is also close to retirement and I get the impression he doesn't really want to learn anything new. So he pushes ambien which is addictive and possibly cancer causing before tea. Not even his job to do that.

Why do you dismiss research on an herb so easily? It's often cheaper and safer. You dismiss it because it doesn't have the right funding? And it might just work. Besides contemporary research aryuvedic medicine has a very stringent method of recording and apprenticeship going back thousands of years. An herb like chamomile has thousands of years of written and empirical data behind it. SSRIs are ~25 years old.

Finally, chamomile is easily available and cheap. The lavender research in Germany I am referring to is a derivative. I believe it could not be approved as a supplement but it is legal to buy(for now). I am very conservative... Like kaiser… so I am keeping an eye on it. However I also have chamomile and lavender in different forms in my home because they work for relaxing and sleeping and they do not have contraindications. And weed... They are doing amazing research but not all of it is strains you can just grow at home . An example is the one being used for seizures in children. This is a successful startup story.

Have you finished that Whitaker book yet? or are you declining the challenge?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heat some lavender essential oil in a burner

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just happen to have some lavender oil in my room. Visited a big lavender farm last summer that sold all types of Lavender products. I bought some oil. The owner was totally sold on all the therapeutic uses. Some were far fetched to me but idk. She was certainly knowledgeable and intelligent. I have been sniffing rosemary and eucalyptus oil for years. Those two are my favorite.

When I was in drug and alcohol treatment we all lived on chamomile tea, gallons of it, it kept us sane. I broke two bags open and drank it herbs and all. I almost rolled it up and smoked it. I still drink it.

I don't believe I did dismiss research on any herb. I said I was all for anything that would help patients no matter what they were. I defended western medicine and western scientific method and said it has served us well. I also said people totally married to that method alone or to one set of journals should be more open minded.

I simply pointed out that you can't use the argument that there is no money in it and that is why it is not studied. Maybe there is big bucks in Lavender even though it grows all over in fields. Just like pot. Big money in pot.

And big pharma can spend their money on whatever study they want and market it and get it in journals. Like your said that is their business model. I don't expect big break throughs to come from them but they might.

They are not the only ones who do research. Besides NIH and the little money NIMH gets research universities have there own budgets. PHD's at universities are patenting things and trying to start companies all the time. Venture capitalist invest in them all the time. That is where big break throughs are going to come from. Some place like Stanford or some small company spun off from research done their. You are all for new innovation, well it is happening. Here is one I just stumbled on responding to an anxiety thread.
NIMH · Light Switches Brain Pathway On-and-Off to Dissect How Anxiety Works
Stanford scientists discover anti-anxiety circuit in brain region considered the seat of fear - Office of Communications & Public Affairs - Stanford University School of Medicine

I have followed it with great interest. And no you can't easily breed a high CBD strain and get the oil out of it at home. That was my whole point, if it works, there is big bucks in it. All kinds of financial incentive to study it and produce it. Big Pharma can't say boo.

Vanderbilt scientists discover potential new way to treat anxiety | Research News @ Vanderbilt | Vanderbilt University
Haha that part is interesting and maybe points to pot working for anxiety. Or maybe CBD instead on THC. Maybe we should all dump the benzo's and smoke pot. I can sure see how pot would work on anxiety. There is a long thread on it around here somewhere.

Here is my favorite.
Marijuana Research Paves Way For New Anti-Anxiety Drug - TruthOnPot.com

I have lavender incense, and a lavender tincture...lets just say I did not expect the tincture to be as effective as it was, it relaxed me so much.

It's true! And I found it most effective if I burn it on a regular basis for some reason. My sleep is just a better quality. It's like if you meditate. It takes consistency but if you can keep it up you really start to notice subtle changes. Lavender is a good face toner too, btw.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Celexa lowered my impulse control, also made me quite manic. It does seem like some people get that reaction with that med. I'm definitely not bipolar and not diagnosed bipolar because of that med reaction.

This is what made me think you are dismissing it:

"Has anyone ever wrote a grant proposal to study Lavendula? Could they come up with enough hard data or even anecdotal data to convince someone to fund them? I don't know. Probably it has been tried and NIH turned it down. I would say that these types of things don't get funded either for purely scientific reasons and not enough evidence or more likely because the people who sit on those committees and make those decisions are to married to western medicine and western scientific method. It is how they were trained and it is their culture. I think we would both agree that is a crying shame and they should be more open minded and willing to look at other things."

It's the assumption they don't get funded "either for purely scientific reasons and not enough evidence". IMO, it is much easier to get funded when you have friends in the right places. (Also, see below.) That's just reality. I also mentioned earlier the reality of starting a career, paying personal bills (college loans), etc. It's never as simple as being declined for common sense reasons. And we need the research. We need it because people say things like "you can just grow it in a field" and then don't even consider the potential because of the lack of research. They then say "it isn't any good because it has dirt in it." See the problem? I am personally cautious about supplements, etc in both directions. There is too much distrust of the producers and not enough evidence based work being done. There is a growing field of research on herbal treatments with emphasis on clinical research too but it is behind Europe.

Here is an except from a TED talk by Ben Goldacre. I recommend watching to understand what negative data is because it is key to his argument. (Emphasis mine):

"Now these are stories from basic science. These are stories from 20, 30 years ago. The academic publishing environment is very different now. There are academic journals like "Trials," the open access journal, which will publish any trial conducted in humans regardless of whether it has a positive or a negative result. But this problem of negative results that go missing in action is still very prevalent. In fact it's so prevalent that it cuts to the core of evidence-based medicine. So this is a drug called reboxetine, and this is a drug that I myself have prescribed. It's an antidepressant. And I'm a very nerdy doctor, so I read all of the studies that I could on this drug. I read the one study that was published that showed that reboxetine was better than placebo, and I read the other three studies that were published that showed that reboxetine was just as good as any other antidepressant, and because this patient hadn't done well on those other antidepressants, I thought, well, reboxetine is just as good. It's one to try. But it turned out that I was misled. In fact, seven trials were conducted comparing reboxetine against a dummy placebo sugar pill. One of them was positive and that was published, but six of them were negative and they were left unpublished. Three trials were published comparing reboxetine against other antidepressants in which reboxetine was just as good, and they were published, but three times as many patients' worth of data was collected which showed that reboxetine was worse than those other treatments, and those trials were not published. I felt misled.

Now you might say, well, that's an extremely unusual example, and I wouldn't want to be guilty of the same kind of cherry-picking and selective referencing that I'm accusing other people of. But it turns out that this phenomenon of publication bias has actually been very, very well studied. So here is one example of how you approach it. The classic model is, you get a bunch of studies where you know that they've been conducted and completed, and then you go and see if they've been published anywhere in the academic literature. So this took all of the trials that had ever been conducted on antidepressants that were approved over a 15-year period by the FDA. They took all of the trials which were submitted to the FDA as part of the approval package. So that's not all of the trials that were ever conducted on these drugs, because we can never know if we have those, but it is the ones that were conducted in order to get the marketing authorization. And then they went to see if these trials had been published in the peer-reviewed academic literature. And this is what they found. It was pretty much a 50-50 split. Half of these trials were positive, half of them were negative, in reality. But when they went to look for these trials in the peer-reviewed academic literature, what they found was a very different picture. Only three of the negative trials were published, but all but one of the positive trials were published. Now if we just flick back and forth between those two, you can see what a staggering difference there was between reality and what doctors, patients, commissioners of health services, and academics were able to see in the peer-reviewed academic literature. We were misled, and this is a systematic flaw in the core of medicine."

http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacr...they_prescribe

As he said. He is a nerd so he reads this stuff. Can totally relate . But a lot of docs don't. They only read what has been parsed out. What they don't know is how parsed it really is.

And this from an sociological study about funding:

"In the new report, published Sunday in the American Sociological Review, sociologist Rachel Best analyzed funding for 53 diseases over 19 years, looking to see whether there was any clear relationship between advocacy and funding. Unsurprisingly, she found that there were clear effects: The more advocacy, the more research dollars for specific diseases, such as HIV/AIDS and breast cancer.

But because there is only so much money in the NIH budget, research funding tends to be a zero-sum game. So Best also found that the overall portfolio of NIH funding moved toward those with the money to lobby, and away from groups that did not. The biggest losers were diseases that primarily affected women, such as cervical cancer, and the African American community, such as sickle cell anemia. (The exception to the rule was breast cancer, which has very well organized lobbying efforts.)"

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct...study-20121001

Side note... Your idea of changing mindset isn't what I refer too. I believe we need a paradigm shift towards a neurodiversified way of thinking. It actually could be less of a challenge than climate change thinking but they are definitely close in scale. It makes me tired just thinking about it!



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I hope it doesn't lower my impulse control, uhh I feel like taking this pill is just going to land me in the psych ward so I am safe coming off of it when its obvious its not helping...its like I am taking it just to prove to my psychiatrist that SSRI's really don't work on me. So far though just physical sort of side effects and no effect on mood. I might sound whiny being so skeptical of AD's but I simply can't help it.

Last time I was in the psych ward I drank lots of chamomile tea...more than I usually drink.

I'd say herbs/plants as well as drugs created by humans have their purposes both can be useful...I don't dismiss either one, though I'd say I distrust the pharmacutical industry and hate the way they advertise meds on t.v encouraging people to seek out a specific medication that might not be the best one for them and their condition.

Also I think specifically high cbd strains of cannabis can be helpful with anxiety...I am a bit unclear on this but from what i understand it is thought that some thc is still nessisary to make it effective...but a strain with more thc than cbd probably won't help as much. lol my brother is weird because he says cannabis can help anxiety but he still doesn't think it should be prescribed for it....but does think it should be prescribed for PTSD but I think he more just wants people to do what they need without having to run to a doctor.

As for benzos, I am prescribed valium 5-10 mg once a day if needed for anxiety...I do find smoking pot more effective but the valium is good to have when I don't have any or when I am out in public and can't very well smoke.

I think you are right and that it is come combination or THC and CBD that helps with anxiety. They seem to work together. In epileptics it seems to CBD only. Alot more research needs to be done.

I probably gave the wrong impression. I said that it might be one reason NIH doesn't fund it. I said it is more likely that it is the mindset of those that make those decisions as they rely on all the studies and journals you mention. I never said I was against studying them or that their are no other funding sources. I think I said quite the opposite. As far as "Fields of Lavender" I cannot tell you how many times I have heard that no one will take it seriously because it grows all over the place and there is no money in it. I don't buy this at all. There might be big money in it and if Lavendula has therapeutic effects then there is a huge financial incentive to study it. I used pot as an example, bug business.

And yes people should be very cautious about herbs and supplements they can be very mild or very powerful. I have taken Ephedra and I can tell you it is the same as snorting a line of meth. I have said a couple of times that NIH and NIMH is just one piece of the puzzle and that there are other funding sources out there and have listed them. Or part of them.

Thats interesting because I tried Reboxetine. It was not approved in the US but was in Europe. I found it and researched it myself. I had to talk my pdoc into it. It was kind of a last ditch effort because no other meds were working for me. This is even before combo's were being used. It fell under some FDA exemption that we used. I don't think it worked worth a damn either so I was disappointed.

You are absolutely right and Congress does earmark NIH funds to Cancer, AIDS, breast cancer and so on based on those lobbying efforts. I actually hate the corporate trade association lobbies and all the money that slauthes around, but I am quite impressed with the grass roots lobbies that spring up like in the case of breast cancer or HIV/AIDS. How much clout do you think that HIV/AIDS community would ever be able to come up with. But they organized and lobbied and it worked. Congress listened to them. We have a right to organize and lobby. It is the American way. It is up to the Mental Health community to do the same thing. Join NAMI or some other similar group and donate.
https://www.nami.org/ I know NIMH gets little funding but the squeaky wheel gets the oil. That is just reality too. It is supposed to be up to us as citizens to be informed a vote out the guy who is in big pharma's back pocket. And to lobby for NIH funding. Grass routes efforts happen and are very effective.

I guess I am not sure what you mean by change in mindset. I mean that although western medicine and western scientific thought and method have served us very well we should be much more open to studying other things. And not discounting the wisdom of other cultures. I am very much a proponent of east meets west and always have been. And to not look at the body and mind as separate things. It is happening and has been for years slowly. But evolution is often slow and some of us are victims. But look at the discussion we had about my families grand kids and how much better a chance they have to avoid the suffering I have endured. Or my great grandfather who spent his last seven years in his room and committed suicide. Never a treatment or dx. Look at how things were in the sixties.